# Should bank be reported for increasing salary on mortgage application?



## Timjoe (4 Feb 2021)

In 2007 a mortgage applicant went to a broker with proof of income, of €40,000 per year.  The mortgage was for an expensive piece of land. She gave the broker three years of audited accounts.  Details of her income were left blank on the mortgage application form.  However, some years after taking out the mortgage, the borrower obtained the file from the bank, having made a  Subject Access Report request under the 1988 and 2003 Data Protection Acts.  She was shocked to discover the bank lied about her income.  It went from 40k a year to over 160k a year, despite her accounts, which she had provided to the bank, showing it was 40k a year.  On internal notes the bank said because of the borrowers annual income of over €160,000 she could afford the mortgage.  The borrower was not asked how she would pay for the property, and she always said her income was €40k a year. Maybe in her own mind she thought she could sell it after six months or a year and make some profit. No projections were made. Unsurprisingly it was repossessed and the borrower is now deceased.  Of course the borrower, an uneducated lady of modest means, should not have borrowed the money, but that is beside the point. I am not looking for judgement on the borrower.

As someone in the bank changed her income and invented a figure of over €160,000 per year, presumably to make the sale and get the commission, is that not fraud? If her income was not put down by the bank at 160k, the borrower would not have been able to borrow so much money.  After getting her file years after taking out the mortgage, the borrower asked the bank for an explanation and the bank could not explain it.  In the borrowers file it is all there in black and white, the audited accounts showing 40k per year, and the internal bank letter stating the borrower had an income of about €160,000 per year. and hence could afford the mortgage.  The borrower could not have changed the figure from his audited accounts provided to the figure on internal bank documentation.

Should the matter be reported to the Gardai Fraud department, as someone in the bank benefited, maybe got a commission or a bonus as a result of altering the figure so much, and if white collar crime is not at least investigated, it will happen again? If someone changed documentation, got 5k commission and done it 20 times, that is €100,000. I have seen people go to jail for less. Given what happened to shareholders and borrowers too, there were victims.


----------



## RedOnion (4 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> In 2007 a mortgage applicant went to a broker


Tim,
Can you confirm, was there a broker involved?


----------



## Timjoe (4 Feb 2021)

Yes, the mortgage was arranged through a broker.


----------



## skrooge (4 Feb 2021)

As you've rightly done the first port of call would be the lender. They would be best placed to examine the issue against their own internal policies and checks. To see if they were a victim of fraud. From there they might want to involve the guards. 

Of course lending standards in 2007 were a lot less rigorous then they are now. It was more like the wild West back then. Policies were fairly lose. Remember this was the time when you could get many multiples of income not too mention multiples of potential income. Some banks would lend against potential rental income from renting a room regardless of whether you did it not. Mute rooms more money..... Credit policys were made up in the spot, 100%+ mortgages were much more common than today. A banking crises later things are a lot more sensible. So I doubt you'd find many policies that existed baxk then that apply today


But to play devils advocate:

You mention that audited accounts were provided. Did the borrower run their own business. Were there additional income/revenue accruing to the borrower from business? There might be a legitimate reason why the bank looked beyond a basic salary when assessing their borrowing capacity.

Was there a commercial element to the purchase of the land that might have warranted an assessment of the firm and not just the individual?


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

When the borrower contacted the bank, and obtained the file from the bank, it included getting copies back of the accounts showing annual income of 40k.  The bank could not explain why they stated her annual income was over €160k.  However, they did say they did not think there was fraud involved.  Maybe they were afraid of opening up a can of worms? They did not want to admit a fault on the banks part, as the banks image is bad enough? 

As regards your second paragraph, even though 2007 was a different time, the borrower would not have been lent the money on a salary of 120k never mind 40k...so why did the bank inflate her income to over 160,000 in order to sell the mortgage / get the commission?  Surely white collar crime should be investigated to see if it occurred, especially when there is a paper trail?  If it did happen, surely it should be punished, no matter when it occurred?

Skrooge, the borrower was self employed and the accounts were audited. There was no additional income like rent a room at home or any additional income or business. She was renting a small apartment to live in herself and had no room to rent, no anticipated inheritance or windfalls etc.  And no, there was no firm involved with the borrower, or that the borrower was part of, and no commercial plan sought or provided.  

If changing figures so dramatically on important bank documentation, with life changing consequences, could occur 13 or 14 years ago and went unpunished it could occur again, history always repeats itself as they say, so the more I think about it there is more than one reason for at least reporting suspected white collar crime?  Has anyone else reported such matters to the Garda Fraud dept?


----------



## RedOnion (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> so why did the bank inflate her income to over 160,000 in order to sell the mortgage / get the commission?


There's a reason I asked if a broker was involved.
Who do you think got the commission? Who benefitted from changing the income figure?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Feb 2021)

I would be sure of the facts before escalating the matter.

For slightly more complex cases, banks will look at what a ‘self-employed’ borrower’s income could be if they chose to increase it.

e.g. Say I’ve my own company or business. I may choose to pay myself €40k to use up my 20% rate band and look to accumulate the rest via pension or a deferred retirement relief claim. But let’s say the underlying profits are €160k. I’ve seen banks use the higher figure.

I had one pal whose income was zero because he was taking tax-free loan repayments from his company; eventually a bank saw sense and looked around that.

I’d also be less suspicious about an increase from €40k to €160k than I would be for a smaller jump. It would be such an egregious fraud, my suspicion is that there may be a reasonable explanation.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Should the matter be reported to the Gardai Fraud department, as someone in the bank benefited, maybe got a commission or a bonus as a result of altering the figure so much, and if white collar crime is not at least investigated, it will happen again? If someone changed documentation, got 5k commission and done it 20 times, that is €100,000. I have seen people go to jail for less. Given what happened to shareholders and borrowers too, there were victims.



This will be difficult to impossible for the Gardai to do anything with now that the borrower is no longer with us. The details presented here would be a long way off the requirements to trigger a fraud investigation. 

My own experience talking to brokers back in those days was some were willing to get a little creative (a little, not 4x) in the form-filling, but only in collaboration with the borrower and with the objective of enabling them get the loan they wanted.


----------



## Coldwarrior (5 Feb 2021)

Leo said:


> My own experience talking to brokers back in those days was some were willing to get a little creative (a little, not 4x) in the form-filling


I've heard this said before and don't doubt it, but how were they able to get away with it? Did the banks just take the broker's word on what the mortgage applicant's salary was, without looking for proof via a salary cert etc from their employer?


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Coldwarrior said:


> I've heard this said before and don't doubt it, but how were they able to get away with it? Did the banks just take the broker's word on what the mortgage applicant's salary was, without looking for proof via a salary cert etc from their employer?



Allowances, bonuses, share options, the banks were busy riding a wave and fighting for market share at that point, there was likely a lot less scrutiny of the details than there is now.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

RedOnion said:


> There's a reason I asked if a broker was involved.
> Who do you think got the commission? Who benefitted from changing the income figure?



The bank has not said how much commission the broker got, or if the person in the bank who approved the mortgage got a bonus or commission for reaching a target or whatever. Any proper investigation should uncover who was at fault.



Gordon Gekko said:


> I would be sure of the facts before escalating the matter.
> 
> For slightly more complex cases, banks will look at what a ‘self-employed’ borrower’s income could be if they chose to increase it.
> e.g. Say I’ve my own company or business. I may choose to pay myself €40k to use up my 20% rate band and look to accumulate the rest via pension or a deferred retirement relief claim. But let’s say the underlying profits are €160k. I’ve seen banks use the higher figure.



I have seen the 3 years of annual accounts, they are very simple. There was no ltd company, no pension, no deferred retirement relief claims, no bonuses, no shares, no share options, no complications. The self employed persons income per year was 40k and her accounts and accountant confirmed that. The bank has failed to explain why they used an annual figure of over 160k. It could hardly have been a mistake when they had clear copies of the accounts and a letter stating the borrowers annual income was 40k. Luckily it is all in the file.


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

I'd start with the broker, kind of unlikely the form arrived into underwriters incomplete with sections re income unfilled so who filled in the income amounts?   Most underwriting departments would not be on commission as they are not direct sales, might have a bonus structure alright based on processing loans but it's the broker who gets the commission


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

Plus what exactly was the mortgage for, 'an expensive piece of land', what's that?  A site to build on, farming land, something else?  Was there an expected income from the land or some plan for it?   Sounds like a commercial proposal of some sort as if a site then where was the money to build the house going to come from as seemed person was over extended even at the increased 'income' amount.


----------



## RedOnion (5 Feb 2021)

You haven't put any figures in this, but you've said an income of 120k wouldn't have been enough to borrow, so we're talking well in excess of 500k?

Any broker would not have submitted an application for that amount on an income of 40k, because they'd be wasting their time.

In my opinion, there's more to this than shared here.

Write to the fraud department of the bank. They've clearly been the victims of fraud, and might want to initiate an investigation.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Should the matter be reported to the Gardai Fraud department



No. 

The events took place a long time ago. You are a third party. The borrower is deceased and not around to give evidence. Memories of everyone involved will have faded. Most of what you have is paperwork which will be open to interpretation. The chance of a successful prosecution is very low.


----------



## elcato (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Details of her income were left blank on the mortgage application form.


By whom ? Why was this not filled in by the applicant ?


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Monbretia said:


> I'd start with the broker, kind of unlikely the form arrived into underwriters incomplete with sections re income unfilled so who filled in the income amounts?



Little point in doing that though, why would the broker discuss details of a transaction the OP had no part in? Even if they were foolish enough to engage, and then doubly foolish to release something incriminatory, the Gardai are almost certain to do nothing. If there was fraud here, it's between the broker and the bank, so one of those parties would need to make a formal complaint.


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

Leo said:


> Little point in doing that though, why would the broker discuss details of a transaction the OP had no part in?



Well that is true but my point was there is an intermediary here between customer and bank and the intermediary submitted the application so first port of call for whoever is investigating it.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Monbretia said:


> I'd start with the broker, kind of unlikely the form arrived into underwriters incomplete with sections re income unfilled so who filled in the income amounts?


Yes, the form did arrive in to the bank with sections unfilled, and in the file obtained from the bank years afterwards the income section is still unfilled. The broker said they just sent off the form with three years accounts.



RedOnion said:


> Any broker would not have submitted an application for that amount on an income of 40k, because they'd be wasting their time.


It slipped through the net in 2007 anyway, and the bank made the sale of their product and the broker more than likely got their commission.



RedOnion said:


> Write to the fraud department of the bank. They've clearly been the victims of fraud, and might want to initiate an investigation.


The late borrower did write to the bank who said they did not consider it fraud, but neither did they give any explanation for the discrepancy in the figures, even when provided with copies of the accounts and loan documents.  The broker did not deal with the bank for very long and no longer does so. It was the borrowers wish before she passed away that it should be investigated properly, so it would not happen again, and any white collar crime should be investigated and punished. Perhaps the bank was afraid to open a can of worms, and possibly unearth other similar cases?


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

Again what was the mortgage for?  It doesn't sound like an ordinary type mortgage?

If there was nothing filled in income wise then surely there was a covering letter or something to explain income, no one would submit an application for the large amount you imply with a salary cert of 40k, there is more to this story somewhere.


----------



## RedOnion (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Perhaps the bank was afraid to open a can of worms, and possibly unearth other similar cases?


You haven't said which bank it was, but I'm aware of a number of investigations into areas like this, a few leading to prosecutions. But it's a long time since I saw one. The banks are the victim here, so I can't see any reason they'd want to brush it under the carpet?

It's unusual that this is all coming to light years after the property was repossessed. It should have been investigated / challenged at that time. In fact, it's at that stage a number of 'irregularaties' came to light and led to banks investigating specific brokers (and staff in one case I'm aware of).


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The late borrower did write to the bank who said they did not consider it fraud,  ...
> It was the borrowers wish before she passed away that it should be investigated properly, so it would not happen again, and any white collar crime should be investigated and punished. Perhaps the bank was afraid to open a can of worms, and possibly unearth other similar cases?



So the bank, who were the only possible victim of this claimed fraud said that they're happy it wasn't fraud. I'm afraid it's time to drop it and move on.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Leo said:


> If there was fraud here, it's between the broker and the bank, so one of those parties would need to make a formal complaint.


The fraud or mistake, call it what you will, affected the borrower, because if the bank acted properly her life would have been completely different. The broker was appointed by the bank to sell its products. If someone in the bank invented the annual income figure over 160k, why would the broker make a formal complaint, as you suggest? 



RedOnion said:


> The banks are the victim here, so I can't see any reason they'd want to brush it under the carpet?


Not sure if banks are really the biggest victim if they got their money in the end. Certainly they made a mistake, who know what action they took against the bank employee involved, who approved the loan? The banks image is bad enough without admitting to the public what went on in a small minority of case, how bad bank checks were etc.




Monbretia said:


> Again what was the mortgage for?


A piece of land, of all things. As I said earlier,she should not have borrowed the money, but that is beside the point. I am not looking for judgement on the borrower. 



Monbretia said:


> If there was nothing filled in income wise then surely there was a covering letter or something to explain income



The bank were good enough to return the covering letter in the file, when the file was requested years later, which said her annual income was 40k. No surprise the bank long since has stopped selling its products through this broker. 

 It appears to me the bank needs to be investigated, for peace of mind if nothing else.  Could a close relative of the deceased borrower submit the file to the Gardai Fraud dept I wonder? No harm asking them I suppose.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

She borrowed the money.

Did she not realise that she was borrowing money? 

Did she not know that she would have to repay it? 

The lender should look into the accusation that one of their staff committed a fraud on the bank.

But there was no fraud on your friend.

She knew what she was doing.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

error


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The bank has not said how much commission the broker got, or if the person in the bank who approved the mortgage got a bonus or commission for reaching a target or whatever. Any proper investigation should uncover who was at fault.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the 3 years of annual accounts, they are very simple. There was no ltd company, no pension, no deferred retirement relief claims, no bonuses, no shares, no share options, no complications. The self employed persons income per year was 40k and her accounts and accountant confirmed that. The bank has failed to explain why they used an annual figure of over 160k. It could hardly have been a mistake when they had clear copies of the accounts and a letter stating the borrowers annual income was 40k. Luckily it is all in the file.



What about other income?


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> In 2007 a mortgage applicant went to a broker with proof of income, of €40,000 per year.
> The mortgage was for an expensive piece of land.
> She was shocked to discover the bank lied about her income.  It went from 40k a year to over 160k a year,



I think posters on here are getting this entirely wrong
- Dead borrower
- Tim is not related
- It's 14 years later, presumably statute barred
- what can be hoped to be achieved now, we all know it was the Wilde Whest back then

The questions to ask are:
- Why does Tim not want us to comment on the borrower
- Why was a person on 40K applying for a loan that only someone on 160K could hope to buy
- Did the bank lose money on this, bet they did, 2007, for sure.  
- How did someone on 40K who could not afford to repay something based on an 160K income pay even the first month's repayments
- How much was borrowed, not a word on that
- Nor what exactly was purchased for what reason
- What difference does any of this have to Tim, what does he hope to achieve


----------



## Pugmister (5 Feb 2021)

I know of someone who paid a employee of a bank €2500 in order to get mortgage approval in recent years. Apparently said individual operated this operation as a side line business and his number was passed around tradesmen who often found it difficult to get mortgage approval. Apparently the bank has 1000's of mortgages on their books based on falsified earnings that they are unaware of. The bank employee has since left the country but he did warn the party that i know if they ever missed a payment then the activity would be discovered.


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

But 'a piece of land' is not a sufficient answer, to make any sense of the loan application one would need to understand more of the borrowers reasoning in applying for this mortgage as she is not here to tell us!   We are only hearing some of the story second hand so the bank side makes no sense but then we don't know the whole story.

In fairness your friend hardly was dragged in off the street and made apply for the mortgage, for some reason she wanted it I presume and instigated the procedure, if she didn't then there is again more to the story.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> What about other income?


As said before, no other income, no investments, no shares, no complications.  As said before, her total income was €40,000 per year.  In that ball park, give or take a few euro. The audited accounts had and has the specific figures.


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

Coldwarrior said:


> I've heard this said before and don't doubt it, but how were they able to get away with it? Did the banks just take the broker's word on what the mortgage applicant's salary was, without looking for proof via a salary cert etc from their employer?


This is how
- fake P60's, easily done
- no checking of income
- relying on any figure popped out of thin air
- allowing imaginary income as income, rental income and what not

And yes I know of in my own family and friends of the above. The banks couldn't dish it out fast enough, including to me.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> As said before, no other income, no investments, no shares, no complications.  As said before, her total income was €40,000 per year.  In that ball park, give or take a few euro. The audited accounts had and has the specific figures.



Just playing devil’s advocate, how do you know on the basis that the person is deceased? I’d leave it be. It’s 14 years ago and the person is no longer with us.


----------



## Monbretia (5 Feb 2021)

Definitely broker loans were easily slipped through, lots of fake p60s/payslips/salary forms etc back in the day.   There was a time when there was not follow up on them, I spent a day in lending dept of big bank and some of the senior underwriters told me that even though they had drawn attention to applications that looked dodgy to them they were just told if you don't like it you know where the door is!   But at least in those cases there was some sort of logic to the applications in that the paperwork and reason for lending was there, it just wasn't accurate.

Still though this story makes little sense as in most mortgages are for property of some kind, site/house/commercial and not just a random piece of land without a further plan.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> I think posters on here are getting this entirely wrong
> - Tim is not related


I am actually.  Not that it matters much.



Bronte said:


> - what can be hoped to be achieved now, we all know it was the Wilde Whest back then


It was the wishes of the deceased so it would not happen again / happen to others. And surely all possible white collar fraud should be investigated, you would agree with that?  And even if it was the Wilde Whest back then, should not all those who altered figures so dramatically with life changing consequences be investigated?  Your attitude is a bit like saying "if sex abuse happened back then, shure what can be hoped to be achieved now, we know it was endemic back then"



Bronte said:


> The questions to ask are:
> - Why does Tim not want us to comment on the borrower


She is deceased, you can comment if you want but it is not relevant to the question of submitting the file to the Garda Fraud dept.  She knew she should not have borrowed the money.



Bronte said:


> - Why was a person on 40K applying for a loan that only someone on 160K could hope to buy


In 2007 people got carried away.



Bronte said:


> - Did the bank lose money on this, bet they did, 2007, for sure.


Land did not fall as much as some housing. The land was repossessed, the borrower lost whatever savings she put in to the mortgage and insurance covered the rest, as far as I know.  So the bank did not lose money.



Bronte said:


> - How did someone on 40K who could not afford to repay something based on an 160K income pay even the first month's repayments


Savings and a 30k inheritance.



Bronte said:


> - How much was borrowed, not a word on that


I do not want to identify the borrower and do not see it of relevance.



Bronte said:


> - Nor what exactly was purchased for what reason


I guess she thought it was going up in value and a good place for her 30k inheritance etc. Maybe she hoped to sell it after a year. The bank neglected to ask her how she proposed to pay back the loan.



Bronte said:


> - What difference does any of this have to Tim, what does he hope to achieve


For peace of mind, to carry out the wishes of the deceased borrower who handed the file to me, to help ensure it does not happen again, and because it greatly negatively affected the borrowers life.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The fraud or mistake, call it what you will, affected the borrower, because if the bank acted properly her life would have been completely different. The broker was appointed by the bank to sell its products.



It's common in these circumstances that borrowers seek to blame others for their own poor decisions. But banks carry out income and affordability assessments to protect their interests, not the borrowers. Borrowers are advised to take independent advice. Unless the broker approached the borrower, put a gun to their head and forced them to take out a loan they didn't want and couldn't afford, you have no case here. 

Otherwise, what we have is a borrower approaching a broker asking them to arrange a loan for them, and the broker then allegedly deceiving the bank in order get the borrower the loan they asked for. It is highly unlikely you have a full picture of all that transpired here, so you may be relying on the one-sided evidence that the borrower has chosen to share. Their view on the transaction was likely coloured by the subsequent repossession. 



Timjoe said:


> If someone in the bank invented the annual income figure over 160k, why would the broker make a formal complaint, as you suggest?



I clearly didn't suggest that. If someone in the bank invested the figure, then it is the bank who could take action against that person. They have already said they see no issue with this case, and as such you are honestly wasting any energy taking this further.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> And surely all possible white collar fraud should be investigated, you would agree with that?



Your fundamental issue is you have no evidence that any fraud was perpetrated here.


----------



## EmmDee (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Should the matter be reported to the Gardai Fraud department,



According to your account, the only possible victim of a fraud was the bank. They have already said they don't want to persue a fraud claim so I don't know why you want to report a fraud on a thid party who have said they don't consider it fraud.

If you feel your relative was missold something, that isn't fraud. But you'd have to show that they didn't know they were getting a mortgage they couldn't afford. And, even though you haven't provided details, let's say they were applying for a €500k mortgage on a €40k income, it would be a stretch to claim they didn't know that was unusual - irrespective of what numbers were filled in what boxes. The very fact that they applied for a mortgage way beyond what could be normally expected would imply they weren't missold.

So if there is any fraud to be reported, it would be that your relative made a fradulant mortgage application. If a bank employee or a broker was complicit, it is still up to the bank to decide whether they chase it up. You don't have a role in it


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Leo said:


> Your fundamental issue is you have no evidence that any fraud was perpetrated here.


Wrong.  It is in the file.  Her accounts, plain as day.  And the banks annual income figure for her, plain as day. The bank would not explain the massive difference. Why was that do you think?

Quote from original post : "In 2007 a mortgage applicant went to a broker with proof of income, of €40,000 per year. The mortgage was for an expensive piece of land. She gave the broker three years of audited accounts. Details of her income were left blank on the mortgage application form. However, some years after taking out the mortgage, the borrower obtained the file from the bank, having made a Subject Access Report request under the 1988 and 2003 Data Protection Acts. She was shocked to discover the bank lied about her income. It went from 40k a year to over 160k a year, despite her accounts, which she had provided to the bank, showing it was 40k a year. On internal notes the bank said because of the borrowers annual income of over €160,000 she could afford the mortgage."



EmmDee said:


> According to your account, the only possible victim of a fraud was the bank.


The bank got their money in the end. It was the borrowers life which was hugely negatively affected. Her main wish though was that it should not happen to others. She did not want to see other lives destroyed or history repeat itself. And justice should be done in any possible white collar fraud cases, would you not agree? And if someone got a commission or bonus as a result of white collar fraud, they should be punished, no?



EmmDee said:


> it would be that your relative made a fradulant mortgage application.


You can say what you want about her, but she did not say or do anything fraudulant. The file shows that. She provided the broker with three years accounts as requested and even furnished a letter saying her income was 40k a year, and asked the broker could she borrow the money. She never denied that.  As said earlier, she was shocked years later to discover the bank lied about her income. She always behaved truthfully but was no expert in financial matters. If she was, she would probably not have earned only 40k a year and passed away without any assets.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Wrong.  It is in the file.  Her accounts, plain as day.  And the banks annual income figure for her, plain as day. The bank would not explain the massive difference. Why was that do you think?



I'm afraid nothing you have posted here comes close to suggesting sufficient evidence of fraud exists. 



Timjoe said:


> It was the borrowers life which was hugely negatively affected. Her main wish though was that it should not happen to others.



You need to separate out a suggestion of fraud relating commission and the borrower's personal responsibility for taking out a loan they requested. Tens of thousands of people took out loans they ultimately could not afford, that is not fraud.


----------



## _OkGo_ (5 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> How much was borrowed, not a word on that





Timjoe said:


> I do not want to identify the borrower and do not see it of relevance.



It is probably the only thing of relevance and will in no way identify the person. It doesn't have to be exact but even a ballpark figure would help to understand if this was normal for the time or potentially fraudulent.

It doesn't sound fraudulent. The income could have been inflated by 'projections' of increased income from the investment. For example if that was farming land purchased for €1m then they could reasonably have expected an significant increase in income. The rules were not as strict back then so it may be very hard to prove anything fraudulent. The bank probably wrote it off as a bad loan.


