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

What Is Mortgage Fraud.

Recommended Posts

Two questions,

a lot of people make claims to having an IO mortgage, but seem to have made no provision to repay the capital. The loans have an agreement that you sign to say that you will make such a provision.

The second question is more obvious an answer.

Lying about your salary, in writting.

What do you think?Is £170,000 a lot of money to borrow under false pretences?

And if you were a bank looking at a loss as a "new build" flat has to be sold at a loss and the seller who had borrowed from you.

Had paid of no capital although they had signed their name to a document saying that they would.

Had struggled with repayments that their claimed salary should have been able to cover.

Now, new builds in my area have potentially fell by £30,000.

Find another method to defraud a bank of £30,000 to test a banks sense of humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and can people give reasons..

Only one person has claimed that the IO thingy is not fraud if you have not made the provision to pay back the capital..

Opinions people.. opinions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have read the post before answering but I still standby the IO not being fraud more forgetful (I may setup it up next year when my salary has increased). Banks used to check that you had a plan put in place to save the capital up, that can be proved by a document from the financial institution involved. Hence the banks just trying to save themselves some money. But this question is still a grey area. (plus people rarely read the small print so may not know they have agreed to save the capital somewhere).

Where as knowingly hiding your salary and actively lying about it is fraud.

Edited by Hairlocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a grey area.

It is fraud.

Not as easy to prove as if you have lied about your salary.

Unless it is easy to prove.

If your fund is rubbish and you have a diddy bit in there.. and its the first year... and you are skint after moving.. then yes.. If there was a provision or invetment vehicle you may be okay.

Trust me, look at the boxes you tick..

Banks don't like people lying..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally there are both fraud, a but I answering from my moral stand point. I can see why banks need to offer self-cert mortgage otherwise some people will not be able to get a mortgage at all., but I can't see why banks need to offer IO ones.

Then again, I can't really answer as I have never seen a self-cert or IO application form and T&C's , as I have never considered getting one, repayment only for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have read the post before answering but I still standby the IO not being fraud more forgetful (I may setup it up next year when my salary has increased). Banks used to check that you had a plan put in place to save the capital up, that can be proved by a document from the financial institution involved. Hence the banks just trying to save themselves some money. But this question is still a grey area. (plus people rarely read the small print so may not know they have agreed to save the capital somewhere).

Where as knowingly hiding your salary and actively lying about it is fraud.

The fact that banks no longer check that you have a verifiable scheme in place for capital repayment is not a case of them saving a little money by not bothering to check.

It is a case of collusion - they decided to turn a blind eye to it to fuel the market for borrowing money. I really hope they live to regret it.

Does anyone know what the legal position on this is? Is there anything in the small print of an IO mortgage which legally obliges the borrower to have a repayment vehicle in place?

Edited by Smell the Fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a grey area.

It is fraud.

Not as easy to prove as if you have lied about your salary.

a quick look at the Nationwide website reveals the following -

"If you want the certainty of repaying your mortgage at the end of the mortgage term then the repayment mortgage is the only suitable product for you. If you are willing to take a risk your mortgage will not be repaid then an interest-only mortgage may be appropriate. If you decide that you are prepared to accept this risk we will only give you an interest-only mortgage if:

you have a suitable repayment vehicle, such as an ISA or endowment policy

you are prepared to sell your house at the end of the mortgage term to repay the debt. If this is the case you will need to have at least £150,000 equity in your existing property and we will only lend you 66% of the property value

you intend to sell a second property to repay the loan. The equity in the second property must be at least 120% of the new mortgage amount it is intended to cover "

This will almost certainly be written into the mortgage terms and conditions, and I would imagine all lenders have similar policies. So, it looks like IO is fraud in the majority of cases. Do the banks care? not at the minute, but the mood is changing.......

Edited by Smell the Fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick look at the Nationwide website reveals the following -

"If you want the certainty of repaying your mortgage at the end of the mortgage term then the repayment mortgage is the only suitable product for you. If you are willing to take a risk your mortgage will not be repaid then an interest-only mortgage may be appropriate. If you decide that you are prepared to accept this risk we will only give you an interest-only mortgage if:

you have a suitable repayment vehicle, such as an ISA or endowment policy

you are prepared to sell your house at the end of the mortgage term to repay the debt. If this is the case you will need to have at least £150,000 equity in your existing property and we will only lend you 66% of the property value

you intend to sell a second property to repay the loan. The equity in the second property must be at least 120% of the new mortgage amount it is intended to cover "

This will almost certainly be written into the mortgage terms and conditions, and I would imagine all lenders have similar policies. So, it looks like IO is fraud in the majority of cases. Do the banks care? not at the minute, but the mood is changing.......

For as lending tightens...

and as we know new builds are being sold for less..

and that does mean negative equity...

all is not well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as lending tightens...

and as we know new builds are being sold for less..

and that does mean negative equity...

all is not well..

I can't say I'm surprised at the result of the poll: everyone thinks (correctly) that lying about your income is fraud, but most people (incorrectly) think that taking out an IO mortgage without a repayment vehicle is not fraud. I must admit, I erred on that also. It seems like a grey area. In fact, most IO borrowers would no doubt be amazed at the truth.

Fact is, if they read the small print, they are probably in breach of their contract. If they entered the contract with no intention to set up and maintain a repayment vehicle, it is extremely likely that they have committed fraud in the eyes of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, if they read the small print, they are probably in breach of their contract. If they entered the contract with no intention to set up and maintain a repayment vehicle, it is extremely likely that they have committed fraud in the eyes of the law.

mmmm.. and that would make it all the more easy for the bank to call in the loan if things get tough. They may be turning a blind eye now but that won't last if house prices start to fall. Someone with an IO mortage may find the banks a little less than understanding if they get into trouble paying the mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal standpoint or moral standpoint

Legal standpoint

1. No

2. Yes

Moral standpoint:

1. stupid but not fraudulent.

2. its a jungle out there. People do what they need to to survive. Some do very well by lying and cheating and stealing. Some are unfortunately crap at that pursuit. The most successful people corporately are sociopaths. I would suggest that sociopathic behaviour around money/banks is the least of the evils associated with this particuar pathology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal standpoint or moral standpoint

Legal standpoint

1. No

2. Yes

Moral standpoint:

1. stupid but not fraudulent.

2. its a jungle out there. People do what they need to to survive. Some do very well by lying and cheating and stealing. Some are unfortunately crap at that pursuit. The most successful people corporately are sociopaths. I would suggest that sociopathic behaviour around money/banks is the least of the evils associated with this particuar pathology.

Elizabeth, do you have any evidence for your legal standpoint? As I pointed out above, they are likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions of their mortgage.

Is it a fact that stating you will set up a repayment vehicle (as required by the lender) and then failing to do so is NOT fraud? It seems obvious that the money would be obtained by deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth, do you have any evidence for your legal standpoint? As I pointed out above, they are likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions of their mortgage.

Is it a fact that stating you will set up a repayment vehicle (as required by the lender) and then failing to do so is NOT fraud? It seems obvious that the money would be obtained by deception.

No legal evidence and I would think that it would very much depend on the terms of the borrowing contract. As you point out if you fail to meet the terms of the contract, it is a breach in law. Now this is a punt because I am not legally trained, but I don't think it would be criminal, I think it would probably fall under contract law. However, I think the banks would be laughing all the way to the bank in the event of a defaulted since even with the ups and downs of the housing market, the house is probably going to be worth double the original borrowing after 25 or so years (eg. A house that was worth 20K 20 years ago is probably worth at least 250K now and when the market crashes will be worth 120K in 3 years time)

In terms of the the lying, that is gaining money by deception. Its pretty straight forward.

I am actually more interested in peoples motivations, morality and ethicality than I am in the detail of law. That is why I answered as I did. Morally I feel so little connection to any form of humanity when discussing banks that I actually don't care how fraudulent people are (so long as they are skirting within the idea of paying back what you owe... not even sure why I care about that?).

I guess what I do care about is that I can't have my own home, and this is playing into it, but I don't really blame people for doing the best they can in their own lives. Sometimes people just have to make their own opportunities, and if I thought that by hook or buy crook I was guaranteed to be able to pay it back (and become a convincing liar overnight) then I would probably do the same myself. My advantage is that although I am rubbish at spinning bullshite I know how to count.

The banks are in it up to their eyeballs. Its win/win for them. Keep paying and they get a far higher interest rate for the money. Foreclose 3 years later, they get at the least 2/3rds of the original investment, and the mug who lied on the loan has probably been paying a bomb for morgage insurance.

Edited by Elizabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth - I completely agree on the breach of contract - that is a civil matter, not criminal (speaking as someone who gained a law degree several years ago).

My point on deception was that if they agree to set up a vehicle, and this agreement is essential to the granting of the mortgage, then they may have committed fraud if it could be shown that they had no intention to ever set up a repayment vehicle. I doubt this has ever been tested in case law.

You are right to say that the banks are in a win/win. They allow people to commit fraud with a nudge and a wink, but they will get their poker face on when it comes to taking it all back. I would say that the banks management are complicit in the fraud and should also be prosecuted if it came to the crunch. They have conspired with the borrowers to defraud the shareholders of the bank.

Of course, hell will freeze over before such a case would come to court. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic.

Lying about your income is obviously fraudulent. Not only that but it can easily be checked via tax records. But I don't think it affects market volatility that much since people's incomes gradually rise anyway so after 5 or 10 years as long as payments are made and the lender has not done anything the problem goes away.

Interest-only without a repayment vehicle. I would be very interested to know if it is written in that you must have a repayment vehicle for at least some of the equity, I suspect it is. I think this kind of fraud (if indeed it is fraud) does affect market volatility in a big way.

Unlike the case of lying about your income, not having a repayment vehicle is a problem that just sits there and festers, getting worse and worse every year nothing is done about it. Without repayment, the lender's risk is more closely tied to the housing market, since at whatever point the mortgage is redeemed, the house could theoretically sell at a loss, the mortgagee could be bankrupt and the lender is not going to be happy about this. If this is fraud, the lender is more likely to call these loans in I would think.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interest-only without a repayment vehicle. I would be very interested to know if it is written in that you must have a repayment vehicle for at least some of the equity, I suspect it is. I think this kind of fraud (if indeed it is fraud) does affect market volatility in a big way.

The following is from Nationwide's standard mortgage Ts & Cs:

"......we will only give you an interest-only mortgage if:

- you have a suitable repayment vehicle, such as an ISA or endowment policy

- you are prepared to sell your house at the end of the mortgage term to repay the debt. If this is the case you will need to have at least £150,000 equity in your existing property and we will only lend you 66% of the property value

- you intend to sell a second property to repay the loan. The equity in the second property must be at least 120% of the new mortgage amount it is intended to cover "

That's pretty clear on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person obtains a mortgage and, when applying for it, has inflated their salary,(ie lied) they may well be guilty of an offence contrary to Section 15A Theft Act 1968 which provides a person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another.

The money transfer is the mortgage money going into his bank account.

The deception is his lie about his salary.

If the bank say they would not have loaned him the money if they had known his real salary then there is a deception in law. Providing, of course, the bank make a complaint to the police. No complaint=no conviction.

If the bank say they would have loaned him the money anyway even if they had known he'd lied about his income, then no deception has operated, and, despite the obvious dishonesty the mortgagee would not have committed an offence. If no deception has operated on the mind of the victim then no offence has occurred, notwithstanding the obvious dishonesty in lying about his income.

No offence per se is committed if a person takes out an interest only mortgage without a repayment vehicle. The only scenario I can think of where an offence could be committed is one where the mortgage is conditional on a repayment vehicle and the mortgagee has mislead them into believing he has got one (ie lied) and on the basis of that misrepresentation he has been paid the moretgage. Provided the bank say they would not have paid the mortgage if they had known no repayment policy was in place then an offence has been committed contrary to Section 15A above. If they say they would have paid him even if they had known he had no repayment policy (and despite it being a pre-condition) then no deception has operated and no offence has been committed.

If the mortgagee is not acting alone then a charge of conspiracy to defraud should be considered as it is easy peasy to prove.

There may be offences of 'false accounting' and/or 'using a false intrument' arising from the lie about his salary in the application form. He has used the application form to deceive the bank and the form may become a 'false innstrument'. These are highly technical and would really be ancilliarty to any deception or conspiracy charge .

Both Section 15A carries ten years max as does conspiracy to defraud.

If you like I can outline the sentencing guidelines handed down by the Court of Appeal on mortgage fraud citing real cases but that will have to wait as I'm down in London and offline over the weekend.

Hope above made sense.

av_1668.gif

post-67-1138923720.gif

Edited by Baz63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Baz, quality analysis! I take it you are a practising lawyer? :)

No offence per se is committed if a person takes out an interest only mortgage without a repayment vehicle. The only scenario I can think of where an offence could be committed is one where the mortgage is conditional on a repayment vehicle and the mortgagee has mislead them into believing he has got one (ie lied) and on the basis of that misrepresentation he has been paid the moretgage. Provided the bank say they would not have paid the mortgage if they had known no repayment policy was in place then an offence has been committed contrary to Section 15A above. If they say they would have paid him even if they had known he had no repayment policy (and despite it being a pre-condition) then no deception has operated and no offence has been committed.

On my reading of the Nationwide Ts & Cs I posted above, it seems clear that the existence of a repayment vehicle IS a condition of the mortgage being granted (unless one of the other options applies).

As you say, it requires a will on the part of the bank to prosecute. I think prosecution would open a huge can of worms and regulators and politicians would be all over the industry as it would be seen to be failing to be responsible. In other words, its interesting to know, and you can use it to scare IO mortgagees, but it has no real teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Baz, quality analysis! I take it you are a practising lawyer? :)

On my reading of the Nationwide Ts & Cs I posted above, it seems clear that the existence of a repayment vehicle IS a condition of the mortgage being granted (unless one of the other options applies).

As you say, it requires a will on the part of the bank to prosecute. I think prosecution would open a huge can of worms and regulators and politicians would be all over the industry as it would be seen to be failing to be responsible. In other words, its interesting to know, and you can use it to scare IO mortgagees, but it has no real teeth.

I had not found the exact text that you had..

But I had become aware that most mortgages (IO) seem to stipulate that a repayment vehicle suitable for the required capital is set up. and that is what you will sign for.

(Shame they didn't do the same for endowments)

Of course I accept that a mortgage may say.. only pay interest.. then you are fine..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Baz, quality analysis! I take it you are a practising lawyer? :)

Cheers, and yes.

However, not quite top-notch quality: I missed something. Should have been in bed at least an hour before I wrote the post. Bit of a Homer moment. Damn HPC! :rolleyes:

If the bank say they would have loaned him the money anyway even if they had known he'd lied about his income, then no deception has operated, and, despite the obvious dishonesty the mortgagee would not have committed an offence.

Not quite. In this scenario one would be charged with an attempted deception. 10 years imprisonment max sentence. Conspiracy to defraud would still apply if the offender is colluding with someone else.

As you say, it requires a will on the part of the bank to prosecute. I think prosecution would open a huge can of worms

Yes. Not least the fact banks have colluded in this fraud by not checking mortgagees' income. It's not enough for banks to say they rely on the honesty of their customers. This is an abdication of responsibility: not least to their shareholders.

av_1668.gif

Homer_simpson.gif

post-67-1139182230.gif

post-67-1139182280.gif

Edited by Baz63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Not least the fact banks have colluded in this fraud by not checking mortgagees' income. It's not enough for banks to say they rely on the honesty of their customers. This is an abdication of responsibility: not least to their shareholders.

Well this touches on another point - what if these loans are being packaged and resold on to the investment market - here we have a load of AAA lloans backed up by X income on Y multiples with Z investment products being used as collateral against the loan in addition to the property itself.

Do you think the buyers of any such mortgage backed securities would be bit bit miffed if their AAA debt was nothing of the sort, but only found out after teh event when the returns that they were offered were diluted by defaults and insufficient income/assets to cover those defaults?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right to say that the banks are in a win/win. They allow people to commit fraud with a nudge and a wink, but they will get their poker face on when it comes to taking it all back. I would say that the banks management are complicit in the fraud and should also be prosecuted if it came to the crunch. They have conspired with the borrowers to defraud the shareholders of the bank.

Of course, hell will freeze over before such a case would come to court. <_<

Beforeyou even get to the hell bit, to punish everyone that has commited/been compliant with mortgage fraud, not to mention credit cards and loans, we would need several million more prison places

In the real world it is not an offence to lie about your income - simple as that!

PS I'm not saying is is right or for that matter wrong, but get real, its the way the 'game' is played nowadays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beforeyou even get to the hell bit, to punish everyone that has commited/been compliant with mortgage fraud, not to mention credit cards and loans, we would need several million more prison places

In the real world it is not an offence to lie about your income - simple as that!

PS I'm not saying is is right or for that matter wrong, but get real, its the way the 'game' is played nowadays

I agree the problem of fraud is so widespread many people consider it lawful, and has become an essential part of peoples' financial strategy, to such an extent it has been one of the foundations of our 'boom economy'. However, those who are caught, and who are prosecuted, will be punished. One should not forget it is not simply lying about incomes: there are numerous bits of information on a self cert mortage application form one can lie about to fraudulantly increase the value of the loan obtained. If you believe the lender will never check then you may as well lie about everything, and people do. What is interesting is ordinary people are being sucked into larger criminal conspiracies:

http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNew...D=7&newsID=1659

A man has admitted building a property portfolio of some 450 houses facilitated by fraudulent mortgages.

The investigation covered the period from 1991 to 1999, during which Mr Dale initially obtained at least 57 homes unlawfully using the details of family and friends, before expanding his operation on a more commercial basis.

At a confiscation and sentence hearing at Swansea Crown Court, His Honour Judge Michael Burr decided that Mr Dale had benefited from his criminal conduct in the sum of £4.2 million, and made a confiscation order in that amount.

The order, which can be satisfied from his assets which were frozen during the course of the proceedings, must be paid within two years, or he will face a default prison sentence of ten years consecutive to the two years which he received in relation to his criminal behaviour.

Mr Dale was also ordered to pay a further £100,000 towards the cost of the prosecution.

At an earlier hearing this week 11 people who allowed Mr Dale to use their details to obtain mortgages received a variety of sentences ranging from suspended prison sentences to community punishment orders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...nds/4504938.stm

A loan shark convicted of extorting nearly £800,000 through illegal money lending was found hanged in his prison cell by staff at a jail.

He was jailed for nearly four years in July after admitting carrying on a consumer credit business without a licence between 2002 and 2004.

The 39-year-old, from Hall Green, also admitted three counts of blackmail, one of possessing criminal property and further charges of attempted deception in relation to a mortgage application and unlawfully obtaining a disability benefit book.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/02...-name_page.html

A WELSH policeman's wife is facing jail after admitting running two brothels and turning to mortgage fraud to help to fund her luxury lifestyle.

Her lavish living was fuelled by an illicit income - she ran two massage parlours which acted as fronts for prostitutes - which was uncovered when she conned her way to a £99,750 mortgage.

Julie Hyett, 37, took out the mortgage with the Nationwide Building Society claiming she had a £45,000-a-year income.

Appearing before judge Gerald Price QC she admitted a charge of obtaining a £99,750 money transfer by deception in October 2002.

At the same court in August her husband, PC John Thomas, was found guilty of attempting to obtain £110,000 by deception and obtaining £160,000 by deception.

He was sentenced to 12 months' jail, suspended for 18 months, by the court on September 19. After his arrest Thomas was suspended from police work. An internal police misconduct procedure has restarted since his conviction.

http://www.assetsrecovery.gov.uk/Newslette...sue52100605.htm

On 26 & 27th April 2005 three convicted mortgage fraudsters were ordered to pay back the benefits from their crimes at Sheffield Crown Court as a result of a Serious Fraud Office and West Yorkshire Police Economic Crime Unit joint investigation.

• a man believed to have benefited from £1,484,000 received a confiscation order for the full amount with 12 months to pay or face 10 years imprisonment in default to run consecutively to the sentence he is already serving.

• a woman was ordered to pay back £93, 746 in 12 months or face a two year prison sentence,

• a second man was ordered to pay back £57,000 with six months to pay or face a default sentence of 21 months to run consecutive to the sentence already imposed and

The essence of the frauds, which were committed at various dates in 2000, is that applications for mortgage advances were made for properties where the property price quoted in the application was higher than the actual price. False documents, forged documents and other misleading information supported the applications. Money acquired through these fraudulent applications was then laundered through the client account of a solicitor’s firm. In respect of DC Mick Dyson of the West Yorkshire Police, who conducted the financial investigations, HHJ Keen QC said: “I take my hat off to him, the defendant has demonstrated himself to be a devious, dishonest liar and trying to get to the bottom of this matter must have been very difficult. I commend him for his hard work coupled with his obvious skill and (addressing counsel for the Crown) thanks also to you for all your hard work.”

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticl...ticleID=1014637

A MORTGAGE broker jailed for fraud has been ordered to pay back nearly £1.5m he fleeced from banks – or face another 10 years in prison.

Fraudster told to pay back £1.4m

Andrew Robinson

Noel Ward, from Bradford, is already serving six years after being convicted of five counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception.

Five fraudulent applications for mortgage advances were made for properties where the price quoted was higher than the actual price.

At the centre of the fraud was the now-closed solicitors' practice TI Clough of Bradford.

At Sheffield Crown Court Ward was ordered to pay back £1.48m within 12 months or have his sentence increased to 16 years.

Tracy Ryder, of Huddersfield, and Ian Colphon, of London, who had assisted Ward in the criminal enterprise, were ordered to pay back £93,000 and £57,000 respectively.

Ryder, who acted as a mortgage applicant and was a client of Ward and TI Clough, received a two-year suspended sentence for obtaining money transfers by deception.

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/news/prout/pr_365.asp?id=365

Six persons have been sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court to a total of almost 16 years imprisonment for a fraud relating to mortgage applications.

This followed a trial of three of the defendants which concluded with jury verdicts of guilty on 2 November. The other three defendants had already admitted their parts in the fraud ahead of trial. Sentencing was on 3 November.

Outline

This is a case about a systemic abuse of the mortgage lending procedure in relation to five properties in Yorkshire. At the centre of the fraud was a solicitors' practice, TI Clough of Bradford, which undertook the conveyancing work on the five properties concerned. The properties are (1) Reinwood House in Huddersfield; (2) Garden Cottage in Barnsley; (3) Aspen House in Aberford; (4) 4-6 St John's North in Wakefield; (5) 11 Fieldhead Drive in Leeds.

The six defendants in this case, are:

Noel Bartholomew Wardwas a mortgage broker who traded as Eireann Associates. It was he who put together the applications on all five properties.

He was found guilty of five counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.

Raymond Brown was a conveyancing clerk with the TI Clough practice and it was he who played a major role in processing the mortgage documentation.

He was found guilty of five counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay £40,000 defence costs.

(Also at TI Clough was John Fitzpatrick, a solicitor, who is believed to have fled the jurisdiction and for whom there is an outstanding arrest warrant).

Ian Ronald Colphon was a mortgage applicant and a client of both Ward and TI Clough.

He was found guilty of one count (property 2 above) of obtaining a money transfer by deception and is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in absentia. He had failed to attend court on 25 October. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Tracey Ryderwas a mortgage applicant and a client of both Ward and TI Clough.

She pleaded guilty at trial opening to one count (property 1 above) of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.

Howard Claytonis a chartered accountant who provided false financial references for mortgage applicants.

He pleaded guilty in February, seven months ahead of trial, to five counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception. He was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and ordered to pay a maximum of £50,000 defence costs.

Andrew John Young was a solicitor with Winstons of Manchester whose client account was used to channel funds from TI Clough.

He pleaded guilty shortly before trial to two counts of assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct. (One count related to assisting John Fitzpatrick. The other count related to assisting Noel Ward). He is sentenced to 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. (This sentence is to run consecutively to a sentence arising from a separate prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service for theft. He was sentenced for that offence on 17 May 2004 to 21 months' imprisonment).

The fraud

The essence of the frauds, which were committed at various dates in 2000, is that applications for mortgage advances were made for properties where the property price quoted in the application was higher than the actual price. False documents, forged documents and other misleading information supported the applications. Money acquired through these fraudulent applications was then laundered through the client account of a solicitor's firm.

action_smiley_073.gif

post-67-1139234106.gif

Edited by Baz63

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.

  • 302 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.