David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that a federal grand jury sitting in New Haven has returned an indictment charging SYED A. BABAR, also known as “Ali,” 28, of Ledyard Street, New London, with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. The charges stem from a mortgage fraud conspiracy that BABAR is alleged to have headed.

The indictment alleges that, between February 2007 and April 2010, BABAR, along with a mortgage broker, a real estate appraiser, two attorneys, and others, engaged in a scheme to obtain millions of dollars in residential real estate loans, including loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, through the use of sham sales contracts, false loan applications and fraudulent property appraisals.

The indictment alleges that BABAR recruited and paid straw purchasers to nominally purchase homes. BABAR and his co-conspirators then directed the straw purchasers to enter into sales contracts with the sellers of homes for a price higher than the actual price that the seller would receive. Members of the conspiracy submitted false documentation in connection with loan applications that were submitted, including fraudulent appraisals of the properties being purchased in order to justify the inflated sales price and the loan amount being sought to fund each purchase. The indictment further alleges that BABAR and others created a fictitious construction company called “Sheda Telle Construction, LLC,” in order to divert fraud proceeds to it and, in some cases, to falsely justify the artificially inflated sales price of houses based on renovations purportedly made to the property that, in fact, did not occur. BABAR and his co-conspirators then split the fraud proceeds.

Contrary to the representations made on the loan applications, it is alleged that the straw purchasers never occupied the houses as their primary residences. They defaulted on the loans they obtained and let the houses go into foreclosure.

According to statements made in court, it is alleged that BABAR and his co-conspirators conducted this scheme on more than 25 properties in New London, New Haven, and other locations in Connecticut. As a result, it is alleged that various lenders suffered a loss of at least $2.5 million.

The indictment was returned on April 27, 2010, and unsealed today. BABAR was arrested on May 12. Today, United States Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez in Hartford ordered BABAR detained while the case is pending.

The charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years on each count.

U.S. Attorney Fein stressed that an indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial at which it is the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

U.S. Attorney Fein stated that the investigation is ongoing.

This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Eric J. Glover.

In July 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced the formation of the Connecticut Mortgage Fraud Task Force to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud cases and related financial crimes occurring in Connecticut. In addition to investigating past mortgage fraud schemes, the Task Force will focus on emerging crime trends that are associated with the growing tide of foreclosures, including foreclosure rescue schemes, and short sale schemes. Citizens are encouraged to report any suspected mortgage fraud activity by calling 203-333-3512 and requesting the Connecticut Mortgage Fraud Task Force, or by sending an e-mail to ctmortgagefraud@ic.fbi.gov.

The Connecticut Mortgage Fraud Task Force includes representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General, and State of Connecticut Department of Banking.

To report financial fraud crimes, and to learn more about the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, please visit www.stopfraud.gov.

COLUMBIA, SC—United States Attorney Bill Nettles stated today that Jerry Francis Wells, Jr., age 48, of Columbia, was sentenced today in federal court as a result of charges brought against him for falsifying documents required to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. United States District Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. sentenced Wells to 78 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Wells will also be required to pay restitution in the amount of $2,967,355.

Wells’ crimes were discovered by the victim in December 2008, and he pleaded guilty on July 23, 2009. Facts during his plea hearing and sentencing showed that he was the former chief financial officer, executive vice-president of finance, and secretary of UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc., which manages Doctor’s Care and other medical facilities in South Carolina and Tennessee. From January 2003 through December 2008, Wells embezzled $2,967,382 from UCI by (1) using UCI’s corporate credit card to pay personal expenses; (2) preparing false expense reports and submitting them for reimbursement; and (3) submitting fraudulent check requests for non-business expenses, such as construction work on Wells’ personal residences and payments on personal credit card accounts.

UCI was a publicly traded company, and it was required to file periodic financial reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As the CFO, Wells was required to sign these filings on behalf of UCI. On each of eight reports that were submitted to the SEC, Wells falsely stated that he had disclosed to UCI “any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in [UCI's] internal controls over financial reporting.” As a result of these false filings, Wells was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, eight counts of making false statements to a government agency, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.

After his guilty plea, Wells obtained a job working for another company. While working at this job, Wells stole an additional $40,000. As a result of this theft, Wells’ bond was revoked, and he was sent to jail pending his sentencing hearing. In addition, his new crimes were used as a basis to increase his sentence.

The case was investigated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Dean A. Eichelberger of the Columbia office handled the case.

Redemption / Strawman / Bond Fraud

Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accounts—often referred to as “U.S. Treasury Direct Accounts”—for all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Individuals promoting this scam frequently cite various discredited legal theories and may refer to the scheme as “Redemption,” “Strawman,” or “Acceptance for Value.” Trainers and websites will often charge large fees for “kits” that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failures to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times.

This scheme predominately uses fraudulent financial documents that appear to be legitimate. These documents are frequently referred to as “bills of exchange,” “promissory bonds,” “indemnity bonds,” “offset bonds,” “sight drafts,” or “comptrollers warrants.” In addition, other official documents are used outside of their intended purpose, like IRS forms 1099, 1099-OID, and 8300. This scheme frequently intermingles legal and pseudo legal terminology in order to appear lawful. Notaries may be used in an attempt to make the fraud appear legitimate. Often, victims of the scheme are instructed to address their paperwork to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

Tips for Avoiding Redemption/Strawman/Bond Fraud:

* Be wary of individuals or groups selling kits that they claim will inform you on to access secret bank accounts.
* Be wary of individuals or groups proclaiming that paying federal and/or state income tax is not necessary.
* Do not believe that the U.S. Treasury controls bank accounts for all citizens.
* Be skeptical of individuals advocating that speeding tickets, summons, bills, tax notifications, or similar documents can be resolved by writing “acceptance for value” on them.
* If you know of anyone advocating the use of property liens to coerce acceptance of this scheme, contact your local FBI office.

Advance Fee Schemes

An advance fee scheme occurs when the victim pays money to someone in anticipation of receiving something of greater value—such as a loan, contract, investment, or gift—and then receives little or nothing in return.

The variety of advance fee schemes is limited only by the imagination of the con artists who offer them. They may involve the sale of products or services, the offering of investments, lottery winnings, “found money,” or many other “opportunities.” Clever con artists will offer to find financing arrangements for their clients who pay a “finder’s fee” in advance. They require their clients to sign contracts in which they agree to pay the fee when they are introduced to the financing source. Victims often learn that they are ineligible for financing only after they have paid the “finder” according to the contract. Such agreements may be legal unless it can be shown that the “finder” never had the intention or the ability to provide financing for the victims.

Tips for Avoiding Advanced Fee Schemes:

If the offer of an “opportunity” appears too good to be true, it probably is. Follow common business practice. For example, legitimate business is rarely conducted in cash on a street corner.

* Know who you are dealing with. If you have not heard of a person or company that you intend to do business with, learn more about them. Depending on the amount of money that you plan on spending, you may want to visit the business location, check with the Better Business Bureau, or consult with your bank, an attorney, or the police.
* Make sure you fully understand any business agreement that you enter into. If the terms are complex, have them reviewed by a competent attorney.
* Be wary of businesses that operate out of post office boxes or mail drops and do not have a street address. Also be suspicious when dealing with persons who do not have a direct telephone line and who are never in when you call, but always return your call later.
* Be wary of business deals that require you to sign nondisclosure or non-circumvention agreements that are designed to prevent you from independently verifying the bona fides of the people with whom you intend to do business. Con artists often use non-circumvention agreements to threaten their victims with civil suit if they report their losses to law enforcement.

