Man Pleads Guilty to Using Fraudulent Tactics to Secure Loans

Allison Tussey —  May 21, 2014 — 2 Comments

Joshua Clymer, 28, San Francisco, California, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in connection with his use of fraudulent tactics to help buyers secure home loans from lenders, including inflating income, falsifying employment histories, and giving undisclosed cash back to some buyers outside of escrow.

According to court documents, from approximately October 2006 through August 2008, Clymer participated in a mortgage fraud scheme involving multiple properties in the Sacramento, California area. As a part of the scheme, Clymer and a business partner used several fraudulent tactics to help buyers secure home loans from lenders, including inflating the buyer’s income, providing false employment histories, falsifying gifts made to the buyers, and giving undisclosed cash back to some buyers outside of escrow.

Buyers of the properties later defaulted on their loans, leading to foreclosure sales, and in one instance a loan modification. The estimated loss associated with Clymer as a result of these activities is approximately $352,000.

Clymer is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge William B. Shubb on September 22, 2014. Clymer faces a maximum statutory penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced the guilty plea.

This case was the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation. Assistant United States Attorneys Christopher S. Hales and Audrey Hemesath are prosecuting the case.

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

2 responses to Man Pleads Guilty to Using Fraudulent Tactics to Secure Loans

  1. A few things stand out for me about the case reported above – was the sentence seriously that long ? That’s very long compared to what we have here in then UK. The other thing is that this type of inflated income mortgage fraud was rife in the UK in the 1990′s. the worrying that for me is that it became very common and I believe that applicants and advisors took a “safety in numbers” view, namely that if it was widespread, what could be done about it. This approach still seems to be happening in society – personal injury fraud has been widespread in the last 5 years. There seems to be a pattern here and it’s not just a few perpetrators. We can’t put a significant percentage o0f society in jail for 30 years, but maybe higher deterrent sentences might be a short term answer ? Here, a fraud like you describe, might get 5 years max and serve half of that.

    • The article only gave sentancing guidelines and maximums. Quote: “The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.” Based on the size of the losses, he will probably get a year or less in jail. My money is on probation and no jail time; he was practically a kid when he committed the offenses.

Leave a Reply

*

Text formatting is available via select HTML.

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>