FSA fines and bans mortgage broker for fraud
Share
The Financial Services Authority has fined and banned a Bromley mortgage broker for fraud.
Dele MacAulay has been fined £115,157 for knowingly submitting nine fraudulent mortgage applications for himself, his wife, and his brother.
MacAulay, trading as Dele MacAulay Financial Services, has now been banned from working in regulated financial services. He has also been sentenced to 21-months in prison for his activities.
The FSA’s investigation showed that MacAulay processed nine fraudulent mortgage applications with false income and employment information. Five were residential mortgages for himself, two were residential mortgages for his wife, and two residential mortgages for his brother.
MacAulay also submitted false tax information to the FSA in his retail mediation activities return.
FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “MacAulay abused his position as a mortgage broker for personal gain, but he was caught and has paid a heavy price. This fine and ban reflect the seriousness of his failings as well as the FSA’s attitude to those who abuse their approved status.
“This case is also a good example of the benefits of a collaborative approach with the police. Between us we have dealt with MacAulay decisively and justice has been done.”
The FSA’s investigation was conducted alongside a criminal investigation by Hertfordshire Constabulary also looking into mortgage fraud committed by MacAulay.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 2 Mar 2010 5:07 pm
And the RDR doesn't cover mortgages?
Why is that?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Incompetent Regulators Awards Team | 2 Mar 2010 5:18 pm
What about fining staff FSA for c*ck ups? It's about time these people were made acountable for their slack work. e.g. Lets start with the banks shall we? In which case if things were proportionate and commensurate with the scale of their failures, they would all lose their homes many moons ago! But hey we are under Labour so they all get fat salaries, big bonuses and expenses on my fees
They just make me laugh. Who are they trying to kid about regulations?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Victor Meldrew | 2 Mar 2010 5:37 pm
Can someone explain to me what RDR has to do with a dishonest person making fraudulent mortgage applications for his own and his family's benefit?
Perhaps he should have charged himself a fee to pay for him taking and passing the exams but he would still have been a crook although a fee charging well qualified crook.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Mar 2010 6:01 pm
How will a read across of RDR to mortgages prevent this happening?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Mar 2010 6:20 pm
I hope this is only the start of a very long list of dishonest brokers whose new rightful address is HMP.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy | 2 Mar 2010 9:32 pm
Victor - you're way off the mark, RDR is nothing to do with mortgages...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Mar 2010 11:11 pm
I seem to member some time ago that the BBC ran a program showing bank employees helping individuals falsify mortgage applications (i.e. caught on camera). However, I don't seem to remember seeing anything about these individuals or their employers being punished by the FSA.
Why is that?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 Mar 2010 8:48 am
How on earth can you pin the blatant dishonesty of a bad apple on FSA c*ck ups?
The FSA and the banks have a lot to answer for, but using this article as a stick to hit them with just cheapens your cause
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 Mar 2010 8:56 am
This man, and others like him, should be dealt with severely by the justice system. That is why he was brought before the Crown Court, tried fairly, convicted, and sent to prison. It is no doubt arguable that he should be relieved of his unjust profit but that power was available to the trial judge as a fine - either in addition to or in lieu of a custodial sentence.
What should concern us is the FSA's belief that it stands astride the courts, and is empowered to impose further penalties - so the offender is punished twice for the same crime.
Not for the first time, the regulator's stance raises constitutional issues that go far beyond the immediate matter of one broker's dishonesty.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob | 3 Mar 2010 9:35 am
In all of these cases, the FSA never state whether payments on the mortgage were kept up or if lenders actually lost all the money they lent because it was misappropriated. Is this 21 months in prison for lying on a mortgage application form that all of the borrowers actually made payments on and kept up to date or is it stealing the funds from the advance and shafting the lender?
If payments were made, then a lender has made a profit from an illegal transaction. I'm not slinging blame around at all as this guy should be punished but wouldn't that be a bit strange?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment