5 ms·
There was a whole group of people who were doing this constantly. So all the properties stayed within the same group. Normally, you could sell the property to
by zacharycohn 15y ago
There was a whole group of people who were doing this constantly. So all the properties stayed within the same group.
Normally, you could sell the property to a stranger... but then you wouldn't be able to benefit from it anymore. This way it "stays in the family."
- wtvanhest 15y agoThis seems unlikely due to the taxes and paperwork expense of transferring property even with no brokerage fees. I really don't see how the social network proves wrong doing. I'm actually worried that an overzealous prosecutor and advocacy group prosecuted people who were not guilty. Obviously I don't know all the details so maybe they should be convicted, but they weren't provided, so it is hard for me to evaluate.
- maxerickson 15y agoIt seems likely that the prosecutor was able to document that the finances didn't make sense without the participation of 'Heather' and great deals from 'Moe'.
- Zigurd 15y agoSham transactions are a common part of financial crimes. Ownership didn't change in fact, just on paper. Linking all the owners together in one family showed that the transactions had no material effect on where the rent and equity money was going.
- luser001 15y ago> This seems unlikely due to the taxes and paperwork expense of transferring property even with no brokerage fees. AFAIK, the one-time govt. fees to record a property transfer is relatively small. This in the US. http://www.arjanihomes.com/custom-tax_guide.htm-CONTENT_TAX_GUIDE http://www.arjanihomes.com/custom-tax_guide.htm-CONTENT_TAX_... says ~$3k for a 1M house. What sort of numbers did you have in mind?