Federal Statutes to Use in Research

Robert J. Koenig

These 3 Federal Statutes can deal quickly and forcibly with the unpleasant situation described above:

18 U.S.C. § 1001 False Statements (The Martha Stewart Act)


18 U.S.C. § 1346 : Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” (The Lord Conrad Black Act)


RICO 18 USC § 1962(c) “association in fact” (The anti-insurance company act)


Mortgage Meltdown: Strategy for Borrowers—Taking the Offense

In our research, we have thus far come up with the following list of conspirators whom you might allege have mislead you with respect to signing for the loan you received. 

  1. The Developer of the community for engaging in false and deceptive tactics to mislead not only the original buyers but subsequent buyers as well, that prices were rising and that the price you were paying was fair market value, and that therefore the loan amount you accepted was fair in relation to the price you were paying. In fact, the house was at least 30% overvalued, which means that even if you paid 20% toward the purchase price, the mortgage was still 10% higher than the value of the house, you didn’t have the 20% equity that you thought you had, and that your investment was further diminished by the same fraud upon others in your community, many of whom are either in foreclosure or selling at distressed prices because of other surprises that were not explained at closing. Hence you are owed back your down payment, plus an amount that pays down your mortgage to the point at which you would have 20% equity as originally planned. In addition, the Developer may have and probably did participate in an “incentive” or rebate plan wherein the foundation for this first fraud and all future frauds was “set in stone” so to speak. These undisclosed payments are contrary to Federal, State and local law and should be passed on to you as the final consumer of the “securities” (see below) and real estate that you purchased.
  2. The Lender to the Developer for conspiring on all of the above, with full knowledge but employing false and deceptive tactics to create “Plausible Deniability” and distance between the construction loans and the retail sale of the house. In addition, the Lender might well have entered into agreements, tacit or otherwise with the retail mortgage lender for actual sale of the completed homes, or might have been associated with the retail mortgage lender wherein “value” was exchanged between the two lending operations that was also undisclosed, and where that “value” was in actuality a rebate or kickback to the original construction  lender. 
  3. The real estate sales broker or sales person or sales company that participated in hyper-inflating the sales prices to maximize their own income, receiving undisclosed rebates from mortgage brokers, mortgage underwriters, or mortgage lenders, or lender picked appraisers. They might have also consired to mislead you or withhold information about charges, fees, costs or itnerest payments on your settlement statement or mortgage loan documents that they knew woujld not be disclosed to you. Other actions against the real estate broker might include, depending upon the individual facts of your case: 

    Failed to disclose hidden facts about the property or the transaction — facts which materially and negatively affected value.



    Failed to present an offer



    Made false statements about a property or a party to a transaction



    Breached a statutorily or contractually-created fiduciary



    Delivered opinions outside area of professional expertise



    Accepted undisclosed kickbacks, commissions, or finder’s fees



    Failed to disclose a private relationship with buyer or seller



    Conspired with mortgage broker, closing agent, or appraiser to defraud lender



    Failed to account and deliver



    Made false statements about a competitor’s business



    Forged a signature on a sales contract or other legal document


%d bloggers like this: