View more on these topics

FSA bans mortgage brokers for fraud and governance arrangements

The Financial Services Authority has banned Birmingham mortgage broker Mohammed Hanif for obtaining authorisation by giving the regulator false information to conceal his involvement in the running of the business.  

The authorisation application stated that Hanif’s daughter-in-law, Zaneb Sarfraz, had the required competence, capability and business experience as an authorised person to be involved in the management and control of Pak Property Centre, when in fact she has no knowledge of the financial services industry.

Sarfraz was not aware of the purpose of the authorisation application submitted in her name, and she had very little involvement in the running of the business, with Hanif actually running Pak Property Centre.

In addition to the false information, Hanif and Anmbur Saddiq, the only mortgage adviser at the firm, submitted a mortgage application for Mrs Sarfraz based on false information about her earnings from the business. Saddiq also made false mortgage applications for himself and for a family member. Saddiq has also been banned by the FSA.

The permission of Zaneb Sarfraz trading as Pak Property Centre has also been cancelled.

FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “Maintaining the integrity of the authorisation process is essential if we are to keep dishonest people out of the regulated financial services industry.

“This was a deliberate act of deception and exploitation by Hanif.  He deceived the FSA by presenting sham governance arrangements during the authorisation process.  In doing this seemingly he had no regard for the impact on the reputation of Mrs Sarfraz.  This misconduct, which is very serious in itself, is compounded by the fact that he went on to use the authorised business to commit mortgage fraud.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 11 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Who was the approved person?
    Just who was qualified in the firm to give mortgage advice?
    It sounds like this was a directly authorised firm and not a network member so at least one person had to be qualified to give mortgage advice, who was it is what is questionable?

  2. There is a familiar theme to all these reports, is there not?

  3. I hope he has not only been banned by the FSA, but being prosecuted for fraud as well

  4. F-Pack Wooden Spoon Team 11th November 2009 at 2:37 pm

    ooooooh!!!! Well done FSA caught out a really big fish doing naughty things.

    Shame about missing the little banking problem in 2008!

  5. I thought the idea of the FSA register was you could input the name of the firm, or the approved person, or the FSA number and then go on the register and check their disciplinary history. You try it and see fi any of the names mentioned, eitther private or business come up with anything which refers to these people/firm.

  6. The FSA is trying to now show that it Regulates. Mortgages have been regulated now for some time-WHY wake up when the market has been effected by the Financial Crisis. If they regulated when they were suppose to-MAYBE we would not be in the sorry state we are in now as an Industry.
    Also if they had regulated the Lenders/Banks as they are supposed to have, we might again not have been in the sorry state of affairs as we are now. it is back to the grind now, as usual they will hit the small boys who do not have the resourses to fight and go light on the Big Boys. etc.etc.etc

  7. Did no one at the FSA think (or bother) to run any checks to establish the veracity of the claim on the application for authorisation that Zaneb Sarfraz did actually have the necessary “competence, capability and business experience as an authorised person”?

    And for how many years was the Pak Property Centre trading before the FSA finally decided to investigate it?

  8. OK so fair enough the FSA has banned these people, but how much of a coup is that? Very few consumers were presumably put at risk. What about the big boys of the industry who have disadvantaged 10’s of thousands of consumers?
    Despite one or two large fines you macho boys down at Canary Wharfe still seem content to go mainly for the low hanging fruit, the easy ones to pick and it’s interesting that the larger companies only seem to attract fines, their personnel are not banned, even those fines normally attract a 30% discount!
    Presumably the FSA managers do not want to upset their employment prospects should they find themselves looking for work in 6-12 months time.

  9. To allow application through in the first place is the falut of the FSA..right? …so to then find that this firm has problems..is the self alertness of the FSA recognising its error..right?…so BAN THE INCOMPTENT FSA FIRST…THEN ANYONE ACTING INAPPROPPRIATLY SECOND…NO JOKE IT APPEARS ..WE ARE REGULATED, RULED AND JUDGED BY THOSE WHO HAVE NO REALLY CAPACITY TO DO THE JOB!

  10. I believe the vetting process for direct authorisation is questionable. I know of an IFA trading in Burnley (Boway Financial Solutions Ltd) who was actually expelled by the then PIA for failing to declare other business interests and had clients known to him (as clients with money) sign promsory notes for investment into a night club (1998) guaranteeing a10% return. His partner in crime was jailed and the money disappeared. He became directly authorised in Nov 2008

  11. I believe the vetting process for direct authorisation is questionable. A IFA trading in Burnley who was actually expelled by the then PIA for failing to declare other business interests and had clients known to him (as clients with money) sign promsory notes for investment into a night club (1998) guaranteeing a 10% return. They lost their money. His partner in crime was jailed and the money disappeared. He became directly authorised in Nov 2008

Leave a comment