I undertood the thread to be about admittance of a crime. Suggesting not to crimes seems common sense. I in no way said or suggested that approval of crime had been implied.

How do you alter a P60?
Unless you produce a new one on a computer.
Anyway, I don't see how the clients are innocent bystanders.
They would have known the info the broker submitted when signing the mortgage contract.
Why aren't they in court?.
Bit like Mandelson not disclosing an existing loan.

I notice that he's living up the road from me, has all of this caused him to split up from his wife?

Why would he alter/produce a new P60? I would expect that he either certified their income higher (lender never saw the wage slips etc) or put them down as self employed and inflated their income.

And no the clients can be innocent, most people don't read what they sign. The first question they as you is how much money do you want to borrow. So he was probably just giving the clients what they wanted whilst maximising his income.

Affordability of loans is not the same as how much a lender will give you. It's riddiculous that someone without dependants can only afford the same mortgage as those who don't. So I can see why people stretch the truth.

If you read the press report, the link above, you will see that he "altered P60s".
Not reading what you sign is not a defence in law.
Many people don't read what they sign.
They are stupid.

Surely he could have altered the applications after they had completed them? He sends them off to the lender and the customers think everything is above board. Perhaps this is how he was caught out?

How can you have mens rae if you don't know what you're signing?

I think you may be confusing contract law with criminal law.


I find it hilarious when people make blanket statements like this.

Are we to believe that they read every clause and sub clause of every paragraph of every document they sign?

More importantly, if they do, do they really believe that they have understood what they've read? Do they really understand how certain innocuous pieces of wording interact with case law to render the actual, legal, meaning of some clause somewhat different to what it appears?

Most mortgage fraud is commited by people giving false information.
Simple as that.
I believe there is a warning on Mortgage contracts that to do so is a criminal offence.

I wasn't speculating about what he could have done.
Merely pointing out what he actually did, that is, altered
P60s.

Most?

What other sort of mortgage fraud is there?


Yeah, it would be simple as that's the definition of mortgage fraud.

Sorry, I hadn't had my coffee yet, I quoted the wrong post.

Yep you're correct.

deleted

Civil law - in many cases I've dealt with in the County Court where a creditor wishes to enforce a debt with a CCJ, the Judge has invariably ruled that signing a contract - Mobile Phone, Broadband, all forms of Insurance eg employment protection tied to a credit card - still makes the debt enforceable.
Failure to understand etc. clauses or to read the small print is no defence.
So, many smart arses try "duress" to get out of it.
Unsuccessfully.

So, as I thought, you are mixing up civil and criminal law.

Fraud is a criminal offence and the rules are somewhat different to contract law which is civil law.

This thread is about a possible criminal act so civil law is not really relevant.

actually, fraud can be a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence - if a person has been defrauded, they have a civil right of redress and the state is also wronged. in some systems, there is no disitnction between civil and public law and I recently read that the English legal system did not originally see crime as a crime against the state, but only an offence against the offended. the system changed after the Norman conquest when William the Bastard decided that he wanted to centralise power, yet also made communities responsible for crime committed in the local area.

in the case reported here, mortgage fraud is an offence under the criminal law (even if nobody makes a loss) and a civil wrong suffered by the lenders. years ago, I remember pointing out a serious and blatant fraud to a lender - a purchase in the name of somebody who was not the real owner and using falsified documentation - but because on the (forced) sale, they did not lose out, they did not care one iota. not one payment had been made on the mortgage in the time it existed, but they didn't care - they got their payments plus interest on sale and were not bothered that a fraud had adversely affected their cash-flow. I think that was about 1990.

most borrowers sign what the broker produces, whether it has gaps or not - brokers are notorious for getting deals through, but they are not the only ones. just this morning I got asked to advise in a lettings case where there were £50k of arrears - the tenant had lied when seeking the tenancy, but the law still protects them from 'unlawful' eviction.

cheats do often prosper.

Why would anyone take legal or financial advice from someone who doesn't even know how to use capital letters?

The thing that annoyed me more about Chris was that he insisted he was 'a nice person' constantly on the your fired show.
My experience is nice people do not insist they are nice, it is more how others view you. nice people are not sleezy like Chris, and also nice people do not commit fraud.

perhaps I only use capital letters when being paid?

or when I can be arsed.

this is a discussion board, not an article for publication or paid-for advice, however - if you send me £100, then I will re-print it with the capital letters in place.

FWIW, I note that you attack the form, not the substance.