For more information:
- Work-at-Home Advance Fee Scheme
- Cancer Research Advance Fee Scheme

Identity Theft

Identity theft occurs when someone assumes your identity to perform a fraud or other criminal act. Criminals can get the information they need to assume your identity from a variety of sources, including by stealing your wallet, rifling through your trash, or by compromising your credit or bank information. They may approach you in person, by telephone, or on the Internet and ask you for the information.

The sources of information about you are so numerous that you cannot prevent the theft of your identity. But you can minimize your risk of loss by following a few simple hints.

Tips for Avoiding Identity Theft:

* Never throw away ATM receipts, credit statements, credit cards, or bank statements in a usable form.
* Never give your credit card number over the telephone unless you make the call.
* Reconcile your bank account monthly, and notify your bank of discrepancies immediately.
* Keep a list of telephone numbers to call to report the loss or theft of your wallet, credit cards, etc.
* Report unauthorized financial transactions to your bank, credit card company, and the police as soon as you detect them.
* Review a copy of your credit report at least once each year. Notify the credit bureau in writing of any questionable entries and follow through until they are explained or removed.
* If your identity has been assumed, ask the credit bureau to print a statement to that effect in your credit report.
* If you know of anyone who receives mail from credit card companies or banks in the names of others, report it to local or federal law enforcement authorities.

Investment-Related Scams

Letter of Credit Fraud

Legitimate letters of credit are never sold or offered as investments. They are issued by banks to ensure payment for goods shipped in connection with international trade. Payment on a letter of credit generally requires that the paying bank receive documentation certifying that the goods ordered have been shipped and are en route to their intended destination. Letters of credit frauds are often attempted against banks by providing false documentation to show that goods were shipped when, in fact, no goods or inferior goods were shipped.

Other letter of credit frauds occur when con artists offer a “letter of credit” or “bank guarantee” as an investment wherein the investor is promised huge interest rates on the order of 100 to 300 percent annually. Such investment “opportunities” simply do not exist. (See Prime Bank Notes for additional information.)

Tips for Avoiding Letter of Credit Fraud:

* If an “opportunity” appears too good to be true, it probably is.
* Do not invest in anything unless you understand the deal. Con artists rely on complex transactions and faulty logic to “explain” fraudulent investment schemes.
* Do not invest or attempt to “purchase” a “letter of credit.” Such investments simply do not exist.
* Be wary of any investment that offers the promise of extremely high yields.
* Independently verify the terms of any investment that you intend to make, including the parties involved and the nature of the investment.

Prime Bank Note Fraud

International fraud artists have invented an investment scheme that supposedly offers extremely high yields in a relatively short period of time. In this scheme, they claim to have access to “bank guarantees” that they can buy at a discount and sell at a premium. By reselling the “bank guarantees” several times, they claim to be able to produce exceptional returns on investment. For example, if $10 million worth of “bank guarantees” can be sold at a two percent profit on 10 separate occasions—or “traunches”—the seller would receive a 20 percent profit. Such a scheme is often referred to as a “roll program.”

To make their schemes more enticing, con artists often refer to the “guarantees” as being issued by the world’s “prime banks,” hence the term “prime bank guarantees.” Other official sounding terms are also used, such as “prime bank notes” and “prime bank debentures.” Legal documents associated with such schemes often require the victim to enter into non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreements, offer returns on investment in “a year and a day”, and claim to use forms required by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In fact, the ICC has issued a warning to all potential investors that no such investments exist.

The purpose of these frauds is generally to encourage the victim to send money to a foreign bank, where it is eventually transferred to an off-shore account in the control of the con artist. From there, the victim’s money is used for the perpetrator’s personal expenses or is laundered in an effort to make it disappear.

While foreign banks use instruments called “bank guarantees” in the same manner that U.S. banks use letters of credit to insure payment for goods in international trade, such bank guarantees are never traded or sold on any kind of market.

Tips for Avoiding Prime Bank Note Fraud:

* Think before you invest in anything. Be wary of an investment in any scheme, referred to as a “roll program,” that offers unusually high yields by buying and selling anything issued by “prime banks.”
* As with any investment, perform due diligence. Independently verify the identity of the people involved, the veracity of the deal, and the existence of the security in which you plan to invest.
* Be wary of business deals that require non-disclosure or non-circumvention agreements that are designed to prevent you from independently verifying information about the investment.

“Ponzi’ Schemes

“Ponzi” schemes promise high financial returns or dividends not available through traditional investments. Instead of investing the funds of victims, however, the con artist pays “dividends” to initial investors using the funds of subsequent investors. The scheme generally falls apart when the operator flees with all of the proceeds or when a sufficient number of new investors cannot be found to allow the continued payment of “dividends.”

This type of fraud is named after its creator—Charles Ponzi of Boston, Massachusetts. In the early 1900s, Ponzi launched a scheme that guaranteed investors a 50 percent return on their investment in postal coupons. Although he was able to pay his initial backers, the scheme dissolved when he was unable to pay later investors.

Tips for Avoiding Ponzi Schemes:

* Be careful of any investment opportunity that makes exaggerated earnings claims.
* Exercise due diligence in selecting investments and the people with whom you invest—in other words, do your homework.
* Consult an unbiased third party—like an unconnected broker or licensed financial advisor—before investing.

For more information:
- Bernie Madoff Case
- Stanford Case
- Wholesale Grocery Distribution Ponzi Scheme
- ATM Ponzi Scheme
- Victims Turn Tables with Ponzi Scheme

Pyramid Schemes

As in Ponzi schemes, the money collected from newer victims of the fraud is paid to earlier victims to provide a veneer of legitimacy. In pyramid schemes, however, the victims themselves are induced to recruit further victims through the payment of recruitment commissions.

More specifically, pyramid schemes—also referred to as franchise fraud or chain referral schemes—are marketing and investment frauds in which an individual is offered a distributorship or franchise to market a particular product. The real profit is earned, not by the sale of the product, but by the sale of new distributorships. Emphasis on selling franchises rather than the product eventually leads to a point where the supply of potential investors is exhausted and the pyramid collapses. At the heart of each pyramid scheme is typically a representation that new participants can recoup their original investments by inducing two or more prospects to make the same investment. Promoters fail to tell prospective participants that this is mathematically impossible for everyone to do, since some participants drop out, while others recoup their original investments and then drop out.

Tips for Avoiding Pyramid Schemes:

* Be wary of “opportunities” to invest your money in franchises or investments that require you to bring in subsequent investors to increase your profit or recoup your initial investment.
* Independently verify the legitimacy of any franchise or investment before you invest.

Market Manipulation or “Pump and Dump” Fraud

This scheme—commonly referred to as a “pump and dump”—creates artificial buying pressure for a targeted security, generally a low-trading volume issuer in the over-the-counter securities market largely controlled by the fraud perpetrators. This artificially increased trading volume has the effect of artificially increasing the price of the targeted security (i.e., the “pump”), which is rapidly sold off into the inflated market for the security by the fraud perpetrators (i.e., the “dump”); resulting in illicit gains to the perpetrators and losses to innocent third party investors. Typically, the increased trading volume is generated by inducing unwitting investors to purchase shares of the targeted security through false or deceptive sales practices and/or public information releases.

A modern variation on this scheme involves largely foreign-based computer criminals gaining unauthorized access to the online brokerage accounts of unsuspecting victims in the United States. These victim accounts are then utilized to engage in coordinated online purchases of the targeted security to affect the pump portion of a manipulation, while the fraud perpetrators sell their pre-existing holdings in the targeted security into the inflated market to complete the dump.

Tips for Avoiding Market Manipulation Fraud:

* Don’t believe the hype.
* Find out where the stock trades.
* Independently verify claims.
* Research the opportunity.
* Beware of high-pressure pitches.
* Always be skeptical.

For more information:
- Operation Shore Shells investigation

Telemarketing Fraud

When you send money to people you do not know personally or give personal or financial information to unknown callers, you increase your chances of becoming a victim of telemarketing fraud.

Here are some warning signs of telemarketing fraud—what a caller may tell you:

* “You must act ‘now’ or the offer won’t be good.”
* “You’ve won a ‘free’ gift, vacation, or prize.” But you have to pay for “postage and handling” or other charges.
* “You must send money, give a credit card or bank account number, or have a check picked up by courier.” You may hear this before you have had a chance to consider the offer carefully.
* “You don’t need to check out the company with anyone.” The callers say you do not need to speak to anyone including your family, lawyer, accountant, local Better Business Bureau, or consumer protection agency.
* “You don’t need any written information about their company or their references.”
* “You can’t afford to miss this ‘high-profit, no-risk’ offer.”

If you hear these or similar “lines” from a telephone salesperson, just say “no thank you” and hang up the telephone.

Tips for Avoiding Telemarketing Fraud:

It’s very difficult to get your money back if you’ve been cheated over the telephone. Before you buy anything by telephone, remember:

* Don’t buy from an unfamiliar company. Legitimate businesses understand that you want more information about their company and are happy to comply.
* Always ask for and wait until you receive written material about any offer or charity. If you get brochures about costly investments, ask someone whose financial advice you trust to review them. But, unfortunately, beware—not everything written down is true.
* Always check out unfamiliar companies with your local consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, state attorney general, the National Fraud Information Center, or other watchdog groups. Unfortunately, not all bad businesses can be identified through these organizations.
* Obtain a salesperson’s name, business identity, telephone number, street address, mailing address, and business license number before you transact business. Some con artists give out false names, telephone numbers, addresses, and business license numbers. Verify the accuracy of these items.
* Before you give money to a charity or make an investment, find out what percentage of the money is paid in commissions and what percentage actually goes to the charity or investment.
* Before you send money, ask yourself a simple question. “What guarantee do I really have that this solicitor will use my money in the manner we agreed upon?”
* Don’t pay in advance for services. Pay services only after they are delivered.
* Be wary of companies that want to send a messenger to your home to pick up money, claiming it is part of their service to you. In reality, they are taking your money without leaving any trace of who they are or where they can be reached.
* Always take your time making a decision. Legitimate companies won’t pressure you to make a snap decision.
* Don’t pay for a “free prize.” If a caller tells you the payment is for taxes, he or she is violating federal law.
* Before you receive your next sales pitch, decide what your limits are—the kinds of financial information you will and won’t give out on the telephone.
* Be sure to talk over big investments offered by telephone salespeople with a trusted friend, family member, or financial advisor. It’s never rude to wait and think about an offer.
* Never respond to an offer you don’t understand thoroughly.
* Never send money or give out personal information such as credit card numbers and expiration dates, bank account numbers, dates of birth, or social security numbers to unfamiliar companies or unknown persons.
* Be aware that your personal information is often brokered to telemarketers through third parties.
* If you have been victimized once, be wary of persons who call offering to help you recover your losses for a fee paid in advance.
* If you have information about a fraud, report it to state, local, or federal law enforcement agencies.

For More information:
- Telemarketing Fraud Targeting Seniors

Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud

Nigerian letter frauds combine the threat of impersonation fraud with a variation of an advance fee scheme in which a letter mailed from Nigeria offers the recipient the “opportunity” to share in a percentage of millions of dollars that the author—a self-proclaimed government official—is trying to transfer illegally out of Nigeria. The recipient is encouraged to send information to the author, such as blank letterhead stationery, bank name and account numbers, and other identifying information using a fax number provided in the letter. Some of these letters have also been received via e-mail through the Internet. The scheme relies on convincing a willing victim, who has demonstrated a “propensity for larceny” by responding to the invitation, to send money to the author of the letter in Nigeria in several installments of increasing amounts for a variety of reasons.

Payment of taxes, bribes to government officials, and legal fees are often described in great detail with the promise that all expenses will be reimbursed as soon as the funds are spirited out of Nigeria. In actuality, the millions of dollars do not exist, and the victim eventually ends up with nothing but loss. Once the victim stops sending money, the perpetrators have been known to use the personal information and checks that they received to impersonate the victim, draining bank accounts and credit card balances. While such an invitation impresses most law-abiding citizens as a laughable hoax, millions of dollars in losses are caused by these schemes annually. Some victims have been lured to Nigeria, where they have been imprisoned against their will along with losing large sums of money. The Nigerian government is not sympathetic to victims of these schemes, since the victim actually conspires to remove funds from Nigeria in a manner that is contrary to Nigerian law. The schemes themselves violate section 419 of the Nigerian criminal code, hence the label “419 fraud.”

Tips for Avoiding Nigerian Letter or “419″ Fraud:

* If you receive a letter from Nigeria asking you to send personal or banking information, do not reply in any manner. Send the letter to the U.S. Secret Service, your local FBI office, or the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. You can also register a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint Assistant.
* If you know someone who is corresponding in one of these schemes, encourage that person to contact the FBI or the U.S. Secret Service as soon as possible.
* Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as Nigerian or foreign government officials asking for your help in placing large sums of money in overseas bank accounts.
* Do not believe the promise of large sums of money for your cooperation.
* Guard your account information carefully.

For More information:
- Related Online Rental Ads Scheme
- Related Spanish Lottery Scam

Health Care Fraud or Health Insurance Fraud

Medical Equipment Fraud:

Equipment manufacturers offer “free” products to individuals. Insurers are then charged for products that were not needed and/or may not have been delivered.

“Rolling Lab” Schemes:

Unnecessary and sometimes fake tests are given to individuals at health clubs, retirement homes, or shopping malls and billed to insurance companies or Medicare.

Services Not Performed:

Customers or providers bill insurers for services never rendered by changing bills or submitting fake ones.

Medicare Fraud:

Medicare fraud can take the form of any of the health insurance frauds described above. Senior citizens are frequent targets of Medicare schemes, especially by medical equipment manufacturers who offer seniors free medical products in exchange for their Medicare numbers. Because a physician has to sign a form certifying that equipment or testing is needed before Medicare pays for it, con artists fake signatures or bribe corrupt doctors to sign the forms. Once a signature is in place, the manufacturers bill Medicare for merchandise or service that was not needed or was not ordered.

Tips for Avoiding Health Care Fraud or Health Insurance Fraud:

* Never sign blank insurance claim forms.
* Never give blanket authorization to a medical provider to bill for services rendered.
* Ask your medical providers what they will charge and what you will be expected to pay out-of-pocket.
* Carefully review your insurer’s explanation of the benefits statement. Call your insurer and provider if you have questions.
* Do not do business with door-to-door or telephone salespeople who tell you that services of medical equipment are free.
* Give your insurance/Medicare identification only to those who have provided you with medical services.
* Keep accurate records of all health care appointments.
* Know if your physician ordered equipment for you.

For more information:
- Heath Care Fraud webpage

* Analysis of available law enforcement and industry resources indicates that the top ten mortgage fraud areas are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Other areas significantly affected by mortgage fraud include Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
* There is a strong correlation between mortgage fraud and loans which result in default and foreclosure.

Emerging Schemes

* Recent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance.
* Perpetrators are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct mortgage fraud, check fraud, and potentially money laundering-related activity.

FBI and Industry Respond to Escalating Mortgage Fraud

* The FBI is proactively working with the mortgage industry in an effort to curb mortgage fraud crimes. The FBI signed a memorandum of agreement with the MBA to promote the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Warning Notice.

Introduction

The Prieston Group, a risk management solutions provider that administers an insurance product covering losses due to fraud and misrepresentation, calculated that losses attributed to mortgage fraud will most likely reach $4.2 billion for 2006. This figure does not take into account another estimated $1.2 billion spent on fraud prevention tools. – The Prieston Group, 2006 Data, 16 February 2007,and 2 April 2007.

Mortgage Fraud is defined as the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interested parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan. Although no central repository collects all mortgage fraud complaints, statistics from multiple sources indicate that mortgage fraud is on the rise. Some industry explanations for this increase point to recent high mortgage loan origination volumes that strained quality control efforts, the persistent desire of mortgage lenders to hasten the mortgage loan process, the escalation of home prices in recent years, and the introduction of non-traditional loans which contain fewer quality control restraints such as low documentation and no documentation loans1.

Mortgage loan fraud is divided into two categories: fraud for property and fraud for profit. Fraud for property/housing entails minor misrepresentations by the applicant solely for the purpose of purchasing a property for a primary residence. This scheme usually involves a single loan. Although applicants may embellish income and conceal debt, their intent is to repay the loan. Fraud for profit, however, often involves multiple loans and elaborate schemes perpetrated to gain illicit proceeds from property sales. It is this second category that is of most concern to law enforcement and the mortgage industry. Gross misrepresentations concerning appraisals and loan documents are common in fraud for profit schemes and participants are frequently paid for their participation. Recent events likely resulted in an increase in mortgage fraud as higher housing prices tempted borrowers to commit fraud for property in order to qualify for a mortgage loan. Also, mortgage fraud perpetrators likely seized the opportunity to take advantage of the relaxed lending practices to commit fraud for profit.

The most common form of mortgage fraud is illegal property flipping which entails false appraisals and other fraudulent loan documents (see figure 1). Combating mortgage fraud effectively requires the cooperation of law enforcement and industry entities. No single regulatory agency is charged with monitoring this crime. The FBI, Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG), Internal Revenue Service, Postal Inspection Service, and state and local agencies are among those investigating mortgage fraud.

Mortgage fraud is a relatively low-risk, high-yield criminal activity that tempts many. However, according a May 2006 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) report, finance-related occupations, including accountants, mortgage brokers, and lenders, were the most common suspect occupations associated with reported mortgage fraud2. Perpetrators in these occupations are familiar with the mortgage loan process and therefore know how to exploit vulnerabilities in the system.

Victims of mortgage fraud may include borrowers, mortgage industry entities, and those living in the neighborhoods affected by mortgage fraud. Lenders are plagued with high foreclosure costs, broker commissions, reappraisals, attorney fees, rehabilitation costs, and other related expenses when a mortgage fraud is committed3. As properties affected by mortgage fraud are sold at artificially inflated prices, properties in surrounding neighborhoods also become artificially inflated. When property values increase, property taxes increase as well. Legitimate homeowners also find it difficult to sell their homes as surrounding properties affected by fraud deteriorate.

During boom periods, high mortgage loan volume impacts expedited quality control efforts which often focus on production. Therefore, perpetrators may submit loans based on fraudulent information anticipating that the bogus information will be overlooked. On the other hand, loan officers, brokers, and others in the industry are paid by commission and may be tempted to approve questionable loans when the housing market is down to maintain current levels of income.

Analysis of mortgage originations indicates a decrease in demand. As a result of the declining housing market, mortgage fraud perpetrators may take advantage of eager loan originators attempting to generate loans for commission. Mortgage loan originations, including purchases and refinances declined during 2006 across the United States. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) estimates that mortgage loan originations will reach $2.28 trillion during 2007 (see figure 2)4. According to an MBA December 2006 report, total home sales during 2006 decreased by approximately 10 percent from 2005 sales. New home sales declined by 17 percent and existing home sales dipped by 8 percent. In response to a decrease in demand for housing, builders reduced single-family starts (through November 2006) which were 14 percent lower than during the same time period in 2005. The MBA estimates that the oversupply of housing will continue to affect new home construction, home sales, and home prices until mid-20075.

Top Areas for Mortgage Fraud

Data was compiled and analyzed from law enforcement and industry sources to determine those areas of the country most affected by mortgage fraud during 2006. Information from the FBI, HUD-OIG, FinCEN, Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), RealtyTrac Inc. (foreclosure statistics), and Radian Guaranty Inc., indicate that the top ten mortgage fraud areas for 2006 were California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Other areas significantly affected by mortgage fraud include Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (see figure 3).

Analysis of available information indicates that mortgage fraud is most concentrated in the north central region of the United States. The north central region is followed by the southeast and west regions.

Regional analysis of FBI pending mortgage fraud-related investigations as of FY 2006 reveals that the north central region of the United States led the nation with the most pending investigations. The north central region was followed by the southeast, west, south central, and northeast, respectively (see figure 4).

The aggregate amount of ARM loans containing fraudulent misrepresentations is unknown. However, since mortgage fraud perpetrators hope to inflate the value of their properties and quickly sell them, they would likely gravitate towards mortgage loans that offered low and short-term interest rates such as those offered by ARMs.

Delinquency, Default, and Foreclosure: Potential Fraud Indicators

Mortgage loans based on fraudulent information usually result in delinquency, default, or foreclosure in a bear market. According to the MBA, both delinquency and foreclosures rates increased during 2006 and were largely concentrated in adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans, especially sub-prime ARMs. This is partly attributable to the recent rise in interest rates, placing a strain on ARMs borrowers6.

BasePoint Analytics, a fraud analytics company, analyzed more than 3 million loans and found that between 30 and 70 percent of early payment defaults (EPDs) are linked to significant misrepresentations in the original loan applications7. Radian Guaranty, Inc. is a leading provider of mortgage insurance which protects lenders against loan default. Of the top ten states Radian Guaranty Inc. ranked highest for mortgage fraud, seven of them also ranked in the company’s top ten for EPDs. This suggests that EPDs are a good mortgage fraud indicator.

During 2006 there were more than 1.2 million foreclosure filings nationally, which represents a 42 percent increase from 2005 figures. The foreclosure rate for 2006 was one foreclosure filing for every 92 households8. Foreclosures for 2006 surpassed foreclosures for 2005 during every month of the year9.

Foreclosure Fraud

Recent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance. The perpetrators convince homeowners that they can save their homes from foreclosure through deed transfers and the payment of up-front fees. This “foreclosure rescue” often involves a manipulated deed process that results in the preparation of forged deeds. In extreme instances, perpetrators may sell the home or secure a second loan without the homeowners’ knowledge, stripping the property’s equity for personal enrichment.

While foreclosure scams vary, they may be used in combination with other fraudulent schemes. For instance, perpetrators may view foreclosure-rescue scams as a new method for fraudulently acquiring properties to facilitate illegal property-flipping and equity-skimming.

Home Equity Lines of Credit

According to a DOJ press release, Mi Su Yi and her husband, Paul Amorello, were sentenced in California in July 2006 for operating a $3 million bust-out scheme involving business lines of credit and HELOCs. The couple accessed lines of credit that had been obtained by others and paid the balances with worthless checks. They subsequently withdrew cash from the lines of credit before the checks were returned for insufficient funds. The couple laundered their proceeds through bank accounts opened under three false identities. In an attempt to avoid detection, the couple deposited cash amounts of less than $10,000 into these accounts. -US DOJ, “New Jersey Residents Sentenced to Prison for Running a $3 Million ‘Bust-Out’ Scheme,” Press Release, 25 July 2006, available at http://www.usdoj.gov

Individuals and criminal groups are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct multiple-funding mortgage fraud schemes, check fraud schemes, and potentially money laundering-related activity. HELOCs differ from standard home equity loans because the homeowner may borrow against the line of credit over a period of time using a checkbook or credit card. HELOCs are aggressively marketed by lenders as an easy, fast, and inexpensive means to obtain funds. HELOC funds are normally withdrawn on an as-needed basis to conduct home repairs or to pay bills, but fraud perpetrators may withdraw the entire amount within a short time period. Lenders typically focus on property equity prior to funding HELOCs. As such, many lenders do not demand a full property appraisal or a full property title search.

Perpetrators apply for multiple HELOCs to different lending institutions for a single property within a short time period. Prior to providing the funding, lenders conduct searches to determine if the property is encumbered by a lien. However, liens on a property may not be recorded for several days or months and thus cannot be immediately verified. Consequently, lenders do not discover that they hold a third, fourth, or fifth lien on a property (rather than the expected second lien) until later. The money obtained from the multiple HELOCs totals more than the original property purchase price, exceeding the out-of-pocket expenses incurred to secure the property.

Perpetrators conducting check fraud schemes may manipulate HELOC accounts and cause lenders to incur losses. For example, a perpetrator secures a HELOC and withdraws the entire allotted amount. A fraudulent check is then used to pay the balance owed on the HELOC. However, the perpetrator quickly withdraws the check amount from the HELOC before the bank realizes the check is worthless. When the check is returned for insufficient funds, the line of credit surpasses its maximum limit and the lender experiences a loss. HELOC accounts have also been used in common check frauds where perpetrators stole HELOC checks, fraudulently completed them, and deposited the funds into their own personal accounts.

HELOCs may also be used as a means of depositing and withdrawing laundered proceeds to further conceal the original funding source. As long as withdrawals from the HELOC do not exceed the line of credit limit, payments deposited into the account may be withdrawn later.

FBI and Industry Respond to Escalating Mortgage Fraud

The FBI is proactively working with the mortgage industry in an effort to curb mortgage fraud crimes. On March 8, 2007, the FBI signed a memorandum of agreement with the MBA to promote the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Warning Notice. The Notice states that it is illegal to make any false statement regarding income, assets, debt or matters of identification, or to willfully inflate property value to influence the action of a financial institution. Under the agreement, the MBA and the FBI will make the notice available to mortgage lenders to use voluntarily as a means of educating consumers and mortgage professionals of the penalties and consequences of mortgage fraud.10

With attempted fraud on the rise and fraudsters getting more sophisticated, brokers must ensure they don’t become soft targets by doing robust due diligence on all cases

With a raft of regulations, major funding problems and widespread dual pricing mortgage brokers have a lot on their plate at the moment. But one thing they can’t afford to ignore is the specter of fraud that permanently haunts the industry.

In the good old days between 2005 and 2007 when mortgages were aplenty brokers were probably guilty of being as lax as lenders and regulators when it came to checks.

Those days are gone and the consensus seems to be that as the industry dips and business volumes fall so does fraud, but this is a dangerous complacency.

Experian’s Fraud Index reveals that attempted fraud rose by 37% in the first half of 2010 compared with the second half of 2009 due to a rise in so-called soft fraud which is when borrowers misrepresent incomes to get a deal rather than by organized crime.

Hard fraud is committed by sophisticated criminals to money launder while soft fraud is the ordinary borrower lying to get a mortgage – serious but not in the same league. The best way for brokers to guard themselves against both is simple – due diligence on their clients through rigorous checks and questioning.

“The most important thing brokers can do is to identify applicants, be skeptical of what they are being told and check the facts rigorously,” says Nick Baxter, partner at Baxter Business Consultants.

“If a broker doesn’t have an impressive record it gets around and they can be used as a conduit to fraud, perhaps accidentally,” he adds. “The biggest danger is that brokers who don’t ask the tough questions become targets for money launderers who think they are lax. Brokers must ask tough questions at the right time.”

Alan Cleary, managing director of Precise Mortgages, agrees that brokers face the danger of being used by fraudsters.

“It’s not a good thing for brokers because you can’t plead ignorance if you’ve been targeted,” he says.

“Lenders can identify specific brokers they get bad business from and there are a lot of brokers being kicked off panels at the moment – it’s a growing problem. As lenders become more vigilant brokers are caught up in it and it is damaging to their business. If you get kicked off Lloyds Banking Group’s broker panel you’re out of business because you can’t be a broker without dealing with 30% of the market.”

For money laundering in particular Baxter says it is crucial brokers ask the right questions. Brokers must have proof of their deposit and ask where the money has come from and if it is legal.

“Buy-to-let frauds with no proof of deposit are a key risk,” he says. “There is no reason why a person who wants to buy 10 properties shouldn’t be asked where the deposit has come from. They should be asked whether it comes from legitimate means and how they have produced this money.

“By asking such questions brokers will protect themselves. Genuine customers won’t care about the intrusion and money launderers will go elsewhere.”

Ray Boulger, senior technical manager at John Charcol, agrees that tough questioning is the key to brokers preventing fraud but adds that it is difficult to counteract the sophistication of some documents.

“Brokers must do the obvious checks but also be experienced enough to recognize when something doesn’t sound right,” he says. “One of the biggest problems for brokers is the sophistication of fraudsters. Some copies of passports and identity are so good that you can’t tell they are fake.

“I was at a conference a few years ago where even fraud experts struggled to differentiate the two, so brokers can have difficulties sometimes.”

John Malone, chairman of PMS and the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries’ spokesman at the National Fraud Authority’s mortgage fraud forum, says fraudsters are always years ahead of the businesses they set out to deceive.

“Fraudsters are more sophisticated these days and use technology to their advantage,” he says. “On the internet you can get pay slips, P45s, fake passports and driving licenses that look real. Fraudsters will always be up to five years ahead of businesses.”

And Malone warns some types of fraud such as identity theft are increasing. His role at AMI gives brokers a voice at the National Fraud Authority. Until he took up the role this month brokers were not represented. Malone insists brokers are crucial in the chain as a conduit between clients, solicitors, surveyors and lenders.

“Brokers are right in the middle of it,” he says. “So we are trying to educate them and limit fraud as much as we possibly can.”

Baxter agrees that fraud is still an issue but believes there has been a decrease as volumes have fallen.

“Mortgage fraud has probably reduced because the days of the one minute mortgage don’t exist anymore,” he says.

But Baxter says brokers must be wary of mortgage fraud in the long term. He says many fraudsters are clever and present themselves as plausible customers. In short, if they can deceive people they will. He criticizes the speed of applications and the focus on volume and while praising fraud checks via credit scoring to highlight risks, he does not think it is a silver bullet.

“Credit scoring checks help but it was difficult for underwriters to consider all the information in the time they had,” he says. “I have seen things in credit scoring checks that should have made them ask questions but they didn’t.

“Between 2005 and 2008 I don’t think staff were adequately trained either. That is still the case but the difference is they now have more time. Lenders need to use this to train their staff for the future. Just because the mortgage market is depressed doesn’t mean fraudsters are going to leave. Lenders must do all they can to tackle it.”

Malone believes lenders can do more, such as making sure that brokers’ client information is secure.

“You can go into an intermediary’s office and there are files and computers lying around,” he says. “But what happens when they leave the office at night? Big institutions have to go through a risk education process to try to eliminate or reduce the onset of risk.

“Of course, one of the things lenders are asking everyone to do is to protect client details in a locked safe or filing cabinet. But in brokers’ offices that often isn’t the case. That’s the kind of things lenders should be asking questions about.”

Colin Snowdon, managing director of residential mortgages at Aldermore, says brokers should not be wary if lenders start to ask questions.

“When lenders ask questions that brokers think are strange it isn’t always because they are trying to make things difficult,” he says.

“You can’t be too careful about mortgage fraud these days. Brokers have an important role as it is they who meet the clients. They have to be aware of all the issues and ensure they don’t allow themselves to be used. There is a real danger of that.”

Eddie Goldsmith, senior partner at Goldsmith Williams, has just set up the Conveyancing Association to tackle fraud in conveyancing and says lenders will always use people they are comfortable with.

“In every profession there are good and bad individuals and you can’t avoid criminals who infiltrate the industry,” he says. “What lenders need to do is work with people they know, are comfortable with, and who they trust.

“Firms that are members of our trade body are all reputable and one of the reasons we formed it is to help lenders use good firms. This won’t get rid of fraud overnight but if lenders are going down a restricted panel route we can tell them to look at the Conveyancing Association as a reputable grouping.”

Malone agrees that brokers have a huge responsibility and that the Financial Services Authority is clamping down on them. He says that for years the buzzwords have been ’know your client’ but the emphasis has now changed as the FSA seeks to talk tough on fraud and stresses the need for ’client due diligence’.

“I think the phrase puts far more onus on brokers to understand more about their clients,” he says. “At PMS if we want to take on a new firm we have to do thorough due diligence on it before taking it on board and that is what brokers have to do. ’Know your client’ was good at the time but there is a change of emphasis at the FSA which is demanding due diligence.”

He adds that it is more than just clients who need to be thoroughly checked.

“Brokers also have to look all around the client’s situation such as the property they are buying and the solicitor they are using, and check things such as how long it has been operating and whether it has had any issues with lenders,” he says.

“These are the things that brokers haven’t been doing over the years. They’ve just been accepting the solicitors their clients use but it’s their responsibility now to find out more about them.”

Cleary says due diligence is crucial and if business is coming from an introducer brokers must take appropriate steps to guard against fraud.

“If brokers are accepting business from an introducer they are basically saying that they are so confident about that individual that they will use their FSA license to get the business through,” he says. “If it goes wrong the broker is in trouble, so they have to go through the appropriate checks.”

But Cleary does not believe brokers have to do all the work as lenders have systems and structures to combat fraud.

“Brokers can’t be expected to do everything,” he says. “Lenders have access to national fraud databases and credit referencing tools, which I don’t expect brokers to have because it costs a lot of money.

“The main thing for brokers is to verify the source of introduced business and make sure they don’t get duped into accepting dodgy pay slips. If you smell a rat check it as if it’s too good to be true then it probably is – we’ve all got that sixth sense that tells us when something isn’t right.”

Malone insists brokers have a responsibility to check the client’s situation.

“Brokers have to be aware of who they are dealing with,” he says. “It can be done in a few phone calls. If lenders are reducing the legal firms they use, they are clearly going through their lists to make sure they know those acting on their behalf. Brokers must do the same.”

He says that when individual registration is brought in there will be even more onus on brokers to perform thorough checks.

“Individual registration will reduce the number of brokers in the mortgage industry,” he says. “We don’t know by how many but I think it will further reduce the numbers. We will be left with a strong, hardcore group of intermediaries who will have to protect their position. We’re asking them to protect themselves and their business by having a firmer understanding of their transactions.”

There is a clear sense that brokers are going to have more responsibilities and be subject to more scrutiny when individual registration is introduced. Malone believes brokers should start verification of clients as early as possible.

“Brokers must start to verify potential clients before they become official clients,” he says. “A lot of brokers just get clients from lead generation firms and no-one has verified them. Brokers haven’t verified clients enough in the past because of the volumes they were doing. A lot of fraud is now being uncovered from the boom years when gross lending was £700bn in 2005 and 2006. If even 5% of that was fraudulent that would amount to a massive £35bn. It is these numbers we’re grappling with.”

A spokesman for the Council of Mortgage Lenders says that varying market conditions create opportunities for criminals who always target weaknesses.

“The ground is constantly shifting with fraud and different practices that organizations follow creating different opportunities for criminals to target,” he says. “They will systematically target weaknesses. But changing market conditions have exposed fraudulent practices that may not have been so apparent when property prices were rising.

“One of the problems with fraud is that it is difficult to quantify. Someone can make a fraudulent application which is declined and we have to decide whether it is a failure that the fraud was attempted or is it a success that the fraud didn’t happen.”

He adds that the most important thing is for brokers to report suspicious information to the right authorities. He highlights the FSA’s Information from Lenders programmed as an example of what brokers should be doing.

Even in depressed times and with brokers fighting for their survival, they must remain vigilant against fraud. Lax checking can ruin careers and reputations can be forever tarnished.

Brokers don’t have all the responsibility and clearly lenders have their role to play too but it is brokers’ necks on the line if something goes wrong, so they have to be sure who they’re dealing with.

There will always be fraudsters looking to deceive them so brokers must make sure they are not a soft target. By doing robust due diligence brokers can protect themselves and fulfill their responsibilities to tackle the specter of fraud that could come back to haunt the industry in a big way.

Brokers must be the first defense

It is a well-known fact in the financial services industry that mortgage lenders have tightened their criteria significantly in an effort to protect themselves from escalating mortgage fraud losses. Coupled with this, the Council of Mortgage Lenders has reported that gross mortgage lending has fallen by 6% in August 2010 compared with August 2009.

Applications are being heavily scrutinized by lenders for signs of material misrepresentation or other anomalies.

Mortgage brokers have suffered much bad press in recent months as the unscrupulous practices of a few have led to serious repercussions for the honest majority. In many cases lenders have reduced the number of brokers on their panels and therefore the number of brokers they are prepared to do business with.

So what can brokers do to win back favor with mortgage providers? What are banks looking for from individuals who are introducing business to them?

As part of my role as fraud consultant at CoreLogic Solutions, a company that specializes in fraud detection technology for the financial services sector, I recently undertook analysis that has highlighted the most common types of mortgage fraud.

The top six most common types of mortgage fraud are:

* Income – 35% of fraudulent applications had evidence of significantly over-inflated salaries.
* Employment – around 16% of applicants had tried to hide details relating to their employer, with a large proportion not disclosing they were self-employed.
* Occupancy – 14% were applications for undisclosed buy-to-lets.
* Fake accounts – over 11% of the proven fraud cases were supported by financial accounts that were either fake or bore no resemblance to the true trading performance of the company or trading individuals.
* Valuation fraud – 11% of cases were backed by valuations that were over-inflated by up to 500%.
* Other professionals – around 6% of the sample showed evidence of fraudulent behavior by other mortgage professionals.

In my experience, the best way for brokers to win back the confidence of lenders is to act as a first line of defense. In many cases it is brokers who build rapport with applicants and have access to supporting documentation. By checking documentation relating to income, employment and occupancy and ensuring that the application appears to make sense, brokers will be able to assist lenders and speed up the application process.

Hopefully in time, this will improve the rapport between lenders and brokers and ensure that strong relationships develop and flourish as the mortgage market starts to recover.”
Mortgage broker fraud cases this year

Noel Smith of Andrew Copeland Mortgages
Noel Smith, a director of south London-based Andrew Copeland Mortgages Limited, was fined £17,500 for systems and controls failings and for exposing his business to the risk of being used to further financial crime. Smith also had his Financial Services Authority approval to perform management functions withdrawn.

The FSA concluded that Smith’s poor management controls and compliance monitoring led to 224 clients being exposed to the risk of receiving unsuitable advice and left the firm open to abuse by fraudsters. Smith also failed to oversee remedial actions outlined by the FSA to address potential poor advice given to clients. There was also no evidence that affordability had been assessed.

John Apicella was banned for lack of competency by leaving his business open to the risk of involvement in financial crime. Apicella was a sole trader at Newbury-based Mortgages 4 You.

The FSA found that Apicella failed to meet the minimum standards required of a broker by not always completing a fact-find document for new customers or taking the time to research their attitude to risk. In interviews with the FSA regarding customer’s income Apicella said that “if a lender doesn’t require it I don’t ask for it”. He added that he would accept self-employed customers’ income figures at face value. Also, Apicella did not carry out due diligence on a mortgage introducer from whom he accepted seven mortgage applications.

Neale Morton, Syed Meah and Jonathan Smith of Neale Morton IMS Limited
The individuals banned all worked for one firm, Neale Morton IMS Limited, based in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. Neale Morton was the principal and director of IMS. The FSA prohibited and fined him £130,192 for his knowing involvement in mortgage fraud and for systems and controls failings at IMS for which he was personally culpable. Part of the fine, £5,192, represented a disgorgement of the profit he made from the fraudulent applications.

Morton not only submitted mortgage applications for himself using false income details, but also allowed his firm to be used for mortgage fraud by its advisers and customers. Advisers Jonathan Smith and Syed Meah produced falsified compliance documents during the FSA investigation. Smith also submitted falsified applications to lenders on behalf of customers and Meah did not notify the FSA that he had been arrested on suspicion of money laundering and been suspended as a mortgage adviser at IMS.

In an interview with the FSA, Smith estimated that around 5% of the mortgage business he submitted at IMS was fraudulent.
Collective action is important

This year is notable for an unwelcome first – it is the year mortgage fraud cases with a collective value of more than £1bn were heard by Crown Courts in England and Wales. But anyone who thinks things will get better soon needs to think again, and quickly. My advice is to revise estimates penciled in for 2011. If £1bn is your benchmark, you’re seriously underestimating the problem.

There are two reasons for this. First, £1bn only relates to the known cases of mortgage fraud heard by the courts during the past 10 months. Second, any fraud professional will tell you that for every case that is uncovered, up to four go undetected.

My view is that the real level of mortgage fraud exposure in the UK could be significantly higher than £1bn – and growing rapidly. And if that is the case, the sooner the industry takes appropriate action the better.

The harsh reality is that fraudsters regard lenders as easy prey where the pickings are rich and the chances of being caught pretty remote. Lax and inconsistent controls in the lending and broking community and an unwillingness to recognize the crime – particularly insider and employee fraud – have enabled con men to run riot in sectors such as buy-to-let, self-cert and commercial.

This is a major reason why we have seen a huge increase in the number of lawyers, accountants, surveyors and intermediaries who are prepared to fleece their way to easy and lucrative property paydays.

Any fraud professional will tell you that for every case that is uncovered, up to four go undetected

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority clearly thinks the problem is growing. Recently, its head of fraud went on the record stating his team was looking into the affairs of dozens of law practices suspected of being run by criminals and involved in committing mortgage fraud.

The SRA is working with several police forces to start a major clean-up. This is welcomed as it’s a break with the legal world’s traditional practice of staying silent until a threat has been eliminated. I also applaud the likes of the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries for setting up a panel to address fraud.

But the time has come for the whole industry to debate the extent of the problem in a meaningful way.

Getting to the heart of the matter will require all parties to put their egos to one side because mortgage fraud afflicts all organizations, regardless of their size, geography and corporate DNA.

It also means the industry must stop sweeping cases of insider fraud under the carpet. Organizations need to realize 60% of all fraud has a significant insider element and staff poses a threat to the well-being of businesses.

If there isn’t the collective desire to get to grips with things, then mortgage fraud will continue to be a major bête noire – and the sector will remain a safe haven for organized crime and opportunistic thieves.

GREENBELT, MD—A federal grand jury has indicted Darryl Stanley Paxton, Jr., a/k/a David Sosa, age 34, of Broward County, Florida, formerly of Maryland, on charges of wire fraud, money laundering, and fraudulent use of a Social Security number in connection with a scheme to defraud lenders of over $1.8 million, using a false identity. The indictment was returned on July 14, 2010 and unsealed today upon the arrest of the defendant in Broward County, Florida, on state charges there.

The indictment was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; Special Agent in Charge Richard A. McFeely of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Special Agent in Charge Michael McGill of the Social Security Administration – Office of Inspector General, Philadelphia Field Division.

According to the 15-count indictment, between 1997 and 2007 Paxton utilized the identification, including the Social Security numbers of a man and woman, both of whom had the initials DEB. During that period of time, Paxton began to use the fictitious identity, David Sosa, creating or obtaining a fraudulent Virginia driver’s license purportedly issued on May 12, 1999, in the name of David Sosa. Paxton also created or obtained Georgia and District of Columbia driver’s licenses in the name of David Sosa and on June 23, 2003, was issued a Maryland driver’s license in that name.

The indictment alleges that from September 2005 through August 2007, Sosa obtained over $1.8 million in loans from four lenders by submitting fraudulent loan applications, including a fictitious name, a misappropriated Social Security number, false information about his employment, income, address and ownership of real estate. According to the indictment, Paxton utilized a portion of the loan proceeds to repay part of the previous loans, but left most of the loans substantially unpaid.

For example, by submitting a fraudulent loan application, Paxton allegedly obtained a loan for $620,000 to purchase a property in Cockeysville, Maryland, then repaid that loan with the proceeds of a $1.4 million loan and a $420,000 loan he fraudulently obtained from another lender to refinance that property. The indictment alleges that Paxton then defaulted on those loans, causing a loss to the lender of $900,000.

The indictment alleges that through this scheme, Paxton fraudulently obtained over $2.85 million in loans and caused losses to the lenders of over $1.8 million, which is the amount the government seeks to forfeit.

The indictment further alleges that Paxton used the proceeds of the loans for his personal benefit, including the purchase of a Lamborghini and other luxury automobiles, as well as purchases at Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, The Plastic Surgery Center, the Big Screen Store, and others.

Paxton faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for wire fraud; a maximum of five years in prison for fraudulent use of a Social Security number; and a maximum of 10 years in prison on each of five counts of money laundering. Paxton is detained on state charges in Florida pending his transfer to U.S. District Court.

An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.;

The Maryland Mortgage Fraud Task Force was established to unify the agencies that regulate and investigate mortgage fraud and promote the early detection, identification, prevention, and prosecution of mortgage fraud schemes. This case, as well as other cases brought by members of the Task Force, demonstrates the commitment of law enforcement agencies to protect consumers from fraud and promote the integrity of the credit markets. Information about mortgage fraud prosecutions is available at www.justice.gov/usao/md/Mortgage-Fraud/index.html.

This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Mara B. Zusman, who is prosecuting the case.

SALT LAKE CITY—A 10-count federal indictment unsealed Thursday charges Christopher D. Hales, age 29, of Midvale, with mail, wire, and bank fraud and with money laundering in connection with an alleged mortgage fraud scheme. The indictment involves two properties, one in Lindon and one in Salt Lake City.

The indictment alleges Hales and other unindicted co-conspirators executed a scheme to produce income from false appraisals to artificially inflate the purchase price of the residences. Hales arranged to purchase the homes through straw buyers and took the false equity proceeds stemming from those sales for himself, the straw buyers, and the co-conspirators.

For the Lindon property, the indictment alleges that Hales arranged for a false lien to be attached, ostensibly to renovate the house to the increased value pre-determined by Hales. Hales then arranged to obtain a loan that was approximately $194,000 more than the house was worth based on the false lien.

For the Salt Lake City property, the indictment alleges Hales and his co-conspirators arranged first for the house to be appraised at more than $250,000 than its market value, obtained a loan relying on that false appraisal and distributed the alleged fraudulent proceeds among themselves. Approximately 10 months later, Hales and other co-conspirators arranged for the house to be purchased by a straw buyer with another false appraisal that reset the house’s value at an additional $250,000 above the previous fraudulent price. According to the indictment, those proceeds were again then distributed among Hales and his co-conspirators.

For both properties, Hales used false appraisal values, false income statements, and false claims of renovations to the properties to obtain the inflated loans, the indictment alleges.

This specific investigation, which is ongoing, is being conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General, the FBI, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, as a part of the Utah Mortgage Fraud Task Force.

Individuals who believe they have information about financial fraud crimes related to this investigation and/or Mr. Hales can contact Special Agent Dave Smith with HUD-OIG at 801-524-6092.

Hales was arrested on a federal warrant Thursday. He had an initial appearance in federal court Thursday afternoon. A detention hearing is set for Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Brooke Wells. The potential maximum penalty for each wire and mail fraud count (two counts of each) is 20 years in prison. The potential maximum penalty for the four bank fraud counts is 30 years per count. The potential maximum penalty for the two money laundering counts in the indictment is 10 years per count.

Indictments are not findings of guilt. Individuals charged in indictments are presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty in court.

Suspects may find themselves behind bars living rent free thanks to nationwide mortgage fraud arrests.

Members of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force released the results of a nationwide dragnet, “Operation Stolen Dreams,” which targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and is the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in confronting mortgage fraud. The White Collar Crime Committee of the National Association of Chiefs of Police obtained relevant documents describing this enormous operation.

The sweep was organized by President Barack Obama’s interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was established “to lead an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.”

Starting on March 1 through June 17, Operation Stolen Dreams has involved 1,215 criminal defendants nationwide, including 485 arrests, who are allegedly responsible for more than $2.3 billion in losses. Additionally, to date the operation has resulted in 191 civil enforcement actions, which have resulted in the recovery of more than $147 million, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“From home buyers to lenders, mortgage fraud has had a resounding impact on the nation’s economy,” said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III. “Those who prey on the housing market should know that hundreds of FBI agents on task forces and their law enforcement partners are tracking down your schemes and you will be brought to justice.”

Unlike previous mortgage fraud sweeps, Operation Stolen Dreams focused not only on federal criminal cases, but also on civil enforcement, recovering money for victims and increasing cooperation with state and local partners.

The operation was conducted in conjunction with the Department of Justice — including the FBI, U.S. Attorneys Offices, the U.S. Trustee Program, and other components — as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the National District Attorneys Association.

The President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources, according to officials.

MORTGAGE FRAUD REPORT

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2009 Mortgage Fraud Report, released today, mortgage fraud suspicious activity reports referred to law enforcement increased 5 percent to 67,190 during fiscal year 2009.

It’s estimated that $14 billion in fraudulent loans originated in 2009. The total dollar loss attributed to mortgage fraud is unknown.

Other key findings presented in the report include:

There are more than 2.8 million properties with foreclosure filings, a 120 percent increase from 2007 to 2009. The Las Vegas area reported the most significant rate of foreclosures, with more than 12 percent of housing units there receiving a foreclosure notice.

The top 10 states ranked by the number of foreclosure filings per housing unit were California, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and New Jersey. In April 2010, one in every 386 housing units received a foreclosure filing.

Prevalent mortgage fraud schemes in fiscal year 2009 include loan origination, foreclosure rescue, builder bailout, equity skimming, short sale, illegal property flipping, reverse mortgage fraud and loan modifications. Emerging trends include fraud involving economic stimulus plans/programs, property theft/fraudulent leasing of foreclosed properties and tax-related fraud.

MADISON, WI—Stephen P. Sinnott, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced the filing of informations charging five individuals with submitting false loan applications to banks and mortgage lenders to obtain home mortgages. Specifically, the informations charged:

1. Brian Bowling, 44, of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, with wire fraud;
2. Jason Khodadad, 29, of Madison, Wisconsin, with conspiracy to submit a false loan application;
3. Joseph Bowman, 59, of Black Earth, Wisconsin, with conspiracy to submit a false loan application;
4. Joshua Hughes, 28, of Madison, with conspiracy to submit a false loan application; and
5. Richard Hurkman, 62, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with conspiracy to submit a false loan application.

If convicted of wire fraud, Bowling faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. If convicted of conspiracy to submit a false loan application, Khodadad, Bowman, Hughes, and Hurkman each face five years in prison.

The informations charged that the defendants defrauded banks and mortgage lenders by submitting loan applications for home loans that, among other things, inflated the borrowers’ income amounts, exaggerated assets and understated liabilities, falsified employment information, misrepresented the source of downpayment funds, and omitted secondary financing information.

Hughes and Bowman pleaded guilty on Wednesday May 19, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Madison before Judge Barbara Crabb. Sentencing for Bowman is scheduled for July 22, 2010, at 1:20 p.m. Sentencing for Hughes is set for July 29, 2010, at 1:20 p.m.

Khodadad is scheduled to plead guilty on Tuesday May 25, 2010, at 1:40 p.m. Bowling is scheduled to plead guilty on Friday May 28, 2010, at 1:20 p.m. Hurkman’s plea hearing has not yet been set.

These cases are part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

The charges are the result of an investigation conducted by the Madison office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution of this case has been assigned to members of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Madison.