Is it a punishment, or just the “cost of doing business”?
I feel like 50 k isn’t enough.
It’s just getting money from a bank. Who cares? Fuck the bank.
Also she’s undoubtedly lost her licence as well
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ravinder Biln, a submortgage broker who worked for Kraft Mortgages Canada Inc. located in Surrey, B.C., has been ordered to pay the fine by the professional association that regulates her industry, the B.C.
The penalty comes as part of an agreement she signed with the governing bodies, which contains details of her misconduct.
According to the document, Biln, who did business as “Ravinder Kaur,” worked as a submortgage broker from 2012 to 2020.
As part of the order, Biln agreed that she created fake documents on behalf of seven borrowers, including employment verification letters, pay stubs, and in one instance, a T4 tax slip.
She then included these falsified documents in mortgage applications to banks and credit unions.
In two instances, she created employment letters and pay stubs that suggested her clients worked at a specific company when, in fact, she knew they didn’t.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
She should go to prison for knowingly falsifying financial documents. I wonder what happens if you try that with the CRA.
This isn’t a prison thing. All she did was a little Robin Hood action, got a little money for the little guy from banks. Fuck the banks who cares?
I see it as fraud. She benefitted financially from the sales that otherwise would not have taken place and her clients went against stress test requirements. On individual scale, the buyers might be better off (with current interest rates that’s not a guarantee either) but those requirements exist on a macro scale to protect the banking system from collapsing and fake documents have been becoming increasingly common.
I’m not defending impossible housing prices but income requirements would exist even if housing was affordable to most as it’s needed to avoid giving out loans that will not be paid back.
These type of arguments do not look at the big picture.
Stealing from big companies can sound noble if you only look at the theft itself. But when you take a step back and look at how the money flows, you will see that the company does just take the loss and do nothing. What actually happens is the company sees the theft as an additional cost, and includes those costs in the prices charged to everyone else. Resulting in the money to cover the theft coming from other customers.
So the net result of stealing from a big company, is stealing from ever other customer.
