JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) has been fined $48 million for failing to meet terms of a settlement to resolve mortgage servicing violations, U.S. bank regulators said on Tuesday.
The fine will be on top of another $2 billion that JPMorgan had been ordered to pay to cover remediation costs and foreclosure assistance to borrowers, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said.
JPMorgan was among a number of banks which participated in a 2013 nationwide settlement with regulators over the practice of robo-signing, in which banks pursued faulty foreclosures by using defective or fraudulent documents.
The OCC also said Tuesday that EverBank (EVER.N) will also pay a $1 million fine for similar violations connected to the mortgage servicing case.
So here is my theory. Administrative findings have a presumption of validity. This fine is for continuing false, fraudulent and defective claims, like all the banks did. So it seems to me that the fine and the charges against JPM Chase constitute a finding of fact — the fact being that Chase is continuing to violate the law and is using fraudulent and defective claims against unsuspecting borrowers. Judges seem to be viewing this as a one-off — “You must owe the money to somebody so why not Chase?”
In my opinion this presumption by the Judges needs to be challenged aggressively. But it gets easier as the evidence piles up with administrative agency findings that what the borrowers are saying is true. It seems to me that it is better and more credible to give a presumption of truth to the administrative findings of fact than the presumption…
View original post 306 more words
I agree Gary, but more like steal a million, and give back a penny…(As long as they make interest and can write it off)