Showing posts with label Mortgage Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mortgage Fraud. Show all posts

Saturday, November 8, 2014

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase’s Worst Nightmare


Chase whistle-blower Alayne Fleischmann risked it all.
 Photo credit: Andrew Querner

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase’s Worst Nightmare



Meet the woman JPMorgan Chase paid one of the largest fines in American history to keep from talking

BY MATT TAIBBI | NOVEMBER 6, 2014

She tried to stay quiet, she really did. But after eight years of keeping a heavy secret, the day came when Alayne Fleischmann couldn’t take it anymore.

“It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street,” she says. “I thought, ‘I can’t sit by any longer.'”

Fleischmann is a tall, thin, quick-witted securities lawyer in her late thirties, with long blond hair, pale-blue eyes and an infectious sense of humor that has survived some very tough times. She’s had to struggle to find work despite some striking skills and qualifications, a common symptom of a not-so-common condition called being a whistle-blower.

Fleischmann is the central witness in one of the biggest cases of white-collar crime in American history, possessing secrets that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon late last year paid $9 billion (not $13 billion as regularly reported – more on that later) to keep the public from hearing.

Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as “massive criminal securities fraud” in the bank’s mortgage operations.

Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she’s kept her mouth shut since then. “My closest family and friends don’t know what I’ve been living with,” she says. “Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees this interview.”

Six years after the crisis that cratered the global economy, it’s not exactly news that the country’s biggest banks stole on a grand scale. That’s why the more important part of Fleischmann’s story is in the pains Chase and the Justice Department took to silence her.

She was blocked at every turn: by asleep-on-the-job regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a court system that allowed Chase to use its billions to bury her evidence, and, finally, by officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief architect of the crazily elaborate government policy of surrender, secrecy and cover-up. “Every time I had a chance to talk, something always got in the way,” Fleischmann says.

This past year she watched as Holder’s Justice Department struck a series of historic settlement deals with Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America. The root bargain in these deals was cash for secrecy. The banks paid big fines, without trials or even judges – only secret negotiations that typically ended with the public shown nothing but vague, quasi-official papers called “statements of facts,” which were conveniently devoid of anything like actual facts.

And now, with Holder about to leave office and his Justice Department reportedly wrapping up its final settlements, the state is effectively putting the finishing touches on what will amount to a sweeping, industrywide effort to bury the facts of a whole generation of Wall Street corruption. “I could be sued into bankruptcy,” she says. “I could lose my license to practice law. I could lose everything. But if we don’t start speaking up, then this really is all we’re going to get: the biggest financial cover-up in history.”

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

UPDATED: Your house was paid for when you signed the note.


We said this a year ago but its good to see the information is getting more mainstream... I learned something new that I didn't know before. In the USA car titles are owned by the World Bank, which they monetize, and even when you request your title after you pay off a loan it says on the back "this is not a car title".  Another one of those little monetizations done without transparency with your value...    -Bill

Updated 1/1/2014: I deleted the comment about Moroccan titles and monetization.  I had the facts wrong.  -Bill


Your house was paid for when you signed the note.
Submitted by The South on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 18:38
http://www.dailypaul.com/146806/your-house-was-paid-for-when-you-signed-the-note

Does anyone remember HJR-192? It is against public policy to pay off any debt. All debt must be discharged.

When you signed the promissory note and gave it to the bank, you "discharged the debt". The house is paid for, in full.

End of story.

Go to this site and at the upper top left side of the page next to the banker cartoon, click on the links directly to the right of it.

Start with "Read Here First" and go down the line.

http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Bank-Fraud.html

Not only did you pay off the note (discharge it), you gave them access to your Treasury Direct Account and they filed paperwork stating the account was abandoned and took control of it. They paid of the seller with "your money", took the rest of the cash from your account; sold the note again, and conned you into believing you needed to spend the next 30 years paying back a loan that "YOU ACTUALLY GAVE THEM"! and you signed over the deed. The bank had absolutely no skin in the game and you gave them everything.

Your house is paid for, read Dave's docs above.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

UK court to hear evidence ahead of landmark Libor ruling


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/12/libor-court-idUSL6N0HY3E220131012

UK court to hear evidence ahead of landmark Libor ruling
By Matt Scuffham

LONDON | Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:00pm EDT

Oct 13 (Reuters) - A British court will this week consider whether attempted manipulation of the benchmark interest rate Libor can invalidate loans and other deals or show that banks mis-sold products that were based upon the rate.

