Have a look at this big scam:

wells-fargo-scamsMore than 5,000 Wells Fargo employees have been fired as a result of a scandal involving phony bank accounts. But do the CEO or other senior executives need to be let go too?

Wells Fargo is paying $185 million in fines after the Los Angeles City Attorney and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that Wells Fargo employees had secretly set up new fake bank and credit card accounts in order to meet sales targets.

 In some cases, Wells Fargo customers were hit with overdraft fees and other charges because their money had been unknowingly moved from their regular account to a fake one.

The CFPB said Thursday that the practice was “widespread.” But how “widespread” remains to be seen. During the past decade, only a few top executives at many U.S. and European banks have lost their jobs due to numerous scandals going back to the financial crisis.

Several big banks inflated the value of mortgage-backed securities on their books. And some major banks coordinated to manipulate the Libor lending rate and foreign exchange rates, for example.

(more here)

One Comment

  • JoAnn says:

    Substantial Evidence” of “Forged” Endorsements: Wells Fargo Loses One
    by eggsistense
    wells-fargo-hells-cargo

    The money quote (pun very much intended) from Judge Robert Drain’s Memorandum of Decision, filed yesterday in a New York bankruptcy case regarding a Texas property in which attorney Linda Tirelli is representing the homeowner:

    I conclude that the foregoing evidence cumulatively shifts the burden to Wells Fargo under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 3.308(a) and 1‐206(a) to show the authenticity of the blank ABN Amro indorsement to establish its status as a holder of the Note under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 3.301(i) and 3.201(a). It constitutes substantial evidence that Wells Fargo’s administrative group responsible for the documentary aspects of enforcing defaulted loan documents created new mortgage assignments and forged indorsements when it was determined by outside counsel that they were required to enforce loans. Given that evidence, Wells Fargo should have the burden to establish the bona fides of the blank ABN Amro indorsement that did not appear on the Note attached to Claim No. 1‐1 but did appear on the Note attached to Claim No. 1‐2. (p. 20)

    It bears repeating that this is a finding of a court, not a pleading or a statement from a homeowner, pro se litigant, or attorney. It’s also significant that the judge was able to come to this conclusion even without additional discovery relating to the now-notorious Wells Fargo document-fixing manual. The judge had apparently allowed discovery in the case to be re-opened after the manual came to light, but would only allow discovery relating to “the loan and Note at issue” (p. 9) presumably meaning that if Tirelli could provide information that the dictates of the manual were used in this particular case, it would be allowed. However, neither Wells Fargo nor Tirelli ended up submitting any such information.

    In the memorandum, Drain framed the big question at stake herein in these terms:

    In accordance with the foregoing sections of Texas’ U.C.C., therefore, if the blank ABN Amro indorsement is bona fide, Wells Fargo is the holder of the Note, entitled to enforce it. Trimm v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7880, at *13; Das v.Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2541, at *6 (“An instrument containing a blank
    endorsement is payable to the bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.”). On the other hand, if the indorsement is forged, it is not valid, and – the only other indorsement on the Note being a specific indorsement to ABN Amro – Wells Fargo could not rely on the foregoing statutory provisions to establish that it is the holder of the Note. p. 12

    For all intents and purposes, the note to which the court is referring (on p. 12) is the original—the actual original, i.e., the one put in front of Tirelli’s client at closing lo these many years ago. I’m not sure I buy that, but the court indicates that for its purposes, the piece of paper it saw was the original note. Indeed, we must recall that in a certified transcript of a 2007 meeting of the Texas “Task Force on Judicial Foreclosure Rules,” Michael Barrett, who identified himself as the “chairman” of Barrett Burke Wilson Castle Daffin & Frappier, stated the following on p. 8 of the PDF found here:

    “So finding a document that says, “I am the owner and holder, and I hereby grant to the servicer the right to foreclose in my name” is an impossibility in 90 percent of the cases.”

    Despite this, as noted above, there was no objection from the homeowner regarding whether or not the note was the original or not.

    This is obviously a victory even though it doesn’t–as Drain took pains to point out on page 30—give the homeowner the much-maligned “free house.” The victory is that a judge was actually able to see through the endorsement fraud and even:

    Because Wells Fargo does not rely on the Assignment of Mortgage to prove its claim, the foregoing evidence is helpful to the Debtor only indirectly, insofar as it goes to show that the blank indorsement, upon which Wells Fargo is relying, was forged. Nevertheless it does show a general willingness and practice on Wells Fargo’s part to create documentary evidence, after‐the‐fact, when enforcing its claims, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARY. pp. 17-18

    The caps-lock in the above quote is actually in the original. Unfortunately, a “general willingness” of a bank “to create documentary evidence after the fact when enforcing its claims” is in fact quite ordinary. For a good cataloging of such ordinary behavior, see the following article:

Leave a Reply