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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.