The Court of Appeal will on Tuesday begin a 3-day hearing examining two separate cases brought by clients against Barclays and Deutsche Bank. It is expected to hand down a landmark ruling later in the year, according to sources familiar with the cases.

If the decision goes against the banks, it could open the door to many more cases being brought against the industry by companies citing Libor manipulation, opening banks up to compensation claims worth billions of pounds.

The London interbank offered rate (Libor) is used to price over $300 trillion of financial contracts around the world.

"To unwind all Libor-linked derivative contracts would be financial Armageddon," said Abhishek Sachdev, managing director of Vedanta Hedging, which advises companies on interest rate hedging products.

In previous legal rulings judges have stopped short of saying Libor is relevant to all claims against banks but said it could be used in cases where contracts have been linked specifically to the benchmark.

Barclays is being sued for up to 70 million pounds ($112 million) by Guardian Care Homes, a UK residential care home operator, which alleges the bank mis-sold it interest rate hedging products that were based upon Libor.

The case has been delayed until April 2014 so the appeal decision can be heard. It started out as a complaint about the alleged mis-selling of interest rate swaps but a judge ruled last October that it could be amended to include claims of fraudulent misrepresentation connected to Libor manipulation.

Barclays said the case has no merit because Guardian Care Homes had sufficient understanding of the products to make its own judgment over whether to enter into the agreements.

"The addition of a claim based on what happened with Libor does not change the bank's view. This business had a suite of advisors and a lot of financial experience and skill in-house," it said on Friday.

Barclays last year paid a $450 million to settle allegations it manipulated Libor, and UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland have been fined for manipulating Libor. Deutsche is among several other banks under investigation.

Deutsche Bank last year sued Indian property firm Unitech for the repayment of a $150 million loan made in 2007 by a consortium of lenders and for the repayment of $11 million owed for a related interest-rate swap.

But Unitech counter-sued, saying the loan and swap deal were linked to Libor interest rates, which at the time were being manipulated by some banks.

A UK court last month said Unitech must repay the loan, but said the dispute over the related swap should go to trial.

The judge said just because there was evidence the Libor rate had been manipulated did not make a loan void. But he said the terms of the swap agreement and its specific link to a Libor contract were more contentious.

"The defendant's attempts to introduce broad and unsupported allegations about Libor, which have already been rejected once by the High Court, are a bid to delay payment and divert attention from its unpaid debts," Deutsche Bank said on Friday.

Lawyers for Guardian Care Homes and Unitech declined to comment.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Solon.com: Your mortgage documents are fake!



MONDAY, AUG 12, 2013 04:58 AM PDT
Your mortgage documents are fake!
Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman's lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update)
BY DAVID DAYEN
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

Your mortgage documents are fake!
Lynn Szymoniak (Credit: CBS News/60 MInutes)

If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)

A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.

This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue
For Over $1 Billion
Alleging Multi-Year Scheme




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud_n_2009791.html

Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue For Over $1 Billion Alleging Multi-Year Scheme
Posted: 10/24/2012 12:20 pm EDT Updated: 10/24/2012 2:07 pm EDT
Ben Hallman

Federal prosecutors sued Bank of America for $1 billion on Wednesday, alleging that the bank's former Countrywide unit concocted a mortgage scheme it called the "Hustle" in order to sell thousands of fraudulent and otherwise defective mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"In order to increase the speed at which it originated and sold loans ... Countrywide eliminated every single checkpoint on loan quality and compensated its employees solely based on the volume of loans originated," the lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal district court, alleges.

This led to "rampant instances of fraud and other serious loan defects," all while Countrywide was telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy up mortgages for resale, that it had strengthened its lending requirements.

The mortgage giant called the scheme the "High Speed Swim Lane" or the "Hustle," for short, according to the lawsuit.

When the loans "predictably" defaulted, Fannie and Freddie, which in 2008 required a massive taxpayer bailout due in large part to the purchase of toxic mortgages, incurred more than $1 billion in losses, the lawsuit says.

The mortgage scheme continued through 2009, well after Bank of America acquired Countrywide, according to the lawsuit.

Bank of America did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of civil and not criminal law, comes on the heels of several other high-profile cases tied to the financial crisis that have been filed this month by federal and state law enforcement officials, who have taken fire for not aggressively pursuing those responsible for the mortgage crisis.

Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Bear Stearns, now a unit of JPMorgan Chase, accusing it of stuffing mortgage bonds with bad loans without informing investors of the risk.

A week later, the Department of Justice sued Wells Fargo, claiming the bank lied about the quality of thousands of loans it certified for a federal insurance program. Both of those cases are pending.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

South Africa: A Great Victory!





REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
19 October 2012

Dear Friend,

WOW!

A house that was literally hours away from being sold on auction, has just been turned around and Standard Bank has abandoned the whole thing, including their judgment.

The day before Mr Michael Plumstead was about to watch his family home being auctioned, an urgent application was brought before the Port Elizabeth High Court. Among other things, Mr Plumstead (the Applicant) stated the following:

"15. It is the Applicant’s intention to settle the arrears with the lawful holder of this debt."

The auction was temporarily suspended by the Court… but then suddenly the bank backed down. The entire case was removed and the bank agreed to pay all legal costs. See the attached notice.

Now… why would a bank abandon all their hard work and withdraw a case when the debtor agreed to pay the arrears? Well, look at the words carefully: Mr Plumstead agreed to settle with the “lawful holder of this debt.”

If you read the supporting affidavit of the Plumstead Case on page 19, you will see the securitisation argument. You can view the full document here: http://downloads.newera.org.za/NewERA/PlumsteadCase.pdf.

Once again NewERA maintains the following: If your loan has been securitised, not only has your legal status with the bank changed, but your debt with the bank no longer exists.

If you do not understand this, or believe “so what, the debt must be paid anyway” then think again. It is vital that you listen to these audio interviews to see that in fact all parties have been paid out.

This knowledge can save not just houses, but assets of all kinds. But... you need to research it yourself. Don’t expect a hand-out. It is up to you to learn the truth.

Banks are not being open about securitisation. See for yourself by asking them simple questions like those found here. We are preparing a march to demand this information from the banks. To join the march, either in person or virtually, click here.

This is our chance Will. We can wipe clean the slate and begin a new era for South Africans that will set the scene for the rest of the world. All you need to do is see this for yourself. The place to start is by listening to these audio interviews.

Tell the world to join www.newera.org.za and please sign up for paying membership here, or make a donation here

THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE



Thursday, August 23, 2012

JPMORGAN CHASE: SCHEDULE OF LOANS PURCHASED FROM WAMU DOES NOT EXIST; NO ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, NO ALLONGES OR ANY EVIDENCE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF LOANS FROM WAMU TO CHASE



http://sgtreport.com/2012/08/breaking-out-of-the-mouth-of-jpmorgan-chase-schedule-of-loans-purchased-from-wamu-does-not-exist-no-assignments-of-mortgage-no-allonges-or-any-evidence-of-transferring-ownership-of-loans-from-wam/

UPDATE: Friends, I just received this note from our friend and mortgage fraud expert Vermont Trotter  regarding this story:
The trusts are all empty. The master loan doc contractually allows for the hypothecation and re-hypothecation of the assets. Hypothecation is a legal term meaning to pledge, but not deliver an asset. To hypothecate means there is no true sale of the asset. To re-hypothecate means it can be pledged multiple times and, again, never have a true sale. No one owns anything.” – V. Trotter
http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=469

OUT OF THE MOUTH OF JPMORGAN CHASE: SCHEDULE OF LOANS PURCHASED FROM WAMU DOES NOT EXIST; NO ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, NO ALLONGES OR ANY EVIDENCE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF LOANS FROM WAMU TO CHASE

August 21, 2012

Confirming, under oath and in print what we already suspected: there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu and was picked up by JPM after WaMu’s failure. The 330 page deposition was taken by counsel for the homeowner on May 9, 2012 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717.

Monday, February 27, 2012

MERS's Business Model Is Illegal
New York's U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rules

This just in from the Huffington Post. Huge good news for beleaguered home owners in this down economy. 


United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert Grossman has ruled that MERS's business practices are unlawful. He explicitly acknowledged that this ruling sets a precedent that has far-reaching implications for half of the mortgages in this country. MERS is dead. The banks are in big trouble. And all foreclosures should be stopped immediately while the legislative branch comes up with a solution.
Its business model makes it impossible to legally foreclose on any mortgaged property registered within its system -- which includes half of the outstanding mortgages in the US. MERS was a fraud from day one, whose purpose was to evade property recording fees and to subvert five centuries of property law. Its chickens have come home to roost.