Lawyer Fined $6,000 for Falsely Certifying Mortgage Documents

Pennies

“The entire system of conveyancing is premised on formal documentation and proper processes. In a typical conveyancing transaction, the solicitor is involved at many stages of the process – conducting a title search, executing the sale and purchase agreement, lodging a caveat, and eventually executing the transfer… especially since he or she is entrusted with the fundamental duty of protecting the consumer’s interests by ensuring that the proper procedures are observed throughout the legal conveyancing process”

~

Lawyer Fined $6,000 for Falsely Certifying Mortgage Document

Singapore – 55-year-old Kanthosamy Rajendran, a lawyer, was ordered by the district court on Tuesday (26 July) to pay a fine of $6,000 for falsely certifying that he had witnessed the execution of a mortgage for a home, reported The Straits Times.

Pleading guilty to two charges under the Land Titles Act, he was fined $3,000 for every count.

The court heard that Kanthosamy and his firm, Relianze Law Corporation, was contacted by United Overseas Bank (UOB) on 27 March 2013 to act as their solicitors in the mortgage of a Sunshine Residence unit in Lorong K Telok Kurau.

The bank handed over two letters — one stated that the bank offered Wan Yi Yang a $584,000 housing loan for the property, while the other stated that Wan had allegedly accepted a housing loan and was requesting the law firm to act for him.

On the bank’s instructions, Kanthosamy acted for both the purported mortgagor, Wan, and the mortgagee, UOB, in the conveyancing transaction that was completed on 20 May 2013.

However, Wan made a police report on 1 July 2013 stating that the Inland Tax Revenue Authority sent him a property tax notification informing him of the transfer of the Sunshine Residence home to his name on 21 May; he alleged that he had not bought the property.

Rest here…

At least the people in Singapore understand the importance of property records…

~

4closureFraud.org

 

Comments
5 Responses to “Lawyer Fined $6,000 for Falsely Certifying Mortgage Documents”
  1. lvent says:

    Moreover, how many crackheads who escaped the crackhouse got in cars & drove out of there?

    That’s why they’re violating everyone elses legal rights to drive unlawfully so the crackheads who work for them don’t get noticed.

    Just like in CHANCERY COURT in the DALEY CENTER when their lawyers blurt out in open court they’re going to RE-NOTICE THAT ONE UP what they’re really doing is hiding the real criminals by FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE.

  2. lvent says:

    I’ve been being treated like some common street hood by the criminals dictating their fraud like law hiding from within every level of government.

    These mafia thugs think it’s conducive to criminalize the innocent by pretending we’re dead because that’s what they want.

    I have stories galore entailing their INSIDE JOB upon my legal rights & what more can be said when OVER 200 CRACKHEADS ESCAPE CRACKHOUSE & I’m essentially being held hostage for being forced to exercise my constitutional legal rights to defend my TITLES.

    http://m.youtube.com/?reload=14&rdm=203d3c2fr#/watch?v=GfaqzpXsPCo

  3. lvent says:

    THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT WHERE AUTHORITY IS GIVEN FOR ONE TO FILL IN BLANKS IN INSTRUMENT OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED CONSTITUES “FORGERY” WHERE THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF FORGERY ARE PRESENT PEOPLE -v- KUBANEK, 1939.

  4. lvent says:

    810 ILCS/ARTICLE 3 PART 4 – THE LIABILITIES OF PARTIES STATES A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE ON AN INSTRUMENT UNLESS (i.) THE PERSON SIGNED THE INSTRUMENT, OR (ii) THE PERSON IS PRESENTED BY AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE WHO SIGNED THE INSTRUMENT AND THE SIGNATURE IS BINDING ON THE REPRESENTED PERSON UNDER SECTION 3-402.

  5. lvent says:

    The FC LIS PENDENS is FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE in every suit because we never conducted business with none of them & certainly not their lawyers who by FALSE REPRESENTATION record legal nullities because of the non-existent torts to the never performed upon contracts which make them ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE under RULE 19 because they’re blank trusts.

    Not meeting the legal requisites under ARTICLE 3 of the UCC requires the NOTE be ENDORSED by the ISSUER otherwise it’s BANK FRAUD with fake INVESTMENT SECURITIES because they’re FILL IN THE BLANK NOTES that require the money be deposited by the ISSUER of the INVESTMENT upon the issuance of the SECURITY.

    If they’re warehouse lines of credit then the source must not be fraudulently concealed regarding where the money was derived that created the SECURITY or that’s RACKETEERING by MONEY LAUNDERING.

    FISHER & SHAPIRO didn’t record the FC LIS PENDS until 8 months from when they filed the FC which is INVESTMENT BROKERING FRAUD & therefore, they’re by FALSE REPRESENTATION, PHH MORTGAGE INVESTMENT BROKERS by hedging bets they can use DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE to unlawfully steal my TITLES by FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE because I never did business with them ever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *