CBS 60 Minutes: People paid $10/hr to sign other people's names on mortgage docs

[Emperor_Gestahl]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7361572n

Looks like the banks slipped up and tried to foreclose on someone who trains FBI agents and investigates document forgery as their day job. Oops!

Kudos to CBS for giving a damn what Wall Street is doing on both sides of closed doors.

 

[dtugg]

Wow. That is freaking crazy. I hope the people responsible spend time in the slammer.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Unreal.

Sounds like something you'd only find in the third world.

 

[rjh01]

Looks like the banks have fallen for a get rich quick scheme. They should know that such things do not work.

At least in Australia banks are ok.

 

[TragicMonkey]

$10 an hour? You'd think forgery would pay better than that!

 

[Stylesjl]

I'm flabbergasted. I mean such blatant fraud on a massive scale is incredible, these banks deserve to be tied up in massive lawsuits for a long, long time

 

[WildCat]

I'm flabbergasted. I mean such blatant fraud on a massive scale is incredible, these banks deserve to be tied up in massive lawsuits for a long, long time

Lawsuits sure, but also prison for anyone responsible for this scheme.

 

[Garrette]

Lawsuits sure, but also prison for anyone responsible for this scheme.

Agreed, so long as it includes the $10/hour yahoos who thought it was okay to sign someone else's name and "notarize" them.

I've no sympathy for the big fish or the little fish in this scheme.

 

[WildCat]

Agreed, so long as it includes the $10/hour yahoos who thought it was okay to sign someone else's name and "notarize" them.

I've no sympathy for the big fish or the little fish in this scheme.

I don't expect those who took the $10/hr job to be knowledgeable enough to know what they were doing was illegal. But their supervisors surely should have known.

 

[Garrette]

I don't expect those who took the $10/hr job to be knowledgeable enough to know what they were doing was illegal. But their supervisors surely should have known.

I wouldn't take lack of knowledge as a defense. It is not unreasonable to assume someone should know not to sign someone else's name to a legal document. It is not unreasonable to assume someone should know not to notarize a document when the alleged notary knows for a fact that the signatures were not made by the person whose name was written.

 

[Lamuella]

the whole foreclosure system is a pyramid scheme of swindles, half truths and outright lies. Harry Shearer covers a lot of this on his KCRW show, and some of the people he's had on talking about the tricks that banks pull have made these people sound like Bond villains, for good reason.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

$10 an hour? You'd think forgery would pay better than that!

They were only trying to help the unemployment situation. And this is the thanks they get.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Agreed, so long as it includes the $10/hour yahoos who thought it was okay to sign someone else's name and "notarize" them.

This.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's crap like this that makes me glad I don't use banks, I'm in a credit union.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now how can we blame this on excessive government oversight?

 

[Aepervius]

I have a question, since I can#t watch the video, will teher be a FBI or police investigation ? If not why ? Is that not illegal ? PS: it is not the first time I read an article on bank "back-signing" paper which are thought to be lost or inexistant...

 

[WildCat]

I have a question, since I can#t watch the video, will teher be a FBI or police investigation ? If not why ? Is that not illegal ? PS: it is not the first time I read an article on bank "back-signing" paper which are thought to be lost or inexistant...

Print version of the story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011...49646.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentTitle

Yes, the FBI is investigating DocX. As are several states.

 

[brodski]

Now how can we blame this on excessive government oversight?

if the regulations didn't demand that they had to have paperwork in the first place they wouldn't need to forge it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

if the regulations didn't demand that they had to have paperwork in the first place they wouldn't need to forge it.

Good point!

 

[CORed]

Good point!

This raises a lot of questions in my mind. If a bank cannot actually prove they own a mortgage note, who does own it? The originator? The last middleman with valid documentation? If that's the case, then, If I'm not mistaken, the bank that has been collecting payments in the belief that it owned the note owes the money it collected to the real owner of the loan. It's mind boggling that something this fundamental was screwed up on such a large scale.