----------



## Sunny (5 Feb 2021)

I don't get what the OP is looking for. Looking at the above it would appear that the bank was the victim of fraud from either the broker or both the broker and borrower. The relative applied for loan. Even if the broker committed fraud, it doesn't absolve the relative from personal responsibility with regard to the loan and the repayments. 

I am sorry that the person struggled to make the repayments and life was hard on the back of an ill-advised loan but I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve.  As others have said, move on. The system has changed so that those sort of unverified wishy washy applications are finished (for a few years anyway until sub prime makes a comeback!). You are not going to get anywhere.


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The fraud or mistake, call it what you will, affected the borrower, because if the bank acted properly her life would have been completely different.



There is no such thing as reckless lending.  The borrower was an adult and society rightly or wrongly, society assumes that they are capable of action in their own interests.  You'd have a better chance of arguing that the borrower did not have the capacity to enter into the contract than this nonsense.

Fraud relates to the obtaining of money by deception, the bank lent the money and according to you the borrower acted with integrity, so no basis for a complaint.  The dealings between the bank, it's employees and third party brokers is their business, it's up to them to decide if they wish to make a complaint.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> It was the borrowers life which was hugely negatively affected. Her main wish though was that it should not happen to others. She did not want to see other lives destroyed or history repeat itself.



Hi Tim

If the bank had not put in an income of €160k , but had lent her the money based on the accounts showing €40k, would she have been happy? 

Brendan


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If the bank had not put in an income of €160k , but had lent her the money based on the accounts showing €40k, would she have been happy?



Nail on the head and good question. The bank would not, or certainly should not, have lent her money based on her income of €40k.  I think what annoyed the borrower most was that someone in the bank slyly behind her back put down her annual salary at over 160k, and assessed the loan accordingly, and got a commission or bonus or promotion or big salary or whatever as a result.  Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different. I suppose years ago, people trusted the Church and the Banks to act properly and honestly, and not to destroy lives. She knew she applied for loan. Even if the banker or their broker committed fraud - as appears likely as they could not come up with an explanation - it did not absolve the borrower from personal responsibility with regard to the loan and the repayments. She knew that.  
She did not want it happening to others and wanted all suspected white collar fraud investigated, and if necessary punished. I guess everyone would be in agreement there.  Well, everyone who was not involved in changing figures at someone elses expense.


----------



## EmmDee (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> wanted all suspected white collar fraud investigated, and if necessary punished. I guess everyone would be in agreement there.  Well, everyone who was not involved in changing figures at someone elses expense.



There isn't fraud. Also, she made the application. If the aim is to spare others what she went through then I suggest promoting sensible borrowing and urging people not to borrow beyond their means.

Was she not aware of how much she applied for? When the bank wrote the cheque, did she go back and say "there seems to be some mistake - you shouldn't lend me this much"? If the mortgage application had been tampered with to change the amount requested, then there would be a bigger question - ultimately, her signature went on the form. She was responsible for the amount requested. The income statement (or any other evidence) is just secondary documentation.


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> She knew she should not have borrowed the money.  In 2007 people got carried away.  Land did not fall as much as some housing. The land was repossessed, the borrower lost whatever savings she put in to the mortgage and insurance covered the rest, as far as I know.  So the bank did not lose money.  Savings and a 30k inheritance.
> 
> I do not want to identify the borrower and do not see it of relevance.
> 
> ...



You're very vague as to answering important questions yet you are certain in your conviction your relation was defrauded.  

How much did your relative put into the land purchase. 
How much did the land costs. 
How much did she borrow.  
What were the repayments.  
How do you know the bank neglected to ask her how she was going to repay the loan - that makes zero sense.  You have all the paperwork. Over what term and for what repayments was the loan.  

Round figures will mean she won't be identified, even full details would hardly identify her.  We don't know what province never mind county.  

Do you not think she was pretty stupid taking out a loan you think she could never repay.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> Do you not think she was pretty stupid taking out a loan you think she could never repay.


Of course she was very stupid. She was not a financial expert, far from it.



EmmDee said:


> she made the application.
> Was she not aware of how much she applied for?


Of course she did and of course she was aware of how much she applied for.  She was very stupid and did not think beyond the year her savings and inheritance would last in repayments, and like many others thought property was going to go up for ever, and if there was to be a landing it would be a soft landing.



Bronte said:


> How do you know the bank neglected to ask her how she was going to repay the loan - that makes zero sense.  You have all the paperwork.


On the bank paperwork it just says she could afford to repay the loan from her existing annual income of over €160,000.



EmmDee said:


> There isn't fraud.



So if, as certainly appears to be the case, someone in the bank changed figures from €40,000 per annum to over €160,000 per annum, in order to sell the loan and therefore get commission or bonus or whatever and therefore selfishly profit as a result, to the detriment of borrower / shareholders / insurance company / whoever, as they would have known it was not sustainable, that was not fraud?  I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or  "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
"deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage"  What definition of fraud have you got?


----------



## RedOnion (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> I think what annoyed the borrower most was that someone in the bank slyly behind her back put down her annual salary at over 160k, and assessed the loan accordingly, and got a commission or bonus or promotion or big salary or whatever as a result





Timjoe said:


> I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
> "deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage" What definition of fraud have you got?


You're ignoring the fact that the broker did alright out of it too!  In terms of commissions, where a broker was involved, the commission went to the broker. They would have received about 1% of the amount drawn depending on the structure they agreed with the bank.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different.



Sorry Tim. That is nonsense.

Had she not borrowed the money, her life would have been very different. 

It is not the bank's fault. It is her fault. 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Of course she was very stupid. She was not a financial expert, far from it.
> 
> Of course she did and of course she was aware of how much she applied for.  She was very stupid and did not think beyond the year her savings and inheritance would last in repayments, and like many others thought property was going to go up for ever, and if there was to be a landing it would be a soft landing.


If her income of €40K could not hope to make repayments why on earth did she apply for a loan in the first place.  

Did she not have to use her savings and inheritance to purchase the bit of land.  

What would have made the land go up in value.  Was it farmland, a site, what?


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or  "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
> "deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage"  What definition of fraud have you got?



Sounds to me it was your relative who was up to getting money she couldn't hope to repay (wrongful or criminal deception, plus deceipt or trickery)  in a get rich mad scheme. (financial gain + personal gain + profit, to gain unfair or dishonest advantage). By committing fraud (false income) on the bank.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> Sounds to me it was your relative who was up to getting money she couldn't hope to repay (wrongful or criminal deception,


Maybe she hoped to sell it after a year?  No law against that.



Bronte said:


> By committing fraud (false income) on the bank.


She did not commit "fraud (false income) on the bank".  She submitted her audited accounts with a letter stating her income was €40k a year.  She only discovered years later the bank stated it was over €160k.  The income box was left blank on the application form, and was still blank on the copy received from the bank years later.



"Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different"


Brendan Burgess said:


> Sorry Tim. That is nonsense.


How is it nonsense?  Do you think "the bank acted  properly and honestly in assessing her application"?
Yes or No?
And if they had acted properly and honestly, do you really think they would have made the loan to someone on an income of €40k?





Brendan Burgess said:


> Had she not borrowed the money, her life would have been very different.


Correct.  And well she knew that.




Brendan Burgess said:


> It is not the bank's fault. It is her fault.


It was her fault for asking to borrow the money, and she paid a heavy price for that.  Given that records show she had no part in it, she cannot be blamed though for the "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" on the part of the banker or bankers who changed her income from 40k to over 160k for his or their selfish gain.

Do you think suspected white collar fraud should be investigated or not, and what sentences if any would you envisage for anyone found guilty?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> It was her fault for asking to borrow the money, and she paid a heavy price for that.



Brilliant. Well done!  She was the sole cause of her own problems. She made a speculative investment.  She borrowed the money. It didn't turn out the way she hoped.   She ruined her own life.

Brendan


----------



## Pinoy adventure (5 Feb 2021)

Tim if the bank put any figure down on any paperwork which did not match what was provided by the borrower there is a real concern,as if they don't it on 1 rest assured they done it on many.
Is it fraud maybe not but it should not of happened in the first place.
Im guessing back then things got passed so quickly small things like this may have being overlooked by brokers/banks.
As some describe it as the Wild West back then,being on the receiving end of it is never nice (I lost thousands via BoI ) but that's a whole other matter but I did in fact call the guards about it which I made made too look like I was the bad guy.
I was told I signed up for sumthing but they could not provide me or show me where I had signed on the application form so what they told me was incorrect.

The bank should find out who put the figure down but that person could be long gone.


----------



## SGWidow (5 Feb 2021)

I think it needs to be recognised that based on OP's statements, there is the possibility that the bank acted inappropriately here. Let's not, for now, get caught up on the precise meaning of fraud. It's interesting how many posters have not acknowledged this possibility. 

Let me ask a question. Suppose the bank did adjust the income figure, what do people make of that? Specifically, should the bank be sanctioned?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

Hi SG

It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately.  The bank should sanction that employee. 

If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned. 

But it's a bit late now.

Brendan


----------



## Pinoy adventure (5 Feb 2021)

Hi SG

It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately.  The bank should sanction that employee.

If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.

But it's a bit late now.

Brendan
[/QUOTE]


Brendan do you know of any cases apart from the Anglo case/s that had any staff or management sanctioned for wrong doing ?


----------



## SGWidow (5 Feb 2021)

Thanks Brendan,

It is convenient for banks to espouse the LHOswald lone wolf approach. Reminds me of Soc Gen's reaction when the Kerviel story broke - you'd have almost sworn that he never actually worked for them.

Truth is that for the loan wolf to doctor a file to such an extent, the pack aided by action or inaction. For it to have happened, there certainly would not have been sufficient controls.


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately.  The bank should sanction that employee.
> 
> If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.
> 
> But it's a bit late now.


 
A bit late now?  Surely all suspected white collar fraud should be investigated?   If one case was investigated properly, it may unearth other cases.  Peoples lives were affected, and the sums of money were not small.
Banks, Teachers, the Church were once all respected and trusted to act properly and honestly; if instances are discovered where they did not, or if they falsified figures to the detriment of others in the long run, surely they should be investigated and punished, no matter how long ago?  Otherwise history repeats itself?

The bank failed to explain the discrepancy between the 40k and the over 160k.  Should they be allowed get away with that?


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Feb 2021)

SGWidow said:


> I think it needs to be recognised that based on OP's statements, there is the possibility that the bank acted inappropriately here. Let's not, for now, get caught up on the precise meaning of fraud. It's interesting how many posters have not acknowledged this possibility.
> 
> Let me ask a question. Suppose the bank did adjust the income figure, what do people make of that? Specifically, should the bank be sanctioned?



No, lets get involved in the precise meaning on fraud and criminal acts.  It totally unacceptable to expect that you can go around accusing people of wrong doing base on whatever definition suits you and expect not to be called out on it.  

If you want a serious discussion, then you need to be serious.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The bank failed to explain the discrepancy between the 40k and the over 160k. Should they be allowed get away with that?



It's not a question of getting away with it. 

You think it's fraud. Guess what? We have a fraud squad. Report it to them. 

I hope that given the limited resources, they are looking at people who are carrying out much bigger frauds much more recently. 

In the greater scheme of things, changing the salary on an internal form so that a borrower could be given a loan which they applied for through their broker, is just not investigating. 

The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud.  

If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.

There were far more frauds perpetrated on the banks by their customers. And no, every fake P60 from 13 years ago should not be investigated.

Brendan


----------



## Timjoe (5 Feb 2021)

Jim2007 said:


> lets get involved in the precise meaning on fraud



3 random definitions of fraud, from dictionaries, would be "
"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"
or "the crime of getting money by deceiving people"
or "deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage"

All could apply to someone who deceives others ( by using the 160k figure rather than the 40k figure from the accounts ) to gain commission or bonus or reach a target or whatever. I assume that is why you think all suspected cases need to be investigated?



Jim2007 said:


> The dealings between the bank, it's employees and third party brokers is their business, it's up to them to decide if they wish to make a complaint.


Actually the Gardai disagree with you there.  On their website say "it is better to err on the side of caution and report the matter to your local Garda Station".   Not only that, but in answer to the question "I am not a victim of fraud however I believe a fraud may have been committed against another person or company " they replied "Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 2011 places a legal obligation on anyone to report to An Garda Síochána, information relating to possible frauds which they may know or believe might prevent the fraud being committed, or secure the apprehension prosecution or conviction of a person involved in fraudulent activity." 



Brendan Burgess said:


> The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud.


Surely that is all the more reason to investigate all suspected fraud as cases arise, and punish the offenders. It would act as a deterrent to others in the future.  Either you are for the law or you are not.  You saying "The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud." is like saying the sex crimes squad would be very busy if they investigated every sex crime. 

 I have seen people in local papers (a supermarket employee) prosecuted for stealing a bar of chocolate from his employer. That sent a message to other supermarket employees. And you think the Gardai would or should not be interested in a bank employee deceiving others, perhaps on different occasions, resulting in a vastly greater financial gain? Who knows what other cases may be unearthed? Would it not be in the public interest, as there is no such thing as a victimless crime? 

Anyway, thanks for all your help, I think for peace of mind it should be reported and the Gardai can decide to investigate or not.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Feb 2021)

But the bank is a victim of any fraud that has taken place?


----------



## Clamball (6 Feb 2021)

Your relative applied for a loan to buy a parcel of land she planned to flip in 12 months.  
She knew she could not service the loan with her income but was willing to risk her savings and inheritance to make a profit.
Amazingly she got the loan and progressed with her scheme but after 12/18 months realised her get rich quick plan had failed.

And now 14 years later it is all the bank fault.  Hardly, she did not make good decisions and took on debt with no plan B or C.

I remember back in those days 2000-2007/8 it was easy to get money from the banks, pre-approved credit cards, calculators showing you could borrow €500K etc.  We took out a loan to do up our house, we saw the offers of attractive money.  We got out our calculator and did a few back of envelop calculations and laughed.  There was no way we were going to commit to €2K a month loan repayment, we didn’t have to nerve, we were risk averse.

Your relative wasn’t, if this bank had said no, she would have gone to other lenders or brokers until she got her money.  And yes it is sad that one bad decision cause her lifelong grief but she probably had multiple opportunities to say no from the time her application was made until the purchase was made.  She is not the first or last person to make a bad decision.

The bank writing €160K in a box instead of €40K is not a fraud.


----------



## SGWidow (6 Feb 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.



It is possible that "an employee" acted as a lone wolf.

It is not certain that this was the case - so why present it so? [Remember in the mid noughties, a certain bank "lodged" billions in another bank to massage the finances and did so on the understanding the Regulator was, at the very least, potentially aware of this to and fro! So, forgive me, if I believe that the OP's version of events could well be true!]

I find the lack of qualification in the quoted line curious and, frankly, smacking of bias!

With the benefit of historical hindsight, the bank may have done things differently here or not at all?!

I accept that mine is a minority view!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.





SGWidow said:


> I find the lack of qualification in the quoted line curious and, frankly, smacking of bias!



Sorry Widow, but your memory is either selective or biased.



Brendan Burgess said:


> It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately. The bank should sanction that employee.
> 
> If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.


----------



## skrooge (6 Feb 2021)

SGWidow said:


> It is possible that "an employee" acted as a lone wolf.


Or a "loan wolf" 

... I'll let myself out....


----------



## SGWidow (6 Feb 2021)

That's my point, Brendan!

You had already acknowledged the possibilities - prompted by my earlier post! But then choose to revert to the standard-type narrative! Curious.

Anyway, let the record show that it is possible that the bank acted inappropriately way back when.

Nice one skrooge - I was wondering whether anyone would spot the singular error in what I posted! 

Have a nice weekend everyone!


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> It would act as a deterrent to others in the future.  Either you are for the law or you are not.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for all your help, I think for peace of mind it should be reported and the Gardai can decide to investigate or not.



Good luck with wasting the time of the Gardai.

Sounds to me there was nothing going to deter your relative from deciding to try and make a fortune based on income she didn't have, to purchase land she shouldn't have bought, in a get rich scheme, based on borrowings she couldn't afford, and crying afterwards while seeking to blame everybody else.

Despite being asked many times you have not once told us whether she put her savings and inheritance into the original purchase. 

There is no difference in what she did than those involved in Pyramid Schemes.  Or going into Paddy Power with borrowed money to put it on a sure thing.  (that's a story I posted on here at the height of Celtic Tiger madness when a friend of my husband borrowed 45K off the Credit union to go betting.).  Your relative gambled, she knew exactly what she was doing and she cried when it didn't work out for her.  The country is littered with such people.  One thing most of them have in common is they never own up to the truth of their own culpability.  

You are doing yourself no favours here, nor are you doing your dead relative a favour.  She needed to own her mistake and so do you.  Get over it.

There is no legislating for stupid.


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Anyway, let the record show that it is possible that the bank acted inappropriately way back when.


This website is full of such acknowledgements. It's true, banks acted inappropriately.  The Irish people were let down by the politicians, the banks, the Central Bank, the regulators.  Banks allowed fake P60's, inflated figures you name it they did.  What they did not do was march people into brokers to demand money.


----------



## SGWidow (6 Feb 2021)

For the avoidance of doubt, let me qualify so, Bronte.

Let the record show that it is _possible_ that the bank acted inappropriately way back when in relation to this particular case!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Feb 2021)

The Central Bank lending rules weren’t there in 2007. People didn’t necessarily need income to get a loan.


----------



## SGWidow (6 Feb 2021)

I'm struggling to understand the reticence of posters to accept that there was _potentially_ wrong-doing by the bank. That is all I'm saying.

Take Gordon's latest post. 

The implication of it seems to be that the doctoring of the income had negligible, if not zero, materiality. I am not convinced by that! 

My question to Gordon is - why would a career banker falsify the records / accept unsupported income without any benefit?


----------



## Timjoe (6 Feb 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The Central Bank lending rules weren’t there in 2007. People didn’t necessarily need income to get a loan.


People with no income did not get big loans to buy property or land either. The banks were answerable to their shareholders and only lent money, or were supposed to lend money, when they thought there was a good chance of getting it back.  I put it to you that the unscrupulous person or persons who changed the borrowers income from 40k to over 160k, and wrote that the borrowers income of over 160k would service the loan, must have had a short-sighted selfish reason why he, she or they deceived others - probably commission, bonus, reaching target or promotion?



SGWidow said:


> It is possible that "an employee" acted as a lone wolf.
> 
> It is not certain that this was the case - so why present it so? [Remember in the mid noughties, a certain bank "lodged" billions in another bank to massage the finances and did so on the understanding the Regulator was, at the very least, potentially aware of this to and fro! So, forgive me, if I believe that the OP's version of events could well be true!]
> 
> With the benefit of historical hindsight, the bank may have done things differently here or not at all?!


Exactly, an investigation is needed to establish is this practice was widespread, or if the employee acted alone as a lone wolf. The bank remaining tight lipped and not offering any explanation for the huge discrepancy is worrying and suspicious, to say the least.  A bit like sex abuse cases, was the abuse widespead or not?




Bronte said:


> Despite being asked many times you have not once told us whether she put her savings and inheritance into the original purchase.


She lost all. She may still be alive if someone in the bank put down her true income instead of over 160k, as it seems probable higher up people in the bank would not have approved the loan if they knew she only earned 40k or took the time to study the accounts she provided.  Anyway her case is over, the bank got the land back and all she had, the insurance company covered the balance.



Bronte said:


> Good luck with wasting the time of the Gardai.


So say if someone deceived someone else say 20 times, by changing figures on forms from what they were supposed to be, and pocketed say 5k as a result each time, that is €100,000.  Do you not think white collar fraud in general should be investigated, or any type of crime should be investigated?




Clamball said:


> The bank writing €160K in a box instead of €40K is not a fraud.



So why did someone write the borrowers income as being over €160,000 so, when the accounts and documentation she provided showed it was only €40,000 a year?   It is reasonable to assume the borrower would not have got the loan at 40k salary, as there were no plans on how that could or would be repaid.  The banker or their agent wrote her income of over €160,000 would repay the loan.  Did the person who deceived others by writing the over €160,000 get a commission, bonus, reach target or whatever? Fraud is deceiving others (could be higher management, shareholders or whoever) for personal gain. The bank will not explain the huge discrepancy.



Gordon Gekko said:


> But the bank is a victim of any fraud that has taken place?


As explained earlier, the person or people who deceived others by greatly overstating the borrowers income and therefore making the sale of the loan, more than likely did so for commission, bonus, to reach a target, get promotion or whatever. They did not care who was the victim, if they got away with it.  In the long run, of course, they should have known such lending was not sustainable, and would end in tears for the borrower, the bank shareholders etc - as did happen.

The bank actually did not lose money on it, as they got all of the borrowers savings, inheritance etc, everything she earned, the bank got the land back, sold it, and the insurance company paid the balance.  So neither the wrong doers in the bank, or the bank itself, lost out.  Hence why it could happen again in the future if the individual or individuals concerned are not investigated and punished if necessary.


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> She lost all. She may still be alive if someone in the bank put down her true income instead of over 160k, as it seems probable higher up people in the bank would not have approved the loan if they knew she only earned 40k or took the time to study the accounts she provided.  Anyway her case is over, the bank got the land back and all she had, the insurance company covered the balance.
> 
> So say if someone deceived someone else say 20 times, by changing figures on forms from what they were supposed to be, and pocketed say 5k as a result each time, that is €100,000.  Do you not think white collar fraud in general should be investigated, or any type of crime should be investigated?
> 
> The bank actually did not lose money on it, as they got all of the borrowers savings, inheritance etc, everything she earned, the bank got the land back, sold it, and the insurance company paid the balance.  So neither the wrong doers in the bank, or the bank itself, lost out.  Hence why it could happen again in the future if the individual or individuals concerned are not investigated and punished if necessary.



Are you saying she committed suicide because of this?  The reason it shouldn't be investigated now is there is no case, the 'victim' is dead, the bank doesn't want to know, there is no way to prove who did what in relation to the forms and the broker probably emigrated in 2008.  Also it's probably statute barred. 

Why is this such a big issue for you now in 2021?

The bank got what was signed for.  By your relative. She an adult, willingly went to a broker, willingly didn't check the forms, willingly signed the forms, willingly signed the banks letter of offer with it's 

- outrageous amount borrowed
- for an outrageous price 
- with repayments marked out which clearly the borrower could not pay
- with it's clause that if she didn't repay she would be on the hook

So she knew exactly what she signed up for. She also had the advice of a solicitor.  Because of her actions borrowers in Ireland paid higher interest rates to this day.  (and yes the banks are largely to blame for reckless lending).


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> As explained earlier, the person or people who deceived others by greatly overstating the borrowers income and therefore making the sale of the loan, more than likely did so for commission, bonus, to reach a target, get promotion or whatever. They did not care who was the victim, if they got away with it.


Most of these cases of overstatement of income was done with the connivence of the borrowers.  That's my experience of what went on.


----------



## Timjoe (6 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> The reason it shouldn't be investigated now is there is no case


According to the definition of fraud, and what is in the file in black and white, it seems there is a case, but would not the Garda Fraud dept be the best people to decide if there was a case? Why are you so afraid of them investigating?



Bronte said:


> there is no way to prove who did what in relation to the forms


It is in the file / let the Gardai find out. I have very high respect for the Gardai.  I have seen them go back 30 and 40 years in some cases, very impressive work.



Bronte said:


> and the broker probably emigrated in 2008.


No the broker did not emigrate. It seems you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with excuse for there to be no investigation. Why is that?



Bronte said:


> Most of these cases of overstatement of income was done with the connivence of the borrowers.  That's my experience of what went on.


So you have experience of fraud inside the banking system? Would you care to share your experience with the relevant authorities?  Again I ask you, do you think suspected white collar fraud in general should be investigated?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2021)

Hi Bronte 

I agree fully with the overall thrust of what you say, but just on a point of order...



Bronte said:


> Also it's probably statute barred.



If the victim wanted to sue the bank, it would be statute barred.

But there is no statute of limitations for a criminal offence and fraud would be a criminal offence. 

So if the bank wanted to take this further, they could report it to the Garda that an employee had defrauded them.  However, as fraud is very very difficult to prove and prosecute and as a key witness is dead, the Garda would not pursue it. 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> According to the definition of fraud, and what is in the file in black and white, it seems there is a case, but would not the Garda Fraud dept be the best people to decide if there was a case? Why are you so afraid of them investigating?
> 
> 
> It is in the file / let the Gardai find out. I have very high respect for the Gardai.  I have seen them go back 30 and 40 years in some cases, very impressive work.
> ...


I knew about how banks operate way before the Celtic tiger. That’s why I loath them.  You’ll not find me defending them.  But I’m not accepting some people are not culpable in their own financial downfall. You have no skin in this, you’re wasting your time, but by all means pop off to the Gardai who will laugh at you. 

No broker or banker will admit they put fake figures, you don’t know of they did or didn’t, a figure on tge firm is to riff of fraud, it certainly isn’t proof of who out the figure there. But your relative signed the documents, so she accepted what was in the documentation.
What ‘evidence’ do you have of fraud?


----------



## Timjoe (6 Feb 2021)

Bronte said:


> No broker or banker will admit they put fake figures, you don’t know of they did or didn’t, a figure on tge firm is to riff of fraud


??  Are you trying to say the Gardai would not be capable of finding out who was possibly guilty of "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" by stating the borrowers income was over 160k, when the evidence and proof was it was only €40k?  I have seen the Gardai in an abuse case go back many decades and the amount of people they interviewed and the details they cross checked was incredible. In my opinion there was less evidence in that case, and the wrong doer got jailed.

It should be quite easy for the Gardai Fraud dept to ask the bank why did someone in the banking system state the borrowers income was over 160k, when in the accounts it was 40k. Life changing decisions were made on the basis of someone in the banking system deceiving others (higher up in the banking system, or shareholders) by stating the borrower could repay the loan from her income of over 160k. The bank would not give a explanation to the borrower, maybe they will to the Gardai. Let the Gardai decide and find out who it was, and why they did it, and if they did it to others, it should be fairly simple. 



Bronte said:


> But your relative signed the documents, so she accepted what was in the documentation.



My relative did not see the documentation which mention the over 160k figure until years after taking out the mortgage. On the form she signed, the income box was not filled in, only her 3 years accounts were attached and a statement saying her income was 40k.  She accepted her income was 40k, as did the broker whenever she met the broker. 

Do you think if white collar fraud is found, those guilty should be punished?


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> My relative did not see the documentation which mention the over 160k figure until years after taking out the mortgage. On the form she signed, the income box was not filled in, only her 3 years accounts were attached and a statement saying her income was 40k.  She accepted her income was 40k, as did the broker whenever she met the broker.
> 
> Do you think if white collar fraud is found, those guilty should be punished?


- how do you know what your relative saw?
- why are you ignoring the fact she signed loan documentation in front of her solicitor which clearly showed she was unable to make the repayments. Which is her signing a lie.
- I absolutely would love it if a load of bankers had been jailed.


----------



## RedOnion (6 Feb 2021)

@Timjoe
Why are you posting about it here rather than going ahead and reporting it to the Gardai? You've ignored everything others have said, so I don't see the point of the thread? Was there a question you wanted answered?


----------



## Timjoe (6 Feb 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Let the record show that it is _possible_ that the bank acted inappropriately way back when in relation to this particular case!


Indeed.




Bronte said:


> - how do you know what your relative saw?



Because what she signed was in the file that came back from the Bank years later. It confirms what she said.



Bronte said:


> - why are you ignoring the fact she signed loan documentation in front of her solicitor which clearly showed she was unable to make the repayments. Which is her signing a lie.


She made the repayments for some time. Nobody from the brokers or bank asked her how she proposed to repay the loan. The file from the bank confirms that.  The bank wrote her salary of over 160k would repay the loan.  It was on internal bank documentation. When signing documentation in front of a solicitor there was no mention in the documentation of how the loan was to be repaid, just that it was to be repaid.  What lie did she sign?



Bronte said:


> I absolutely would love it if a load of bankers had been jailed.


But if a banker or broker deceived others ( their managers or shareholders or whoever ) and changed figures dramatically in order to make a sale and get commission or a bonus or reach a target or whatever, you do not think such suspicious activity should be investigated, let alone any culprits jailed? 




RedOnion said:


> @Timjoe
> Why are you posting about it here rather than going ahead and reporting it to the Gardai?


 As said earlier, I think for peace of mind it should be reported, it was the borrowers wishes and it may help stop history repeating itself. The Gardai can decide to investigate or not. Thank you.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Feb 2021)

Maybe just go to the Gardai instead of dragging this discussion out?

My own sense is that you’re wasting your time, but crack on with it and let us know how you get on.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2021)

Tim

Your relative applied for a loan.
She was approved for the loan.
She did not mislead the bank.
The bank did not mislead her.

She has no complaint at all about the bank. 

Whatever happened to her happened due to her own poor investment decision. 

It is very clear in Irish law time and time again, that a borrower cannot evade their responsibilities by claiming reckless lending.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Feb 2021)

From reading this report on RTE , the Garda clearly have no sense of priority









						Garda inquiry detects €10 million in financial fraud
					

Gardaí investigating an international organised crime group involved in financial fraud have identified more than €10m stolen worldwide, €9m of which has been laundered in Ireland.




					www.rte.ie
				




_The gang stole the money in Asia and redirected it to banks in Ireland.

Officers from the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau foiled an attempt to withdraw €3m from a bank in Dublin, which had been stolen abroad._

Why on earth are the Garda Fraud Squad wasting resources on organised crime groups who are currently defrauding Asian consumers out of €10m and laundering it through the Irish banking system when they could be running an investigation into the the way rogue employees of Irish banks changed the internal documentation 13 years ago so that their employer could make risky loans?

Brendan


----------



## Timjoe (7 Feb 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> From reading this report on RTE , the Garda clearly have no sense of priority
> _The gang stole the money in Asia and redirected it to banks in Ireland.
> Officers from the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau foiled an attempt to withdraw €3m from a bank in Dublin, which had been stolen abroad._


Priority? I am sure the Gardai are more than capable of working on more than one case. In any case, when the detective I want to speak to comes back from leave, I will ask him. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> ...when they could be running an investigation into the the way rogue employees of Irish banks changed the internal documentation 13 years ago so that their employer could make risky loans?


The level of deception and alteration of documentation meant it was not just a risky loan, it was totally unsustainable which would end in tears for both the borrower and others - as did happen.  The taxpayer, as well as shareholders who lost out as a result of banks behaviour, deserve to know how widespread such behaviour was in the banks, and there is widespread support among the general public to have those suspected of white collar fraud investigated and punished.  I am sure some bankers would not agree.



Brendan Burgess said:


> It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately.  The bank should sanction that employee.
> 
> If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.


Correct.


----------



## RedOnion (7 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> The taxpayer, as well as shareholders who lost out as a result of banks behaviour


But, you've already said the bank got their money back? Why would the taxpayer or shareholders care about this case?



Timjoe said:


> the bank got the land back and all she had, the insurance company covered the balance


----------



## Leo (7 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> and there is widespread support among the general public to have those suspected of white collar fraud investigated and punished. I am sure some bankers would not agree.



If you've got your finger on the pulse of what the public want, what is it telling you via the response to this thread?


----------



## Timjoe (7 Feb 2021)

RedOnion said:


> But, you've already said the bank got their money back? Why would the taxpayer or shareholders care about this case?


Because as pointed out to you already:


Pinoy adventure said:


> if the bank put any figure down on any paperwork which did not match what was provided by the borrower there is a real concern, as if they don't it on 1 rest assured they done it on many.


Pinoy above is correct.  If some or some people in the banking system deceived others ( higher management, shareholders, whoever ) for their personal, selfish short sighted gain ( commission, bonus, reaching target or whatever ) and benefited by say €5,000, and done that 20 times, that is 100k.  Why should they be allowed get away with that? People have gone to jail for less. The behaviour of reckless elements in the banks did end up costing the taxpayer and shareholders dearly.  Also, in this particular case the insurance company would probably not have had to pay out if the bank had acted honestly and properly. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.  



Leo said:


> If you've got your finger on the pulse of what the public want, what is it telling you via the response to this thread?


With all due respect, the demographic of askaboutmoney posters is not representative of the general population..
I am not claiming I have my finger on the pulse of what the public want, I am saying what many others have said. If you google surveys on the question of if the public want bankers who committed fraud or manipulated paperwork to go to jail, you will see 89 to 90% of the public in the surveys say yes.  I would suspect at least some bankers do not like to see their colleagues investigated or sanctioned.


----------



## RedOnion (7 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Also, in this particular case the insurance company would probably not have had to pay out if the bank had acted honestly and properly


Do you mind sharing exactly what kind of insurance policy was involved, that paid out a shortfall after the property was sold?


----------



## Timjoe (7 Feb 2021)

RedOnion said:


> Do you mind sharing exactly what kind of insurance policy was involved, that paid out a shortfall after the property was sold?


That was between the deceased borrower, the insurance company and the bank. Not really relevant to the original question.


----------



## Leo (8 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> With all due respect, the demographic of askaboutmoney posters is not representative of the general population..



True, users here are generally better informed in financial matters, and so well placed to know you're wasting your time pursuing this.


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> That was between the deceased borrower, the insurance company and the bank. Not really relevant to the original question.


And here go once again you deciding to ask our advice, ignoring our advice, telling us that we don't represent the general population because we don't agree with you and any time any one of us ask you a pertinent question you dismiss us.  Why on earth did you come on here at all.  I'm convinced your relative was up to all sorts to get the money.


----------



## 24601 (8 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> That was between the deceased borrower, the insurance company and the bank. Not really relevant to the original question.



On consideration I think that you have uncovered a fraud far beyond the investigative capabilities of An Garda Síochána. I would urge you to contact Europol. If the bank in question had any operations in the US I'd imagine the FBI would be very interested too.


----------



## peemac (8 Feb 2021)

Pugmister said:


> I know of someone who paid a employee of a bank €2500 in order to get mortgage approval in recent years. Apparently said individual operated this operation as a side line business and his number was passed around tradesmen who often found it difficult to get mortgage approval. Apparently the bank has 1000's of mortgages on their books based on falsified earnings that they are unaware of. The bank employee has since left the country but he did warn the party that i know if they ever missed a payment then the activity would be discovered.


It was "normal" in the 1990's for this. Some Solicitors would know who you would go to.

It cost me £400 in 1993. All I had to do was confirm I could make the repayment and sign a couple of forms.
The particular building society is no longer operating.

As for the op, near impossible to find where the blame is. The broker might be the obvious one, but you can't be sure.

Let it lie, nothing to be gained 14 years later


----------



## Timjoe (8 Feb 2021)

peemac said:


> It was "normal" in the 1990's for this. ( someone who paid a employee of a bank €2500 in order to get mortgage approval )



No it was not normal.  It is usual for those who partook or partake in tax evasion and white collar fraud to try to justify their actions by saying " it was normal".   If someone gets €2500 from 40 people, that is €100,000.  Why should they get away with that?  I am surprised there are 3 or 4 posters here who are so soft on such crime.  If you look at the surveys, you will see 89 to 90% of the population want bankers who took part in fraud and massaging the books jailed.



peemac said:


> near impossible to find where the blame is.


You may be surprised.



Brendan Burgess said:


> It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately.  The bank should sanction that employee.
> 
> If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.


All in good time.


----------



## Leo (9 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> I am surprised there are 3 or 4 posters here who are so soft on such crime.



We're not yet convinced that any crime took place, or if one did, your friend the borrower was likely complicit. 

Have you spoken to the detective yet?


----------



## Timjoe (9 Feb 2021)

Leo said:


> We're not yet convinced that any crime took place, or if one did, your friend the borrower was likely complicit.


Nobody asked you to be convinced.  However a banker who changes figures on bank documentation by over €120,000,  and who may gain as a result ( bonus, commission, promotion, meeting target? ) needs to be investigated. Especially when the bank, very suspiciously, will not explain it.  You may not think white collar fiddling of the figures is fraud or is a crime, or tax evasion such as the bank employee who Pugmister admits takes €2500 for himself on a regular basis etc.  You may not think it needs to be investigated and those guilty ( if any ) punished, but 89 to 90% of the public do. 

 If a borrower gives 3 years audited accounts to the bank, along with a statement showing income is 40k, and a bank employee writes that the borrower has an income of over 160k and that income will repay the loan, then it is the bank who has the explaining to do, not the borrower, who was unaware of the bank overstating the income until they got the file years later. The accountant also stated the income was 40k. There is nothing in the file to suggest the borrower was complicit in the fraud, as you suggest.

 Too early to be convinced of anything, but no harm investigating , although the people with something to hide may disagree.


----------



## Clamball (10 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> In any case, when the detective I want to speak to comes back from leave, I will ask him



When is he due back and when are you speaking to him?  

I think everyone here would be really interested to know how you get on and it will be very educational for us to understand how the Guards progress with fraud crimes.  I suppose they are just investigators and it will be up to the judge and jury to determine if the person they arrest is guilty of a crime.

How did you know this was the right detective? Was it hard to get a meeting?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (10 Feb 2021)

This thread is like a 20 year old dog, half-blind and limping.

Will someone please do the decent thing?


----------



## SparkRite (10 Feb 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Will somebody please do the decent thing?



Nooooooo, please don't. 
Read it from start to finish last night, lovin' it. 
Can't wait to hear ( if we do?) how the Gardai react.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Feb 2021)

SparkRite said:


> Can't wait to hear ( if we do?) how the Gardai react.



Wouldn't hold your breath - I suspect we won't hear the outcome


----------



## Peanuts20 (10 Feb 2021)

The High Court have already established that there is no tort of Reckless Lending in Ireland so any case alleging that will fail. 

To prove that a fraud took place the Gardai will have to prove that it was a deliberate act of dishonesty rather then carelessness. The "banker" in question here was probably some mortgage advisor or salesman who got commission of a couple of grand for doing the deal, not some big "fat cat" sitting on a yacht. The Gardai won't waste their time taking on this case since one party is dead. Yes, the banker or broker could have done this 20 times or 100 times but unless you can bring 20 or 100 cases to the Gardai, they'll say thanks, we'll look into it and close the case 6 months later


----------



## skrooge (10 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Priority? I am sure the Gardai are more than capable of working on more than one case. *In any case, when the detective I want to speak to comes back from leave, I will ask him.*


 
On leave in February, during a pandemic?? A likely story. He shouldn't be too hard to track down given he's only got a 5km radius. 

If you haven't found him by now I'd be refering his disappearance to GSOC. I think now we're on to something.


----------



## Leo (11 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> However a banker who changes figures on bank documentation by over €120,000,  and who may gain as a result ( bonus, commission, promotion, meeting target? ) needs to be investigated. Especially when the bank, very suspiciously, will not explain it.



You think it's suspicious behaviour to refuse to explain their dealings with someone else with you? They are not allowed to discuss this matter with you!

If a customer did take out a loan, then the broker is fully entitled to the commission. If the borrower, broker and a bank employee fiddled the numbers somewhat to allow the borrower get what they asked for, then it may be a breach of internal bank procedures or bank/ broker procedures, but it's not fraud. The potential for fraud would arise if the borrower conspired in the fiddling with no intention of paying the money back. 



Timjoe said:


> You may not think white collar fiddling of the figures is fraud or is a crime, or tax evasion such as the bank employee who Pugmister admits takes €2500 for himself on a regular basis etc.  You may not think it needs to be investigated and those guilty ( if any ) punished, but 89 to 90% of the public do.



Very specific number there, what's your source?

But tax evasion, surely even you know that's nonsense?


----------



## Autofill (11 Feb 2021)

Timjoe - If your relative was a sole trader have you any idea why she had her accounts audited ?

I know you described her as an uneducated lady but she was running her own business and earning over €40000 per annum which is a very good salary so even though uneducated she was obviously a smart lady.  Have you any idea why she would she would have signed a form approving all details to be true and correct before the form was complete?


----------



## Jim2007 (11 Feb 2021)

Timjoe said:


> Anyway, thanks for all your help, I think for peace of mind it should be reported and the Gardai can decide to investigate or not.



Then just do it and stop whining.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 Feb 2021)

That dog I mentioned has now croaked it and is buried down the end of the garden.

Make it stop, please...


----------

