Long Island Man Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scheme


Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.

see https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/long-island-man-pleads-guilty-mortgage-fraud-scheme

Dear SDNY: You probably got the wrong guy. He can’t be guilty of stealing anything if there was no victim. You portray the victims as homeowners. They indeed were victims but not the victims of this defendant. They were the victims of fraudulent foreclosures on behalf of entities that had no right, title, or interest in the underlying debt and who therefore could claim no injury from non-payment.

He was getting paid too much and he should have disclosed that and he might be liable for doing that. But it wasn’t theft. He was only using the same business model as is currently in use by the banks. They create illusions, sell securities and generate revenues far in excess of any transaction with any homeowner. But they neither give credit to the homeowner, without whom the scheme could not work, nor any disclosure that would enable a homeowner to bargain for different terms.

Such prosecutions merely enhance the viability of these fraudulent schemes at the macro level — a level that you should investigate much more closely. it isn’t hard. See 9-203 UCC adopted by New York State legislature verbatim. Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.


5 Responses

  1. This is that I am saying. If here are “non-friendly debt collectors” here should be some “friendly debt collectors” too

    But the point is – since here is no debt for them to collect, here are no debt collectors, friendly or non-friendly

    Unlawful collections are commonly known as “racket”

  2. Summer – correct. Only the term is — “NON-friendly” debt collectors. And, at refinance – that is all you got. And, people wondered why. Because, you are correct, nothing was funded other than cash-out. So if nothing funded – nothing lent and nothing paid-off by borrower. All you have is reinstatement of a claimed “debt” that was falsely placed in internal default – before you even knew it. Thanks.

  3. Funny…I never heard about “friendly debt collectors”

    But with Wall Street Banks – here is NO debt because here are NO loans.

    After first round of securitization when loans were probably funded with other people money, so the debt was for Wall Street and extinguished in following securitization scheme – here was NO NEED for any additional financing – except cash outs.

  4. OH I agree here Neil. quote – “He was only using the same business model as is currently in use by the banks” Exactly – and I emailed that or posted before. He got away with it BECAUSE the loans were already reported in internal default before any borrower signed on dotted line. What an easy scam!!! Oh – but that doesn’t matter that I already posted or emailed that. No relevance. But there is vast relevance. When loans internally reported in default , and not disclosed to borrowers – there is huge field for fraud. Been telling you – over and over and over again. No accounting of loan, no recorded pay-off by borrower by refinance (and sometimes new purchase) — there is only recorded “PAID-OUT” by insurance. So — we do not have a valid mortgage. We do not have a valid “NOTE.” We have nothing – but your non-friendly debt collector who calls themselves – a “Servicer.” Been saying this – a very long time. And, if investigated – it will show it!!!

  5. Ironically, Chicago Judge Jessica O’Brien who was convicted for “mortgage fraud” did not defraud anyone. She was merely investing in the scheme.

    She was in fact defrauded by one of Wall Street Banks who benefited from her investment into the scheme – and sent her to jail likely because some well-connected crony wanted her judicial seat

    I am wondering that she is going to do when she learns the truth

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: