Search


About

Flipping Frenzy.com is your source for news, information, and commentary on Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud. Click here to learn more.


Suspect Fraud?

If you believe you have been a victim of real estate or mortgage fraud, start here! Select your state from the pulldown menu below:

Articles

Our founder, Ralph Roberts, has written many eye-opening articles about Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud. Click here for more information.

Contact Ralph

If you would like to talk with us about a Real Estate or Mortgage Fraud-related matter, please click here.


Click Above for Info

Categories

Ralph's Latest Book: Click Above for Info

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Click Above for Info

Recent comments

The FBI Investigates Mortgage Fraud!

Recent posts

Archives

April 10, 2011

Man Sentenced to More Than Three Years in Federal Prison in Mortgage Fraud Scheme

Defendant Apprehended on a Shrimp Boat in Caribbean Sea

DALLAS—James Ragnauth, a defendant charged in a mortgage fraud case, who was on the lam for about six weeks and apprehended on a shrimp boat in the Caribbean Sea by the U.S. Coast Guard in March 2009, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater to 37 months in federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas. Judge Fitzwater also ordered Ragnauth to pay approximately $205,000 in restitution.

Ragnauth pleaded guilty in September 2009 to one count of causing false entries to deceive the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to the indictment, Ragnauth incorporated J.R. Mortgage, located in Dallas, and was in charge of the company’s day-to-day loan operations and supervised several loan officers, including co-defendant Rosa Irene Galvan and Ignacio Juan Jasso, charged in a related case.

Ragnauth admitted in documents filed in court that in 1997 and 1998, he and loan officer Jasso knowingly and willfully made false entries in HUD statements in connection with several residential loans. As part of their scheme to defraud HUD, Ragnauth and Jasso created, and caused others to create and later submit to HUD, several false and fraudulent documents, such as a Uniform Residential Loan Application which contained false information, a fraudulent W-2 form and a fraudulent credit report. At the sentencing hearing today, Ragnauth was found to be the organizer leader of a mortgage fraud scheme that caused the fraudulent funding of 30 residential loans, totaling more than $1.8 million.

Both Galvan and Jasso have pleaded guilty to their roles and are scheduled to be sentenced on February 26, 2010.

While Ragnauth was a fugitive in the Beaumont, Texas area, the U.S. Marshals Service in Beaumont featured Ragnauth’s photo on local newscasts along with information that he might be leaving the U.S. on a boat from Port Arthur, Texas. Ragnauth, a naturalized citizen, was captured by the U.S. Coast Guard when he was attempting to flee to his native Guyana. Guyana is located just east of Venezuela on the northern coast of South America. Ragnauth made it about half way to Guyana, being arrested in international waters between Cuba and Haiti.

The case was investigated by the FBI and HUD-Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis was in charge of the prosecution.

October 24, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions About Loan Modification

A Loan Modification is a permanent change in one or more of the terms of a Mortgagor’s loan, allows the loan to be reinstated, and results in a payment the Mortgagor can afford.

Question 1: In utilizing the Loan Modification option to bring an asset current, can the Mortgagee include all fees and corporate advances??

Answer: Mortgagee Letter 2008-21 states in part: Legal fees and related foreclosure costs for work actually completed and applicable to the current default episode may be capitalized into the modified principal balance.

Question 2:May a Mortgagee perform an interior inspection of the property if they have concerns about property condition?

Answer: Yes, per Mortgagee Letter 2000-05, page 20, the Mortgagee may conduct any review it deems necessary to verify that the property has no physical conditions which adversely impact the Mortgagor’s continued ability to support the modified mortgage payment.

Question 3: Can a Mortgagee include late charges in the Loan Modification?

Answer: Mortgagee Letter 2008-21 states that the goal in providing the Mortgagor a Loan Modification is to bring the delinquent mortgage current and give the Mortgagor a new start, the Mortgagee should waive all accrued late fees.

Question 4: When utilizing a Loan Modification option, can a Mortgagee capitalize an escrow advance for Homeowner’s Association fees?

Answer: HUD Handbook 4330.1 REV-5 (Paragraph 2-1, Section B, Escrow Obligations) states: Mortgagees must also escrow funds for those items which, if not paid, would create liens on the property positioned ahead of the FHA-insured mortgage.

Question 5: Is there a new basis interest rate which Mortgagees may assess when completing a Loan Modification?

Answer: Yes, Mortgagee Letter 2009-35 states that the Mortgagee shall reduce the Loan Modification note rate to the current Market Rate. Please refer to Mortgagee Letter 2009-35 for more details.

Question 6: Are Mortgagees required to re-amortize the total amount due over 360 month period?

Answer: Yes, per Mortgagee Letter 2009-35, the Mortgagee must re-amortize the total unpaid amount due over a 360 month period from the due date of the first installment required under the modified mortgage.

Question 7: What date is utilized when determining the correct interest rate for a Loan Modification?

Answer: The date the Mortgagee approves the Loan Modification (all verification completed and servicing notes documented, reported to SFDMS) is the date that Mortgagees are to use in determining the interest rate.

Question 8: Will HUD subordinate a Partial Claim, should a Mortgagor subsequently default and qualify for a Loan Modification?

Answer: If a Mortgagor subsequently defaults and qualifies for a Loan Modification, HUD will subordinate the Partial Claim.

Question 9: Are Mortgagees required to perform an escrow analysis when completing a Loan Modification?

Answer: Yes, Mortgagees are to perform a retroactive escrow analysis at the time the Loan Modification to ensure that the delinquent payments being capitalized reflect the actual escrow requirements required for those months capitalized.

Question 10: Can a Mortgagee qualify an asset for the Loan Modification option when the Mortgagor is unemployed, the spouse is employed, but the spouse name is not on the mortgage?

Answer: Based upon this scenario, the Mortgagee should conduct a financial review of the household income and expenses to determine if surplus income is sufficient to meet the new modified mortgage payment, but insufficient to pay back the arrearage. Once this process has been completed the Mortgagee should then consult with their legal counsel to determine if the asset is eligible for a Loan Modification since the spouse is not on the original mortgage.

Posted By: Ralph Roberts @ 8:09 am | | Comments (1) | Trackback |
Filed under: Loan Modification,Modified Mortgage Payment.

October 13, 2010

FBI investigates and tips to help prevent you from being victimized

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

October 10, 2010

Major lenders reveal massive mortgage fraud

The recent revelations of massive fraud in the processing of foreclosures by major banks demonstrate the urgent necessity for activists to press the demand for an immediate declaration of a two-year moratorium to halt all foreclosures and evictions in the U.S.

On Sept. 22 it was reported that GMAC announced it was suspending the evictions of homeowners in the 23 states governed by judicial foreclosures. This was followed by similar announcements by JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.

The states affected by this suspension of foreclosure activity are Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.

The basis for these announcements was the uncovering of massive fraud by the banks in the processing of foreclosures. In states covered by judicial foreclosure — where the banks have to take borrowers to court to seize their homes — the lenders were filing motions for summary judgment to speed the process, accompanied by affidavits stating that the signers had personal knowledge that the loans were in fact owned by the bank and were in default.
Foreclosures & lost wealth

Mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures:

State foreclosure projections: 2010: 2.8 million

State foreclosure projections (2009-2012): 9 million

Total state foreclosure starts (Q1-2008 through Q1-2010): 4.9 million

Total state foreclosure sales (Q1-2008 through Q3-2009): 1.3 million

Total state foreclosure inventory (end Q1-2010): 2.1 million

Total state past due mortgages (end Q1-2010): 6.2 million

Annual change in foreclosure starts in the state (ending Q1-2010): -10 %

Change in state foreclosure starts (Q3-2006 to Q1-2010): 162 %
Lost wealth:

U.S. lost home equity wealth due to nearby foreclosures, 2009-2012: $1.9 trillion

Number of homes experiencing foreclosure-related decline: 91.5 million

Average loss per home affected: $20,288

Source: Center for Responsible Lending, August 2010

During legal depositions in several cases, it was revealed that the signers of the affidavits had, in fact, no personal knowledge of the facts being sworn to. They were working for foreclosure mills.

A Sept. 22 New York Times article noted that Jeffery Stephens, working on behalf of GMAC (now Ally Bank), was signing 10,000 affidavits a month over the past last five years despite not having reviewed the files to determine whether banks were entitled to enforce their liens.

The New York Times on Oct. 4 went even further, pointing out that many signatures on the affidavits appeared to be forged and the notarizations improper.

The foreclosure suspensions by GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America were to give them time to clean up their acts. But the revelations of this massive fraud by some of the country’s largest financial institutions are symptomatic of the overall foreclosure crisis devastating the working class.

What can stop the crisis?

Virtually every government program announced to help homeowners with modifications is collapsing. The programs are based on the premise that the same banks that will not even take the time to properly carry out foreclosure activity, which is their primary concern, will treat borrowers who seek loan modifications in a fair manner.

The programs are all based on the borrower calling the lender to request the mandated modification. However, borrowers are stymied by the fact that the lenders either have no one to answer the call, or when they do, the banks routinely deny the modifications in violation of their agreements with the federal government to carry them out.

For example, on Aug. 20 the New York Times reported the collapse of President Barack Obama’s Making Home Affordable modification program. It said that of the 3 million households that were intended to benefit from the program, only one-sixth had actually had their loans modified. In July, some 96,000 individuals were denied permanent modifications, while only 17,000 were placed into new trial modifications, signaling the program’s demise.

In July, the state of Michigan announced it had received $184 million from the federal government for the Helping Hardest Hit Homeowners program, a program geared to keeping unemployed workers in their homes. While the funding for this program has increased to $500 million, the program has been a dismal failure thus far, with only 230 homeowners being helped out of the 30,000 that were expected to qualify.

According to an August report by the Center for Responsible Lending, the home equity wealth lost in the U.S. due to nearby foreclosures for 2009-2012 is projected to be $1.9 trillion. Nine million homes are expected to be lost to foreclosure during the same period.

The immediate necessity is for the federal government to declare a national two-year moratorium on all foreclosures and evictions. With the majority of home loans now either owned or backed up by the federal government through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Authority, President Obama has the authority to declare such a moratorium by executive order.

The time is ripe for housing activists to press this demand in light of the current revelations. Sign the online petition in support of a two-year moratorium at: www.bailoutpeople.org/moratoriumpetition.shtml.

By Jerry Goldberg

Goldberg is an anti-foreclosure attorney and an organizer in the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shutoffs.

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Posted By: Ralph Roberts @ 1:14 am | | Comments (1) | Trackback |
Filed under: Bank of America,Foreclosure,GMAC,JPMorgan Chase & Co,Loan Modification

October 9, 2010

Who Are the Winners and Losers in the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis?

The unfolding foreclosure fraud crisis isn’t easy to understand, but here it is boiled down. Banks need proper documentation to repossess a home from a family. They need documents about everything from the family’s financial situation to its history of missed payments to its assets. And they need to verify that the information in those documents is correct. But they didn’t. They hired individuals to sign thousands of mortgage papers — legal affidavits, swearing to a judge that they had personal knowledge of the information within — without checking a thing.

Only 23 states require a judge to sign off on a foreclosure, but some banks are now stopping foreclosures in all 50 states. Moreover, they are halting the sale of foreclosed properties to new homeowners.

So who stands to gain? And who stands to lose? Let’s go through the possible impacts on major players and markets, one by one.

The winners:

* Homeowners undergoing foreclosure. Borrowers undergoing foreclosure might benefit from the various state moratoriums: The process is stalled for now, meaning some might have a few more months in their homes, and they know they will not be evicted without due process. States and federal agencies might also work with banks to provide principal write-downs and right-to-rent to ameliorate the foreclosure crisis in the meantime.

The losers:

* Recent purchasers of foreclosed homes. A nightmare scenario: Banks probably foreclosed on and evicted families without proper mortgage documentation. It is unclear whether or how courts might overturn those foreclosures. (One expert I spoke with said it would be more likely that the bank would have to offer some sort of restitution to the evicted family, but nobody really knows.) What if you recently bought one of those houses? There’s a whole lot of uncertainty for you, right now.
* The housing market. The fraud crisis looks certain to prolong the foreclosure crisis — dragging out how long families undergoing foreclosure will remain in limbo, and preventing banks from clearing properties off of their books. It seems possible that the foreclosure fraud crisis will weaken an already-weak housing market.
* The banks and investors. This could be a complete catastrophe. For a detailed but clear explanation of the various liabilities, see Mike Konczal’s description of who owns what and who stands to lose — and an explanation of why this might create a new too-big-to-fail scenario. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) also provided a clear explanation to The Washington Post yesterday:

There is massive potential liability for the securitizers, which are mostly the biggest banks. The contract was that if mortgages didn’t meet certain requirements, then the securitizer would buy them back. The mortgage servicers and trustees have exclusive control over the paperwork. Both the investors, the people who own the mortgage-backed securities, and the homeowners, really depend on them. There’s been lots of litigation where investors try to get securitizers to buy back the bad mortgages because they were flawed, but that litigation has been stymied by procedural objections. If the private investors can break through that defense and require the mortgages that don’t meet the requirements to be bought back, the liabilities for the biggest banks will be enormous.

A little of each:

* Communities with concentrations of homes in foreclosure. Good news and bad news. On the one hand, families should be able to stay in their homes until the banks and Washington work out the foreclosure fraud crisis. That will benefit communities with lots of families undergoing foreclosure. On the other hand, neighborhoods with high concentrations of bank-owned properties for sale will see a lot of homes remain vacant, pulled off of the market.
* The courts. State attorney generals — Beau Biden in Delaware, Richard Cordray in Ohio, Tom Miller in Iowa and many others — are going hard after the banks. This looks to be just the first wave of what might be thousands of cases for judges to handle. Many housing advocates argue that judges should have had a more prominent role in foreclosure decisions before, anyway — and this might give new life to cramdown legislation in Washington. But the scandal certainly has the potential to swamp courts and cost billions in legal fees. In that sense, lawyers might be the clearest winner from the whole thing thus far.

By Annie Lowrey

September 30, 2010

The FDIC’s Loan Modification Program

FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General,
Office of Evaluations,
3501 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226-3500
DATE: February 4, 2010

SUBJECT: The FDIC’s Loan Modification Program

This report presents the results of our evaluation of the FDIC’s Loan Modification Program (LMP). In 2008, the FDIC initiated a systematic and streamlined approach to loan modifications at IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB (lndyMac), in order to place borrowers into affordable, long-term mortgages while achieving an improved return for bankers and investors compared to the results of foreclosure. In February 2009, President Obama tasked the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) with program responsibility for developing and implementing uniform guidance for loan modifications across the mortgage industry based, in part, on the FDIC’s work at IndyMac. Since November 2008, the FD IC has required most purchasers of failed bank assets to implement the FDIC’s LMP, Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), or some other loan modification program acceptable to the FDIC.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the FDIC developed the LMP after taking over as conservator for IndyMac to achieve improved value for the IndyMac Federal conservatorship by turning troubled loans into performing loans and, thereby, avoiding unnecessary and costly foreclosures. The FDIC LMP requires that a successful candidate for loan modification result in a (1) positive net present value (NPV) as opposed to a foreclosure option and (2) monthly payment representing no more than 31 percent of the borrower’s gross monthly income, known as the front-end debt-to-income ratio. The FDIC LMP utilizes a “waterfall” approach to reach the 31-percent ratio, by first lowering the borrower’s interest rate, then extending the term of the loan not to exceed 40 years, and finally forbearing principal to the end of the loan period. FDIC officials have noted that a critical characteristic of the FDIC LMP process is that it has to be straightforward and efficient in order to modify a large number of “at-risk” mortgages in a short period of time.

In February 2009, the Obama Administration announced The Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a $75 billion federal program designed to provide for a sweeping loan modification program targeted at borrowers who are at risk of foreclosure. The plan tasked Treasury with developing and implementing uniform guidance for the government’s loan modification efforts. Treasury announced its HAMP guidelines on March 4, 2009, which built on the work of Congressional leaders and the FDIC’s LMP. Treasury’s HAMP uses the FDIC LMP 31-percent “waterfall” process and the NPV test. However, HAMP also provides various incentive payments to the loan servicer and borrower for achieving sustainable loan modifications.

Under Treasury’s HAMP, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) serves as the financial agent and fulfills the role of administrator, record-keeper, and paying agent for the program. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) is the compliance agent for the program and is responsible for ensuring that participating servicers comply with Treasury’s guidelines.

As of August 2009, Treasury had signed Servicer Participation Agreements (SPA) with 38 servicers, who, along with 2,300 servicers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, account for more than 85 percent of the mortgage market.1 In an August 2009 report, Treasury stated that more than 230,000 trial modifications had started and that the program was on pace to help 3 to 4 million homeowners over the next 3 years.

January 25, 2010

California State Bar Authorities Go After Deceptive Attorneys Who Promote Loan Modification Schemes

Over one hundred California Lawyers were charged with loan modification fraud in 2009.

 

“More than 1,200 complaints against California lawyers were filed by the beginning of November regarding loan modification activity,” said Suzan Anderson, supervising trial counsel for the California State Bar loan modification task force. That is up from four filed in December 2008.

 

In April, California became the first state to form a “Bar Task Force” to investigate attorneys who deceive homeowners, collect advance fees, and even forge a judge’s signature while delivering little to distressed mortgage holders.

 

Officials announced Nov. 10, that five more California attorneys have disciplinary charges pending against them alleging that they engaged in loan modification scams.  This brings to 14 the number of lawyers the state bar’s loan modification task force has charged, forced to resign, or put on inactive status.

 

“That’s all we do. I have four other attorneys and eight investigators,” said Anderson. The task force is currently looking at 250 attorneys. (More than 220,000 attorneys are licensed by the California Bar Association.)  Each loan task force investigator oversees about 135 cases. 

 

In 2009, almost 20,000 client files have been removed from the offices of lawyers whose loan modification practices have been shut down or abandoned, the bar said. Investigations are up 69 percent over 2008.

Posted By: Ralph Roberts @ 3:42 pm | | Comments (1) | Trackback |
Filed under: Attorneys,California,Loan Modification,Mortgage Fraud

December 18, 2008

Information on Avoiding Foreclosure

While elected officials in Washington, D.C. were busy bailing out Wall Street, Main Street homeowners were left wondered whether anyone was considering their plight. With the economy crashing down in sectors all around us and unemployment on the rise, now more than ever, millions of homeowners face the daunting prospect of losing their homes to foreclosure.

As you’ll see in the following video from Carol Biaggi of Bloomberg Television/Bloomberg On Demand, missed mortgage payments may not necessarily mean you’ll automatically be forced from your home:

Lenders have a lot of tools at their disposal to help distressed homeowners stay in their home, including loan repayment plans, forbearance programs, and loan modifications. In the weeks and months to come, I’ll provide additional information, tips, analysis, and warnings related to all three options and more. In the meantime, if you have a question or recommendation about loan modification, please free to post it here on FlippingFrenzy.com.

Posted By: Ralph Roberts @ 8:00 pm | | Comments (4) | Trackback |
Filed under: Foreclosure,Loan Modification