- This topic has 15 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 10, 2007 at 9:55 AM #11156December 10, 2007 at 9:56 AM #112879
GoUSC
ParticipantSomeone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the contracts usually have a clause that requires the lender to buy the loan back from the investor if fraud on the part of the lender is found.
December 10, 2007 at 9:56 AM #112997ParticipantSomeone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the contracts usually have a clause that requires the lender to buy the loan back from the investor if fraud on the part of the lender is found.
December 10, 2007 at 9:56 AM #113037ParticipantSomeone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the contracts usually have a clause that requires the lender to buy the loan back from the investor if fraud on the part of the lender is found.
December 10, 2007 at 9:56 AM #113045ParticipantSomeone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the contracts usually have a clause that requires the lender to buy the loan back from the investor if fraud on the part of the lender is found.
December 10, 2007 at 9:56 AM #113078ParticipantSomeone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the contracts usually have a clause that requires the lender to buy the loan back from the investor if fraud on the part of the lender is found.
December 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM #113075pencilneck
ParticipantWouldn’t this be fraud on the part of the borrower, rather than the original lender?
I don’t know if or how this changes the scenario.
December 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM #113191ParticipantWouldn’t this be fraud on the part of the borrower, rather than the original lender?
I don’t know if or how this changes the scenario.
December 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM #113232ParticipantWouldn’t this be fraud on the part of the borrower, rather than the original lender?
I don’t know if or how this changes the scenario.
December 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM #113239ParticipantWouldn’t this be fraud on the part of the borrower, rather than the original lender?
I don’t know if or how this changes the scenario.
December 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM #113275ParticipantWouldn’t this be fraud on the part of the borrower, rather than the original lender?
I don’t know if or how this changes the scenario.
December 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM #113115ucodegen
ParticipantTwo things occur.
1) The originator can be forced to buy back the loan package (once it is securitized, it is no longer handled as individual loans at the bank/investment level). This occurs if the originator or securitizing bank has misstated the inherent risk on the package.
2) If the mis-statement of the income is intentional, it is a crime. See the part near where the signature is on a mortgage application. I also point you to 18 USC 1011 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, section 1011), 18 USC 1014 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, 1014). The real thing that has to happen is that the injured parties (banks/investors/trustee) has to file the complaint. The only thing is that the way the mortgage packages get sliced up.. it is hard to tell… and many of the banks/investors/trustees are not really pursuing this avenue yet. I would not make the assumption that they won’t eventually.
Other interesting parts may apply.. ie Title 18 Part I Chapter 9 depending upon what happens afterwards or events leading up to (cash back?)
December 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM #113231ParticipantTwo things occur.
1) The originator can be forced to buy back the loan package (once it is securitized, it is no longer handled as individual loans at the bank/investment level). This occurs if the originator or securitizing bank has misstated the inherent risk on the package.
2) If the mis-statement of the income is intentional, it is a crime. See the part near where the signature is on a mortgage application. I also point you to 18 USC 1011 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, section 1011), 18 USC 1014 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, 1014). The real thing that has to happen is that the injured parties (banks/investors/trustee) has to file the complaint. The only thing is that the way the mortgage packages get sliced up.. it is hard to tell… and many of the banks/investors/trustees are not really pursuing this avenue yet. I would not make the assumption that they won’t eventually.
Other interesting parts may apply.. ie Title 18 Part I Chapter 9 depending upon what happens afterwards or events leading up to (cash back?)
December 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM #113272ParticipantTwo things occur.
1) The originator can be forced to buy back the loan package (once it is securitized, it is no longer handled as individual loans at the bank/investment level). This occurs if the originator or securitizing bank has misstated the inherent risk on the package.
2) If the mis-statement of the income is intentional, it is a crime. See the part near where the signature is on a mortgage application. I also point you to 18 USC 1011 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, section 1011), 18 USC 1014 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, 1014). The real thing that has to happen is that the injured parties (banks/investors/trustee) has to file the complaint. The only thing is that the way the mortgage packages get sliced up.. it is hard to tell… and many of the banks/investors/trustees are not really pursuing this avenue yet. I would not make the assumption that they won’t eventually.
Other interesting parts may apply.. ie Title 18 Part I Chapter 9 depending upon what happens afterwards or events leading up to (cash back?)
December 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM #113278ParticipantTwo things occur.
1) The originator can be forced to buy back the loan package (once it is securitized, it is no longer handled as individual loans at the bank/investment level). This occurs if the originator or securitizing bank has misstated the inherent risk on the package.
2) If the mis-statement of the income is intentional, it is a crime. See the part near where the signature is on a mortgage application. I also point you to 18 USC 1011 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, section 1011), 18 USC 1014 (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, 1014). The real thing that has to happen is that the injured parties (banks/investors/trustee) has to file the complaint. The only thing is that the way the mortgage packages get sliced up.. it is hard to tell… and many of the banks/investors/trustees are not really pursuing this avenue yet. I would not make the assumption that they won’t eventually.
Other interesting parts may apply.. ie Title 18 Part I Chapter 9 depending upon what happens afterwards or events leading up to (cash back?)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.