3 ms·

That's questionable. The most common way that liability for fraud was offloaded was to have the bank purchase the service of validating loan applications from

That's questionable. The most common way that liability for fraud was offloaded was to have the bank purchase the service of validating loan applications from some willing schmuck. That is, by law the originating institution is required to verify that the applications it processes meets some guidelines. Since the applications absolutely did not, and the bank was unwilling to lie about it itself, what they did was purchase the service of looking through the application from whoever who was willing to sign that the application meets requirements for the least amount of money, and over time picking the "institutions" that had the lowest denial rates (which of course trended to 0). This way, the defense of the bankers was essentially: "We did not defraud our customers, instead our dastardly subcontractor did, and we had absolutely nothing to do with it." However, I bet that a jury could be convinced that they had both sufficient information that they should have known that their subcontractors were fraudulently approving applications, and a duty to make this not happen. The ultimate reason why no heads rolled is that those heads are extraordinarily politically connected.

saimiam 9y ago
>The ultimate reason why no heads rolled is that those heads are extraordinarily politically connected. This is probably very true That said, in business, if someone is willing to put their signature on a dotted line, it isn't your job to remind them of its implications. Personal example: a friend of mine sold his house recently. The HVAC system was suspected but not known to have a leak - it had lost about a pound of coolant in a month. The leak was suspected a few days before close. He got the HVAC refilled, told the technician to write "may have a small leak" in his report, and sent this report to the buyer. The buyer agreed to close the deal anyway. Morally, his job was to properly identify and fix the leak before selling the house. In reality, the buyer signed the dotted line given the information available to her. If the HVAC now needs repairs costing several thousand dollars, no judge is going to tell him to accept liability.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I don't think that example applies to this situation. In this case, the people doing the signing were hired by the banks to do it. The banks are surely responsible -- ethically, and probably legally -- for the actions of their agents, even if the only way they directed these people was by firing the ones who tried to act responsibly.
  - saimiam 9y ago
    I used the personal example to elaborate on the idea that when you're transacting in business, you sometimes provide as little information as legally required. If the other party signs the dotted line, you are basically home free. I wasn't trying to make a point about contractors vs employee.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    If I hire employees to sell my product, and those employees break the law to sell my product, even though I have policies in place saying they should NOT break the law. Am I liable for the actions of my employees?
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      Depends. If the message was like "yeah, don't break the law -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- and remember, we'll fire you if you don't approve enough applications", then yes, absolutely you're liable.

saimiam 9y ago

>The ultimate reason why no heads rolled is that those heads are extraordinarily politically connected. This is probably very true That said, in business, if someone is willing to put their signature on a dotted line, it isn't your job to remind them of its implications. Personal example: a friend of mine sold his house recently. The HVAC system was suspected but not known to have a leak - it had lost about a pound of coolant in a month. The leak was suspected a few days before close. He got the HVAC refilled, told the technician to write "may have a small leak" in his report, and sent this report to the buyer. The buyer agreed to close the deal anyway. Morally, his job was to properly identify and fix the leak before selling the house. In reality, the buyer signed the dotted line given the information available to her. If the HVAC now needs repairs costing several thousand dollars, no judge is going to tell him to accept liability.

ScottBurson 9y ago
I don't think that example applies to this situation. In this case, the people doing the signing were hired by the banks to do it. The banks are surely responsible -- ethically, and probably legally -- for the actions of their agents, even if the only way they directed these people was by firing the ones who tried to act responsibly.
- saimiam 9y ago
  I used the personal example to elaborate on the idea that when you're transacting in business, you sometimes provide as little information as legally required. If the other party signs the dotted line, you are basically home free. I wasn't trying to make a point about contractors vs employee.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  If I hire employees to sell my product, and those employees break the law to sell my product, even though I have policies in place saying they should NOT break the law. Am I liable for the actions of my employees?
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Depends. If the message was like "yeah, don't break the law -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- and remember, we'll fire you if you don't approve enough applications", then yes, absolutely you're liable.