Thursday, January 31, 2013

DOJ, SEC Charge Former Jefferies Executive With Defrauding MBS Investors | Structured Finance Litigation Blog

DOJ, SEC Charge Former Jefferies Executive With Defrauding MBS Investors | Structured Finance Litigation Blog

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

[VIDEO] Texas County Clerk MERS Audit Findings Presentation re: Robo-Signed Forged Documents

[VIDEO] Texas County Clerk MERS Audit Findings Presentation re: Robo-Signed Forged Documents

Monday, January 28, 2013

More Questions & Connected Dots Regarding Forged or Fabricated Documents Coming from Chase Bank

This blog post serves as a follow-up to the post dated January 22, 2013 "Is Chase Bank Presenting Forged or Fraudulent Documents to Support Foreclosure on Your Home"  that raised questions as to the veracity and fabrication of documents to wrongfully foreclose on hapless homeowners who had the utter misfortune of borrowing from Washington Mutual Bank, FA (WMBFA) that ceased to exist as a federal savings bank in April 2005.  At which time Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) continued "Doing Business As" WMBFA through 2006 at which time WaMu stated it was FKA, "Formerly Known As" WMBFA.

The question remains:  Is Chase using Adobe Photoshop or other high tech means to prepare fraudulent or forged documents that are being recorded in the Offices of County Recorders and/or courts across the United States of America?

You be the judge.  Connect the dots as the investigator suggests that you do.

BP Investigative Agency has uncovered an Assignment executed by one " David J. Nash" as "Vice President" of JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. The website "Linked In" provides information that David J. Nash's profession is "Independent Graphic Design Professional"  with strong "Photoshop" and "Illustrator" skills employed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA.

The Assignment of Beneficial Interest in Deed of Trust names JPMorgan Chase Bank NA as Successor in Interest by purchase from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A Washington Mutual Bank, FA (Assignor).  It assigns interest to Bank of America NA as Trustee successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, NA as Trustee for WaMu Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-AR15 Trust domiciled c/o JPMorgan Chase Bank NA at 7255 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256.  The original Deed of Trust was dated 9/5/2006 for $3,000,000.


The following Assignment is executed by “David J. Nash” as “Vice President” of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Nash Assignment
Nash assignment 2


Now, let’s take a look at the profile of Mr. David J. Nash:



JPMorgan Chase - David J Nash - Profile
JPMorgan Chase - David J Nash - Profile part 2 

 So . . . . .

Now not to sound overly sarcastic, but there seems to be a few accusations floating around that JPMorgan Chase (and others), have been forging the signatures on endorsements and Promissory Notes through the use of computer programs such as,….oh….”Photoshop” and Adobe Illustrator?”
  

See:
Declaration of Dr James Kelley – Malin v JPMorgan Chase Bank – USDC Tennessee01222013_0000
78586103-Bakenie-v-JPMC-w-1

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lets-connect-some-dots-shall-we/

There seems to be hope for all you struggling graphic designers out there. Just get your proficiency training in “Photoshop” and “Adobe Illustrator” and you too can become a “Vice President” of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A

And God said "Let there be Light" . . . . . . 



Richard (RJ) Eskow: As Federal Prosecutors Cash In, Big Bankers Go Unpunished

Richard (RJ) Eskow: As Federal Prosecutors Cash In, Big Bankers Go Unpunished

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Evidence that Washington Mutual Bank Shipped Loan Files to Mexico


For years borrowers of Washington Mutual Bank and its affiliates have been searching for and attempting to obtain the "original loan file" containing the original Note, Deed of Trust and supporting loan documents in order to save their homes from foreclosure.  Across the United States JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA has delayed discovery efforts of homeowners fighting for their homes, their families and lives.  Chase obfuscates, delays, and plays games with people's lives and what little financial means remain after being devastated by WaMu, the FDIC, Chase, their agents and minions.


We are now seeing Chase provide copies of what they purport to be the "original documents."  Recent court cases reveal that Chase or their agents have been forging documents and then providing forged documents to litigants, their attorneys, and the court thus presenting a potential fraud on the court.  It is a highly sophisticated system.

So what happened to the original loan files?  You can't make this stuff up!


 KPRC TV out of Houston discovered through excellent investigative reporting that in May 2007 Washington Mutual Bank sent thousands and thousands of loan files to a warehouse located in Juarez, Mexico, owned by Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services, Inc, or ACS. KPRC's sources say this was part of an outsourcing contract to have all the loan files imaged into a computer data bank then destroyed. Once all the files were shipped to Mexico, Washington Mutual Bank closed its Houston warehouse on July 27, 2007.

KPRC learned that where the files are being sent may not be the biggest concern for on the day the facility was shut down and empty,Washington Mutual could not account for every single loan file that was sent to Mexico.  Their sources say Washington Mutual lost track of more than 100,000 loan files. Files their sources said were still missing the day the Houston warehouse was shut down.

AND if Washington Mutual Bank outsourced original loan files to Mexico between May and July 2007, what did they do with files of loans made after July 27, 2007 up until the date WaMu failed and was placed in Receivership with the FDIC?

SOURCE INFORMATION: 

You may find the source article  on the web site of U.S. Congressman Ted Poe who was concerned about the 2007 outsourcing of loan documents to foreign countries by Washington Mutual Bank. 

Local 2 Uncovers Personal Information Sent From Houston To Mexico
Note: The following story is a verbatim transcript of an investigative report that aired on Monday, October 29, 2007, on KPRC Local  TV 2 at 10 p.m. 
"Tonight Local 2 Investigates the security of your personal information. We all work hard to make sure our financial identity doesn't fall into the wrong hands. What you may not know is some of the companies you trust with this sensitive information may be sending it to foreign countries. It's called outsourcing and KPRC Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold joins us with the results of his hidden camera investigation into what one of the country's largest banking institutions is doing with your personal data.
"If you've gotten a loan, you know what type of information is in that file: bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, copies of your driver's license. If the loan is big enough, there's also copies of your tax returns.

"Our investigation begins with one question: Why is Washington Mutual sending all of this personal information to Mexico? It's just before 11 a.m. in Juarez, Mexico, and you're watching thousands of files loaded with confidential, personal information from Houston being delivered to a warehouse. Your information could be part of this shipment and you'd never know it.

"Before we tell you exactly what these files are, we need to show you were the files came from. This is Washington Mutual's Consumer Loan records center in northwest Houston. Longtime Washington Mutual employees, who asked not to be identified, tell us more than 1 million consumer loan files from around the country were stored in this secure warehouse.

"You had peoples' lives in your hands or access to them," an employee who worked in the Washington Mutual warehouse said.

"But earlier this year Washington Mutual decided to shut down the Houston facility, lay off the employees and ship all the files out. Employees who worked inside this warehouse contacted Local 2 Investigates when they say they became concerned the initial shipments left the warehouse without proper tracking.

"We had several occasions where we knew things had left the building, but they weren't being accounted for on the other end," this confidential source told Local 2. The other end is Juarez, Mexico. "You started calling Mexico saying, 'Hey, we need file x-y-z' and Mexico would say what?" Arnold asked. "We don't have it," our source said.

In May, Local 2 followed one of the trucks as it left Washington Mutual's Houston warehouse and headed west on I-10. We followed that truck through the night to the next morning, hundreds of miles until it arrived in El Paso. A driver from Mexico then picked up the load and we followed him across the border and through the streets of Juarez. More than 16 hours after leaving Houston, the documents from Washington Mutual loaded with all that sensitive, personal information, finally made it here to the heart of Juarez's "industrial district." The files were delivered to a warehouse owned by Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services, incorporated, or ACS. Our sources say this was part of an outsourcing contract to have all the loan files imaged into a computer data bank then destroyed. Once all the files were shipped Washington Mutual closed its Houston warehouse on July 27.

"When you start outsourcing jobs, that's one thing. When you start outsourcing personal information to another country that makes it even worse," Houston Congressman Ted Poe said. "If I were a consumer and they told me that they were shipping all my loan documents to Mexico I would be a former customer." But we've learned where the files are being sent may not be the biggest concern. "On the day the facility was shut down and empty, could Washington Mutual account for every single loan file that was sent to Mexico?" Arnold asked. "No," our source answered. Our sources say Washington Mutual lost track of more than 100,000 loan files. Files our sources said were still missing the day the Houston warehouse was shut down.
"Poe has concerns about the whole process. "Somebody else has access to that besides the people that ought to be looking at it," Poe said. "That's very disturbing." Washington Mutual would not answer Local 2's question as to whether it tracked down all the files.

"Instead we received this written statement: "For many years WaMu has worked with vendors based in the U.S. who perform some services in other countries. We don't publicly discuss details of our confidential vendor relationships. The protection of customer information is a top priority for WaMu and our dedicated internal Quality Control organization implements ongoing evaluations of our vendor relationships to ensure that controls are being implemented, both in the transportation of customer information and the management of the information," wrote Missy Latham, Washington Mutual vice president and manager, Southwest Bureau National Public Relations. We also had questions about how closely guarded your personal information is in Mexico. We'll show you what our hidden cameras spotted and the response from the company handling all that sensitive information. That's tomorrow morning at 6:50. Then tomorrow night at 10, we'll show you why you may never know when your personal data is sent to a foreign country. 

 
 OTHER INFORMATION:
From WaMu to Affiliated Computer Services: where did your loan files go?
By , November 4, 2007 11:37 am
KPRC in Houston did a series of reports this past week on Washington Mutual in Houston shipping customer loan records to Juarez in Mexico. According to one of its sources, customer loan files were to be “imaged into a computer data bank then destroyed. ” The contractor providing the service is Affiliated Computer Services (ACS).

KPRC followed a shipment of documents as it left Houston and arrived in Juarez. What they found in their investigation was troubling, but not particularly surprising:
  • Customers were not informed that their customer loan records were being shipped out of the country to Mexico, where they do not have the same privacy and data protection laws as the U.S.
  • Washington Mutual allegedly lost track of over 100,000 loan files, i.e., it could not account for specific documents shipped from Houston to ACS’s facility in Juarez. Insiders report that all told, WaMu sent over 1,000,000 loan files to ACS.
  • The reporters observed that boxes were left overnight in the ACS warehouse parking lot, boxes were stacked high in the loading docks, and although there was a guard at the front gate, there was no evidence that the parking lot was being patrolled. They could not determine whether it was bank files left in the parking lot or some other types of documents for some other client, and ACS did not answer their question on that.
The reports include some interesting comments by Rep. Ted Poe, who believes that consumers should have a right to know. It also includes mention of the fact that our federal government has the mechanism to conduct some oversight when bank records are outsourced — if not the will, manpower, or determination:
The government does have some oversight in this area. Banks like Washington Mutual are overseen by the Federal Office of Thrift Supervision. This office has the authority to send examiners to foreign countries to inspect facilities handling personal financial information from the United States. When Local 2 asked if the office has ever inspected any specific facilities in Mexico, officials refused to answer, citing agency policy.
“It bothers me, but it doesn’t surprise me that they won’t respond to the inquiry and they won’t respond, it seems to me, because they haven’t done it,” said Poe.

Possibly Related Posts

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Evidence Establishes the FDIC Assigned WAMU Loans to Trusts


 

 

On August 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM a "Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust" was recorded in Recorder's Office of Los Angeles County, California as Instrument #20121302084 for Washington Mutual Bank FA Loan for which a Deed of Trust made by John Manos was recorded May 18, 2007 as Instrument # 200071214434 for a property known as 5630 Foothill Drive, Agoura Hills, CA 91301.

The said Instrument states:

Contact JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. for this instrument 780 Kansas Lane, Suite A, Monroe, LA 71203, telephone # (866) 756-8747, which is responsible for receiving payments.
FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK F/K/A WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,FA, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 700 Kansas Lane, MC 8000, MONROE, LA, 712-3, (ASSIGNOR), by these presents does convey, grant, sell, assign, transfer and set over the described Deed of Trust without recourse,representation or warranty together with all right, title and interest secured thereby, all liens, and any rights due or to become due thereon to U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HY7 TRUST, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 700 KANSAS LANE,MC 8000, MONROE,LA 71203 (866)756-8747, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, (ASSIGNEE).
This Assignment was executed on August 10, 2012 for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, its Attorney-in-Fact Melissa J. Riley whose Power of Attorney was recorded February 24, 2011 as Doc # 20110317.  It was notarized by Helen P. Tubbs on August 10, 2012 at Parish of Ouachita,State of Louisiana.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Now we have evidence of the FDIC's assigning WaMu loans to the Trusts for "valuable consideration" in violation of New York & Delaware trust laws and IRS REMIC provisions. This is quite unbelievable! So why this loan in particular? Without any schedules of assets ever being produced, how do they decide which ones will be assigned to the trusts from the FDIC, and which ones assigned from Chase? Either way it is illegal!
 
So now we know with certainty that at least some of the WaMu trust loans were retained on the books of WaMu, which violates the PSA's and the reps and warranties to the investors. There is no other way the FDIC can even attempt this assignment. So now what we have is the FDIC accepting "valuable consideration" for stolen merchandise and dumping the losses onto the REMIC investors. 
 
Equally interesting is that the designated "Lender" on the Deed of Trust of May 2007 was cited as "Washington Mutual Bank, FA" a bank that ceased to exist in 2005 according to the 2005 10-K filed by Washington Mutual Inc.  Other records indicate that in 2006 that Washington Mutual Bank had ceased doing business as Washington Mutual Bank, FA.
 
And so the plot thickens!


Is Chase Bank Presenting Forged or Fraudulent Documents to Support Foreclosure on your Home



Recently distressed homeowners involved in foreclosure litigation with JPMorgan Chase Bank NA are reporting incidents that may establish an alleged pattern and practice of forgery and fraud perpetrated on the courts and in discovery by Chase, their affiliates or others relative to official documents presented in discovery or filed with various courts of law (state, federal, bankruptcy) to preclude the homeowner from obtaining fairness and equity through the judicial process.

On the face the appearance is that Notes, Mortgages, Deeds of Trusts and other loan documents are computer generated copies and not original documents.  The bank or its minions appear to be using highly sophisticated software to prepare fraudulent documents.  Rumors are rife that the bank or banks or others destroyed all original WAMU loan documents and that originals do not exist.

Do you believe you are a victim of forged or fraudulently prepared documents?  Please contact me.  Your information will be treated with confidentiality.

FORGERY:      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/FORGERY

The creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one, with the intent to defraud.

Forgery consists of filling in blanks on a document containing a genuine signature, or materially altering or erasing an existing instrument. An underlying intent to defraud, based on knowledge of the false nature of the instrument, must accompany the act. Instruments of forgery may include bills of exchange, bills of lading, promissory notes, checks, bonds, receipts, orders for money or goods, mortgages, discharges of mortgages, deeds, public records, account books, and certain kinds of tickets or passes for transportation or events. Statutes define forgery as a felony. Punishment generally consists of a fine or imprisonment, or both. Methods of forgery include handwriting, printing, engraving, and typewriting. The related crime of uttering a forged document occurs when an inauthentic writing is intentionally offered as genuine. Some modern statutes include this crime with forgery.
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. 

First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.

A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.

Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).

Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.

There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).

All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).

States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).

In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.


Deloitte Is Still Defending Its Independent Foreclosure Review Work | Going Concern

   

Deloitte Is Still Defending Its Independent Foreclosure Review Work | Going Concern


Let's face it.  The Independent Foreclosure Review Process was and is a sham and a scam to further deceive homeowners injured by the big banks like JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.  It appears that the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) colluded with the banks who will probably never pay one dollar to any damaged homeowner.

Chase has never believed that they have harmed anyone in anyway.  They have an established pattern and practice of abuse of distressed homeowners.  

Homeowners have been misled by the OCC and Chase into the false belief that relief was in sight. 

The thing is the relief belongs to Chase! 

Another gathering of crows!

A Fed Voice, Asking to Cut Megabanks Down to Size - NYTimes.com

A Fed Voice, Asking to Cut Megabanks Down to Size - NYTimes.com

A Mortgage Acquired Through Voluntary Purchase Agreement With FDIC Must Be Recorded Before Foreclosure By Advertisement | Warner Norcross & Judd - Appellate Practice Group - JDSupra

A Mortgage Acquired Through Voluntary Purchase Agreement With FDIC Must Be Recorded Before Foreclosure By Advertisement | Warner Norcross & Judd - Appellate Practice Group - JDSupra

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Whale That Swallowed Half Of Jamie Dimon's Pay

Mark Gongloff: The Whale That Swallowed Half Of Jamie Dimon's Pay

 
Here's the link to JPMorgan Chase's report on the London Whale trading debacle.

"The mess has cost Jamie Dimon half his pay for the year, meaning he's going to have to get by on just $11.5 million, only $1.5 million of which will be in cash. It's like his own personal 9/11.
The board is absolutely right to hold Dimon at least partially accountable for the London Whale losses. I'm still waiting to get to the part of the report where the board takes some responsibility, too. Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath while I'm doing it. As Fortune's Stephen Gandel points out, the board has hardly been rattled by the losses. It has a risk-management committee that must bear some of the burden of this mess."

 

Monday, January 14, 2013

Federal Reserve Board issues two consent cease and desist orders against JPMorgan Chase & Co.--January 14, 2013

FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues two consent cease and desist orders against JPMorgan Chase & Co.--January 14, 2013


The Federal Reserve Board on Monday issued two consent Cease and Desist Orders against JPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, New York (JPMC), a registered bank holding company. The first order requires JPMC to take corrective action to continue ongoing enhancements to its risk-management program and its finance and internal audit functions, particularly in regard to JPMC's Chief Investment Office (CIO). The Board's order follows the disclosure of significant losses in a large synthetic credit portfolio that was managed by the CIO. The second order requires JPMC to take corrective action to enhance its program for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering requirements at JPMC's various subsidiaries.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Monday issued two similar Consent Orders against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio.

Attachment (21 KB PDF)
Attachment 2 (22 KB PDF)
 
Last update: January 14, 2013

Sunday, January 13, 2013

JP Morgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litigation -- Class Action and Approved Settlement

In Re JP Morgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litigation

 Like countless others who obtained HELOCs (Home Equity Line of Credit) through JPMorgan Chase Bank between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2012, Chase improperly suspended and reduced my HELOC based on Chase (or LSI) determination that my property values had significantly declined.

A nationwide settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit, In re JPMorgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litigation, filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Case No. 10-cv-3647-MDL 2167.

To learn more about the proposed settlement and filing a claim go to the website below:
In Re JP Morgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litigation

 

There is No Lender in Securitization

In Wells Fargo’s Own Words, There is No Lender in Securitization | Foreclosure Fraud - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Monday, January 7, 2013

HOMEOWNERS SCREWED BY THE OCC AND FEDERAL RESERVE IN INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE REVIEWS








The OCC & Federal Reserve have screwed homeowners yet again through the not so independent foreclosure review process which has now been "settled" and settled by the banks for the banks with the help of the US Treasury Department, the OCC and the Federal Reserve Board.

 This entire process did nothing more than hold desperate borrowers at bay and give them false hope that something good would occur.  However the process was blighted by the fact that the banks themselves were in charge of this sham "independent foreclosure review."  This is letting all the foxes inside the henhouse.  Banks win.  Homeowners lose.

Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance

WASHINGTON--Ten mortgage servicing companies subject to enforcement actions for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing have reached an agreement in principle with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board to pay more than $8.5 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help borrowers.

The sum includes $3.3 billion in direct payments to eligible borrowers and $5.2 billion in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.  The payments involve mortgage servicers operating under enforcement actions issued in April 2011 by the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.  The agreement ensures that more than 3.8 million borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 with the participating servicers will receive cash compensation in a timely manner.

Eligible borrowers are expected to receive compensation ranging from hundreds of dollars up to $125,000, depending on the type of possible servicer error.

This agreement includes Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.  For these participating servicers, fulfillment of the agreement would meet the requirements of the enforcement actions that mandated that the servicers retain independent consultants to conduct an Independent Foreclosure Review.

As a result of this agreement, the participating servicers would cease the Independent Foreclosure Review, which involved case-by-case reviews, and replace it with a broader framework allowing eligible borrowers to receive compensation significantly more quickly.  The OCC and the Federal Reserve accepted this agreement because it provides the greatest benefit to consumers subject to unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices during the relevant period in a more timely manner than would have occurred under the review process.  Eligible borrowers will receive compensation whether or not they filed a request for review form, and borrowers do not need to take further action to be eligible for compensation. 
 
A payment agent will be appointed to administer payments to borrowers on behalf of the servicers.  Eligible borrowers are expected to be contacted by the payment agent by the end of March with payment details.  Borrowers will not be required to execute a waiver of any legal claims they may have against their servicer as a condition for receiving payment.  In addition, the servicers' internal complaint process will remain available to borrowers. 

The agencies continue to work to reach similar agreements in principle with other servicers that are not parties to the agreement announced today, but that are also subject to enforcement actions for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. 

OCC and Federal Reserve examiners are continuing to closely monitor the servicers' implementation of plans required by the enforcement actions issued in April 2011 to correct the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.
 








FRB: Press Release--Independent foreclosure review to provide $3.3 billion in payments, $5.2 billion in mortgage assistance--January 7, 2013

Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance


 


HOMEOWNERS GET SCREWED AGAIN!  THIS HELPS THE BANKS AND THEY WILL KEEP UP THEIR BAD ACTS!

 Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance

 

OCC Foreclosure Reviewer: “Independent” Reviews Were Controlled by Banks, Which Suppressed Any Findings of Harm to Foreclosed Homeowners « naked capitalism

 

OCC Foreclosure Reviewer: “Independent” Reviews Were Controlled by Banks, Which Suppressed Any Findings of Harm to Foreclosed Homeowners « naked capitalism

 

 

Banks Controlled Independent Reviews

Banks Controlled Independent Reviews « Livinglies's Weblog