Explain where money came from

[Gordon Gekko]

Posters should be aware that obtaining a loan by deception is an offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The DPP has brought a number of recent prosecutions for mortgage fraud so I would suggest that Jay1981 should proceed with caution.

"Mortgage fraud"? Come on. Classifying one off winnings as a gift is hardly mortgage fraud.

What's parking on double yellow lines for 60 seconds to grab a paper...genocide?

 

[Sarenco]

"Mortgage fraud"? Come on. Classifying one off winnings as a gift is hardly mortgage fraud.

What's parking on double yellow lines for 60 seconds to grab a paper...genocide?

The effect of Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 is that a person who dishonestly by any deception obtains or induces another to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan, is guilty of an offence.

Unfortunately there is no exception made for "white lies" or whatever benign sounding phrase you choose to use for making wilfully misleading or simply untrue statements in order to procure a loan.

Incidentally, a person found guilty of an offence under the above Section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both. Not genocide perhaps but pretty serious nevertheless.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

The effect of Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 is that a person who dishonestly by any deception obtains or induces another to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan, is guilty of an offence.

Unfortunately there is no exception made for "white lies" or whatever benign sounding phrase you choose to use for making wilfully misleading or simply untrue statements in order to procure a loan.

Incidentally, a person found guilty of an offence under the above Section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both. Not genocide perhaps but pretty serious nevertheless.

I think that the point you're missing is the fact that the deception has to be the reason they get the loan.

Otherwise we better start building jails for people who didn't tell Bank of Ireland that they have BT Sport...

 

[Sarenco]

Noted. Thanks

No problem.

By the way - I would be very surprised if a lender turned you down for a loan simply because you owned up to the fact that you won a bet! I would have thought they be much more likely to be concerned if they saw a pattern on your account that indicated something approaching a gambling problem as opposed to an occasional flutter.

 

[Sarenco]

I think that the point you're missing is the fact that the deception has to be the reason they get the loan.

Otherwise we better start building jails for people who didn't tell Bank of Ireland that they have BT Sport...

Dishonestly inducing another to make a loan by any deception constitutes an offence - there is no requirement for the prosecution to demonstrate that the loan would not have been made were it not for the deception.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Dishonestly inducing another to make a loan by any deception constitutes an offence - there is no requirement for the prosecution to demonstrate that the loan would not have been made were it not for the deception.

Are you actually serious?

Telling a bank that gambling winnings were a gift from your parents would not under any circumstances constitute "dishonestly inducing another to make a loan".

 

[Sarenco]

Are you actually serious?

Telling a bank that gambling winnings were a gift from your parents would not under any circumstances constitute "dishonestly inducing another to make a loan".

Yes, I would very much consider making any untrue statement about the source of a material sum to constitute dishonestly inducing another by deception to make a loan.

I assume you would agree that telling a bank that gambling winnings were a parental gift is (a) dishonest; and (b) a deception. The only reason to lie about the source of the sum is to induce (meaning persuade, motivate, influence) the bank to make the loan. Which bit are you struggling with?

 

[Bronte]

Posters should be aware that obtaining a loan by deception is an offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The DPP has brought a number of recent prosecutions for mortgage fraud so I would suggest that Jay1981 should proceed with caution.

Links please to say three of these cases?

 

[Bronte]

Yeah, I know exactly what he means Bronte and i don't think it has a nice ring to it. This could be your son/daughter/brother/sister that he's referring to and it says more about the poster than the person processing the application.

I hear what you're saying and as it happens I had a sister in bank Head office, you should have heard her on about the branch staff. My first boss used to shout at people in Head office as he was moved from one incompetent to another. And my own dealings with head office I could write a book on. Branch staff have no power and I've generally no problem with them.

 

[Bronte]

By the way - I would be very surprised if a lender turned you down for a loan simply because you owned up to the fact that you won a bet! I would have thought they be much more likely to be concerned if they saw a pattern on your account that indicated something approaching a gambling problem as opposed to an occasional flutter.

We had posters on here who were turned down due to have transfers to bookies. The OP is aware of it, other posters are and it's precisely why the question was asked. Telling white lies is necessary sometimes otherwise you will not get the loan.

 

[Sarenco]

Links please to say three of these cases?

Not all cases are reported but an internet search will throw up links to some of the more newsworthy cases.

 

[Sarenco]

We had posters on here who were turned down due to have transfers to bookies. The OP is aware of it, other posters are and it's precisely why the question was asked. Telling white lies is necessary sometimes otherwise you will not get the loan.

I fully understand the motivation for lying to a lender in the context of a loan application. I am simply pointing out that doing so is a crime, for which a person may or may not be prosecuted. The concept of a "white lie" is not recognised by the law.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Yes, I would very much consider making any untrue statement about the source of a material sum to constitute dishonestly inducing another by deception to make a loan.

I assume you would agree that telling a bank that gambling winnings were a parental gift is (a) dishonest; and (b) a deception. The only reason to lie about the source of the sum is to induce (meaning persuade, motivate, influence) the bank to make the loan. Which bit are you struggling with?

I don't think that you understand how legislation works. In the circumstances of this case (guy winning a few grand at Cheltenham and telling the bank his folks gifted it to him), the legislation in question is of no relevance. Any case based on something as trivial would be laughed out of court. Your concept of materiality is also flawed. I didn't tell the bank that I have Sky Sports in my bedroom or that I'm partial to an oul game of Texas Holdem at Christmas time. What will happen to me...the firing squad?

You're reading the legislation too literally - Legislation that's designed to deal with serious and systematic cases of fraud. For example, cases where the borrower doesn't own the property at all or where someone impersonates someone else. Actual cases of fraud, not instances where some fella didn't tell AIB that he has a pet rabbit thus preventing them from taking the cost of seven heads of lettuce a week away from his disposable income.

 

[Sarenco]

I don't think that you understand how legislation works. In the circumstances of this case (guy winning a few grand at Cheltenham and telling the bank his folks gifted it to him), the legislation in question is of no relevance. Any case based on something as trivial would be laughed out of court. Your concept of materiality is also flawed. I didn't tell the bank that I have Sky Sports in my bedroom or that I'm partial to an oul game of Texas Holdem at Christmas time. What will happen to me...the firing squad?

You're reading the legislation too literally - Legislation that's designed to deal with serious and systematic cases of fraud. For example, cases where the borrower doesn't own the property at all or where someone impersonates someone else. Actual cases of fraud, not instances where some fella didn't tell AIB that he has a pet rabbit thus preventing them from taking the cost of seven heads of lettuce a week away from his disposable income.

While I wouldn't expect anybody to accept the word of a stranger on the internet, I can assure you that I have considerable professional expertise and experience in the interpretation of legislation.

For what it's worth, statutes are meant to be read literally. If the meaning of the words used in a statute are clear then they must be applied accordingly, even if the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result may be harsh or undesirable. In this case, the wording of the relevant provision is perfectly clear - a person who dishonestly by any deception obtains or induces another to make a loan is guilty of an offence. There is no requirement that the deception must be "material", "serious" or "systematic".

I am not making any judgement regarding the advice of any other poster on this forum - I am simply pointing out the fact that the OP would be committing an offence if he acted on certain advice.

 

[Sophrosyne]

But there is such a thing as discretion.

Is it your professional opinion that a bank would actually invoke the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, s 7, in this particular case?

 

[Sarenco]

A few points:

Firstly, a word from my insurers - and I apologise in advance if this sounds very boring - but I want to make it crystal clear that no statements made by or attributable to me on this forum should ever be construed as professional advice or a professional opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, any views expressed by me are entirely personal in nature and do not represent and should not be construed as constituting legal or professional advice of any nature whatsoever.

Having got that out of the way, I would point out that no lender would have any role in initiating any criminal prosecution under the statutory provision under discussion. A lender may, in theory, be in a position to ground a civil action in tort (e.g. for fraudulent misrepresentation) but that risk is probably more theoretical than real in the context of the OP's circumstances.

If you are asking me if I think it is likely or probable that the DPP would exercise her discretion to initiate a prosecution in circumstances where she was on notice that a potential borrower misrepresented the source of a sum of money in the context of a loan application - then the truth is I really don't know. If you are asking me whether I think such a prosecution is possible then the answer is absolutely yes.

The DPP has already brought prosecutions under this legislative provision in the the context of residential mortgages (admittedly in relatively high value cases) and a sizeable portion of the defence bar in the US has been gainfully employed since the onset of the financial crisis in the defence of so-called "liar loan" cases brought by local prosecutors in the US. Who is to say that our DPP won't take her lead from her US counterparts in this regard?

I would point out that a material contributor to the financial crisis, both in Ireland and elsewhere, related to the fact that many borrowers embellished (to put it politely) their income and/or assets in loan applications. To the extent that such behaviour is increasingly seen as unacceptable socially and/or politically, then my sense is that, yes, it is increasingly likely that we will see prosecutions for relatively minor deceptions. Ultimately such actions have a cumulative societal impact, which is surely in all our interests to censure.

Leaving aside the possible legal implications for a minute, is anybody seriously taking the view that the OP should consciously and deliberately lie to his lenders about the source of a financial asset? Taking a step back for a moment, does anybody really think that is sound advice?

 

[Sophrosyne]

While I wouldn't expect anybody to accept the word of a stranger on the internet, I can assure you that I have considerable professional expertise and experience in the interpretation of legislation.

Firstly, a word from my insurers - and I apologise in advance if this sounds very boring - but I want to make it crystal clear that no statements made by or attributable to me on this forum should ever be construed as professional advice or a professional opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, any views expressed by me are entirely personal in nature and do not represent and should not be construed as constituting legal or professional advice of any nature whatsoever.

Well you are certainly picking your way through the nettles.

I am simply asking whether you think it is likely that in this particular case that the bank would invoke the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, s 7? Yes or no?

 

[Sarenco]

Well you are certainly picking your way through the nettles.

I am simply asking whether you think it is likely that in this particular case that the bank would invoke the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, s 7? Yes or no?

No, the bank would not invoke Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 in this particular case - or any other case for that matter (I'm not sure what your emphasis adds incidentally). Banks have no role in initiating criminal prosecutions.

I gave you my considered view as to the probability or possibility of the DPP initiating a prosecution under this provision in these circumstances - would you be kind enough to reciprocate by addressing the questions in the final paragraph of my post?