Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Met Police Officer's 'shockingly Greedy' Surveyor Wife Took £1Million In Bribes For Mortgage Scam

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019345/Shockingly-greedy-ex-wife-Met-police-officer-jailed-years-taking-1million-bribes-inflate-property-prices.html

Chartered surveyor Mary-Jane Rathie has been jailed for six years

She inflated property valuations to help client secure £10million in loans

........

Over the following months, Raithie provided dozens of valuations on the properties. Some increased the actual value by nearly 50 per cent.

Rathie 'grossly and dishonestly-inflated' valuations on five luxury homes in the capital to help secure loans worth £9.5million from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

.......

She valued the house on Cheyne Walk at £6million after refurbishment with a rental value of £270,000 a year.

However an independent surveyor said the true value was £3.5million, if refurbished, with a rental value of £180,000 per year.

.......

'Your valuations of properties fell way below what could for one moment be described as a reasonable margin of error. These were grossly inflated valuations, provided quite simply on the back of bribes from Joanne Pier.

Clearly this judge isn't a Daily Express reader, maybe she was and her valuations where accurate based on the Express's ramping headlines about house prices going up. I mean house prices don't just go up on their own.

And just what the hell was RBS doing not cross checking the valuations. Luckily no dishonesty involved there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just what the hell was RBS doing not cross checking the valuations. Luckily no dishonesty involved there.

If they didn't lend it another would gladly. That's the nature of bubbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019345/Shockingly-greedy-ex-wife-Met-police-officer-jailed-years-taking-1million-bribes-inflate-property-prices.html

Clearly this judge isn't a Daily Express reader, maybe she was and her valuations where accurate based on the Express's ramping headlines about house prices going up. I mean house prices don't just go up on their own.

And just what the hell was RBS doing not cross checking the valuations. Luckily no dishonesty involved there.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

LIAR SURVEYOR...

.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23973514-surveyor-jailed-for-taking-pound-1m-bribes-to-help-in-pound-10m-fraud.do

A chartered surveyor was jailed for six years at the Old Bailey today for taking £1million in bribes for inflating the value of homes in a £10million mortgage fraud involving properties in London's most expensive neighbourhoods.

Mary-Jane Rathie, 43, received £900,000 in cash plus a £143,000 Bentley Continental and £49,000 Range Rover Sport.

Her fraudulent valuations led the Bank of Scotland to pay out £10million in mortgages on five properties in Cheyne Walk, Cadogan Gardens, Chester Mews, Canary Wharf and Pimlico.

The fraudster who paid her and pulled off the mortgage frauds under the bogus name of Joanne Pier has since disappeared.

Rathie was found guilty of five counts of fraud and of concealing criminal property in 2007 and 2009.

Judge Timothy Pontius told her: "It's nothing short of a tragedy for a woman of your intelligence, qualifications and many years of exemplary hard work to appear in the dock convicted of crimes of very serious dishonesty.

"But they reflect an abuse of professional integrity and also a shocking level of greed. It is naive in the extreme to expect anyone to believe that you thought they were gifts from a very wealthy and generous woman with no strings attached."

During the trial, prosecutor David Durose told the jury that Rathie, of Waltham Cross, had worked at chartered surveyors Ashdown Lyons since 2003 and married in 2007.

Since her arrest she has been divorced from her husband, a Met officer working in collision investigation at the traffic unit in Euston. He was also charged over the fraud but cleared by the jury.

In March 2007 the woman known as Joanne Pier approached Ashdown Lyons asking for valuations on a large number of residential properties.

She claimed that she was in dispute with her father, a wealthy diamond trader, and was trying to extract the properties from the family trust.

Over the following months Rathie provided dozens of valuations to Joanne Pier. She valued the Cheyne Walk house as £6million after refurbishment and with a rental value of £270,000 a year. But an independent surveyor said the true values were £3.5million if refurbished with a rental value of £180,000 per year.

The property at Cadogan Square, valued at £3.2million, was only worth £1.5million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has hugh implication.

50% overvaluation was very common during the boom. My guess is that somewhere about 1/4 of all transaction - possibly over 1/3 for newly build.

50% valuation = 6 years in jail. Yes. deliberate overvaluation of a property is now officailly financial fraud.

Surveyors around the country will be pxssing in their pants tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a surveyor for 1/3 of a century and nobody ever even tried to bribe me. As the tu rds float to the surface from the late boom it will be interesting to see how corrupt the process had become. This sort of crime leaves a very clear paper trail. If a lot of it went on a lot of people are going to prison, and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a surveyor for 1/3 of a century and nobody ever even tried to bribe me. As the tu rds float to the surface from the late boom it will be interesting to see how corrupt the process had become. This sort of crime leaves a very clear paper trail. If a lot of it went on a lot of people are going to prison, and rightly so.

LIAR SURVEYOR PRISON...

.

:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a surveyor for 1/3 of a century and nobody ever even tried to bribe me. As the tu rds float to the surface from the late boom it will be interesting to see how corrupt the process had become. This sort of crime leaves a very clear paper trail. If a lot of it went on a lot of people are going to prison, and rightly so.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, not maybe with a very minute minority of Surveyors alone but right across the UK Board. Vultures trapping vulnerable people into doubtful debt by various means. The greed of some people knows no bounds and they will use all methods rightly or wrongly to suck every pound they can get. At the present time I have gone into Battle on behalf of an innocent to fight their injustice and finding the response very interesting. You should all fear for the future of your Children and Grandchildren`s future as it is very bleak. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.propertyweek.com/comment/mcgarry-did-not-work-alone/5020339.article

Interesting piece in Property Week regarding another surveyor convicted of fraud.

Extract

Sources close to the case claim the Afzals hired local Pakistani shopkeepers, dressed them in suits, and approached mortgage brokers claiming they were magnates in Islamabad. Because the brokers were unregulated, they had little incentive or need to check if the claims were true.

Mortgage brokers seem to be the weakest link in the process being un-regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Link doesn't work

McGarry may be going to jail, but others complicit in the fraud could escape justice

During the final hours of one of the most complex property fraud trials in the history of the Serious Fraud Office, Ian McGarry’s counsel, Mohamed Khamisa was called to offer his plea in mitigation.

He chose to focus on three factors: McGarry’s clear and unrelenting remorse; his passion and commitment as a family man; and the fact he was merely a strand in a web of dishonesty spun by the Afzal brothers.

“There had to be someone with detailed and vast knowledge of the way in which lending institutions work, and what the banks take into account to push things through,” he said. “There had to be a senior employee of a major lending institution involved.”

Judge Martin Beddoe warned Khamisa he was walking into sensitive territory and demanded he focus on the evidence produced in court, but admitted “a lot is still unsaid” in relation to the complicity of other professionals.In the days following McGarry’s sentencing questions have been raised by experts about the trial and the involvement of other professionals.

Why has one professional been punished for a crime that allegedly required the complicity of so many others? Why are commercial mortgage brokers, who form an integral part of the property finance world, unregulated?

Legal experts suggest gaps in regulation and due diligence leave the door open for corrupt professionals to exploit the system. What happened in the McGarry case could easily happen again.

McGarry-who-

SFO investigators said the Afzal brothers needed three items to extract as much money from the banks as possible: a fraudulent valuation of an existing property, a fake lease and a letter headed with the name of a reputable mortgage broker forwarded to the bank.

Once these had been obtained, the bank handed over the money. At a hearing in January, while acting for the prosecution, Andrew Ballie said that if lenders had done everything possible they could have almost certainly prevented the fraud.

Although prevention is possible with greater due diligence, proving fraud in a court of law is more problematic. “Proving fraud requires proving fraudulent intent, and proving intent for many of those tangentially involved is a difficult thing,” says Barney Reynolds, head of the Financial Institutions & Financial Regulatory Group at Shearman & Sterling.

Reynolds believes those who were clearly involved were convicted, but with so many unregulated parties involved, the options of the prosecution were limited. The FSA regulates a plethora of financial professionals, including auditors, estate agents, insurance brokers, bankers and residential mortgage brokers – but not commercial mortgage brokers.

They also escape money-laundering regulations that guard the banks and solicitors, which leaves the SFO unable to pursue the brokers working on the McGarry deals that they say were – at best – guilty of gross negligence.

In disguise

If the FSA’s objectives are to create market confidence and financial stability, protect customers and reduce financial crime, why does it not regulate commercial mortgage brokers?

Sources close to the case claim the Afzals hired local Pakistani shopkeepers, dressed them in suits, and approached mortgage brokers claiming they were magnates in Islamabad. Because the brokers were unregulated, they had little incentive or need to check if the claims were true.

The FSA’s remit is decided by the Treasury. When the treasury extended FSA regulation in 2004, it made distinctions between owner-occupiers of residential property and investors in commercial property.

Treasury officials say the distinction was written in because residential owners face greater risks than commercial property investors. “Essentially, residential owners put themselves at risk of repossession and bankruptcy when engaging in these deals,” says a Treasury source.

“The same can’t be said of commercial investors, as the risks are aligned with business.” Grant Sidey, senior manager at knowledge directorate the National Fraud Authority (NFA), admitted the loophole was cause for concern.

“The government loses £20.6bn to fraud each year and the NFA is trying to drive that down. We’re putting a paper together to verify where there are major threats,” he says. The National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers was set up in 1992 to raise standards in what many already regarded as the “murky world”

of commercial finance broking.

Andrew Tyler, chief executive of the association, claims negligence in the industry is now “a fraction” of what it once was, and placed the responsibility

for due diligence entirely at the door of the banks.

McGarry-who

“Part of the problem with funders and lenders is during the boom they would deal with absolutely anyone. It’s clear, however, in the wake of cases like McGarry they’ve reviewed their lending policies.”

The group now comprises 600 members and claims many banks are refusing to work with anybody without a membership. Yet without legislative backing its powers are limited.

Valuers could also now be subject to greater regulation. The RICS said last week it was working together with “a number of official enforcement authorities to assist in the fight against crime” after it became aware of a “small amount of serious criminal activity”.

However, it admitted: “No regulator in any field can put in place comprehensive measures to prevent large scale, deliberate, criminal fraud by experts, and no regulator in any field wants to treat its law-abiding registrants as potential criminals.”

Reynolds agrees regulation is unlikely to completely stamp out commercial mortgage fraud. “Regulators can’t sit looking over everyone’s shoulder. Only the introduction of further checks and balances [by banks] can lower the risk,” he said.

But further checks will add cost and ultimately, the costs are likely to be the factor limiting both increased regulation and the ability of the SFO to pursue those it believes are guilty.

The SFO dropped its case against three of the solicitors charged because a jury could not reach a decision and a further action “would not be in the public interest”.

“We can’t entirely prevail over fraud – we can only reduce the chances of it occurring. If someone lies to you with credibility, and provides the documentation and third-party endorsement, it is very difficult to spot what’s truly going on,” adds Reynolds.

“All you can do is introduce more checks, which, in circumstances such as this, involve more parties and increased costs. This raises the question, how much cost can and should be loaded on to every deal?”

For a bank gulled by a commercial mortgage fraud, the cost will seems like money well spent. But there seems little appetite for regulation reform, and until there is, cases such as McGarry will not be isolated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.