A piece of the subprime loan meltdown puzzle that goes to criminal individual behavior rather than what amounts to criminal deregulation.
Question is, did the system play them or the other way around?
"The FBI says it has arrested 406 property market players as part of a crackdown on alleged mortgage frauds worth an estimated $1bn (£500m).
The arrests include housing developers, estate agents and mortgage brokers.
Reported mortgage fraud has soared in the past year, with the most common type being mis-statement of assets.
In a separate development, two former Bear Stearns managers have been charged following the collapse of two hedge funds linked to sub-prime mortgages.







del.icio.us
Digg It!



Disclosure - I work in the lending industry, at a Banker/Broker.
These cases all involve people who learned the rules of lending, and instead of being happy making piles of cash, wanted big piles of cash.
The thing that the FBI and the state banking regulators have been dumbfounded by with these cases is that most of these idiots weren't getting the "big payday" from their illicit activity. They were merely getting transactions. The normal amount of legal business they could have done was insufficient to appease their greed, so they began to break the law, to increase sales.
What your question misses is you are treating the problems as an either/ or, Republotard duality deal:
Report Abuse