FSA bans West London mortgage broker
Share
The FSA has banned a West London mortgage broker for submitting fraudulent applications, including one where he inflated his own income by 1,200 per cent.
The FSA banned Andrew Emelife for knowingly submitting mortgage applications to lenders that contained false and misleading income information.
In a mortgage application that Emelife submitted for himself, the annual income of £188,000 that he declared to the lender was 1,200 per cent higher than the £15,000 he declared for tax purposes.
Emelife also commissioned an accountant to provide false accountants statements for himself and at least one customer to commit mortgage fraud.
Trading as Loans4Assets.com in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, Emelife submitted three mortgage applications - one for himself, one for his business, and one for a customer - all of which contained inflated income figures.
The FSA concluded that Emelife lacked honesty and integrity and should be prevented from working in regulated financial services.
FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “This prohibition, along with our previous and ongoing work, will make the mortgage market a safer place. Emelife acted in a wholly unacceptable manner and deserves to be banned from the industry.
“In the last three years we have banned 78 mortgage brokers and we will continue to remove the bad apples from the market to ensure that lending is based on reliable personal and financial information.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Most popular
Most commented
Most emailed
-
Private equity firm takes joint control of wrap provider FNZ
-
New draft HMRC guidance suggests advice process will be VAT-exempt
-
Tony Wickenden: Introducing Seis and changes to VCTs and EIS
-
Scot Wids to re-enter IFA annuity market and exit offshore bonds
-
European regulator warns on quality of advice and products
Readers' comments (9)
Grahame R Harwood | 4 Feb 2010 11:27 am
isn't this sort of obtaining money through deception, a criminal offence, which then also brings the offence of money laundering since the mortgage funds obtained will be the proceeds of crime.
I wonder if the FSA have completed a money laundering report and reported both offences to the police?
Also - I wonder how the FSA have banned this broker from the industry, my undrstanding is that at the present time it is just the mortgage broking firm that is the regulated body. And these sorts of individuals can just set up another mortgage broking firm and carry on trading.
I did recently read that the FSA are now going to bring in individual registration for mortgage intermediaries. I think the cost was reported to be circa £12million.
In my opinion I don't think you can call the FSA a regulator, for me the cap just doesn't fit and probably never will - I think there really is no chance at all of th FSA making a bigger 'cock up' than than those massive 'cock ups' they have already made.
We do need a regulator but it needs to be a totally different format in my opinion. Made up of a cross section of people, various financial industry sector experts, laymen, consumer champions, lawyers, etc etc. Micro-managment out and effective observation/management in - I say.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Feb 2010 11:31 am
Wow, 78 mortgage brokers!!
Only another 30,000 to go! That number of claimed kills should look good on the side of HMS FSA....
Were any 'consumers' prosecuted? Thought not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Feb 2010 12:10 pm
Identifying and removing bad apples is one thing (that used to be done by the judicial system relatively effectively - this only requires hindsight) but the FSA hasn't got such a good track record on identifying bad barrels (like the banking industry in the late 2000's) however, this requires a bit of foresight which seems to be a rare commodity at Canary Wharf.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A humble broker | 4 Feb 2010 12:53 pm
Unfortunatley many brokers have had to stretch the truth on their own apps over the years as self-employed income is so unfairly treated. Especially now with earnings massively down. Most brokers I know wouldn't be able to get their own mortgage based on Net Profit, however all these brokers are decent people with average houses and average mortgages.
This chap must be borrowing in excess of £700k, otherwise he wouldn't have put down that high an income. It begs the question 'how on earth is he paying for his mortgage?' and how much cash is he getting from his customers in fees that is not declared!!!!
He must be either extremely stupid or extremely arrogant or both to have even attempted this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A humble broker | 4 Feb 2010 5:32 pm
Unfortunatley many brokers have had to stretch the truth on their own apps over the years as self-employed income is so unfairly treated. Especially now with earnings massively down. Most brokers I know wouldn't be able to get their own mortgage based on Net Profit, however all these brokers are decent people with average houses and average mortgages.
This chap must be borrowing in excess of £700k, otherwise he wouldn't have put down that high an income. It begs the question 'how on earth is he paying for his mortgage?' and how much cash is he getting from his customers in fees that is not declared!!!!
He must be either extremely stupid or extremely arrogant or both to have even attempted this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Payne | 4 Feb 2010 5:43 pm
Wow! that Margaret Cole is some fearsome lady. To be serious though boasting that the FSA has banned 78 mortgage brokers is totally missing the point. Mortgage brokers did not bring the financial system to the point where massive taxpayer support was all that was between the UK and total collapse of our financial system. Mortgage brokers will never be in that position so the regulator needs to get it's priorities sorted out.
On that point perhaps Ms Cole would do the UK taxpayer more good if she took a stronger line with banks and bankers. I have yet to hear the head count on that score card, indeed I haven't heard of any bankers being 'banned' so it presumably reads a big fat 'ZERO'. the banks, coupled with the Regulator which didn't even know that it should have been looking have cost every man, woman and child in the UK £23,000 and counting. The FSA. with it's famed hind sight should be on this case, but no that would highlight their own incompetence even more so they continue to talk up their scrabbling around at the fringes, picking easy targets as if this absolves them from their 'Fiddling While The UK Burns'. Ms Cole should be ashamed at the regulators failures rather than boasting about such small successes. This guy was wrong (stupid also for being so blatant) but Ms Cole please go after the bigger fish first, or is your bonus based on number of cases closed rather than on the relevance of the case to the UK's Financial Markets and the potential Systemic Risks involved? If that is the case then the most senior management need to be changed becasue they have failed, yet again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scarlet Pimpernel | 5 Feb 2010 5:40 pm
Well done for the Comments of: Jim Payne - 4 Feb 2010 5:43 pm. Could not have said it better.
The FSA lot at Canary Wharf, you know the “Clowns” that thought up that; “Treating Customers Fairly” = TCF! Who are now imposing this RDR; which will force us all into EXPENSIVE TIME WASTING EXAMS; Will to top it all; Fine us if we make a mistake!
I think if you can stand going to Prison, and being a Crook instead; just think of the benefits which are;
1. No Tax to pay!
2. No Bills to Pay!
3. No Hassle!
4. Free Health Care!
5. Free Gym!
6. AND THE BEST OF ALL - NO FSA!
Because I have heard that they are;
TREATING CROOKS FAIRLY” = TCF!
They certainly don’t treat Brokers Fairly!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dathan Steele | 6 Feb 2010 2:23 pm
To: Scarlet Pimpernel | 5 Feb 2010 5:40 pm
So taking exams to build and maintain your knowledge is a waste of time is it? Hmm, I'm glad I'm not one of your clients!
I saw a second hand car lot for sale the other day. Would you like the details??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scarlet Pimpernel | 8 Feb 2010 8:11 pm
Reply To: Dathan Steele | 6 Feb 2010 2.23.pm
I wouldn’t take you as a client buddy boy!
I am too fussy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment