with Ah Wee Not Possible . eventually UOB want to take over all the 37 units more likely
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
UOB's $181m suit over 'inflated housing loans'
- Thread starter krafty
- Start date
with Ah Wee Not Possible . eventually UOB want to take over all the 37 units more likely
From the information in the public so far, these buyers were overseas buyers that defaulted. Not likely they will have any CPF. The sequence basically ends with the banks almost last and not second after CPF. Usually, any outstanding govt money such as taxe liens and tax judgements get precedence over the bank loan. After the bank loan comes the second mortgages, then the unsecured lenders.
with Ah Wee Not Possible . eventually UOB want to take over all the 37 units more likely
They have to do a cost benefit analysis. It may be better to just sell the units and take a $1 million to $2 million hit on each of them. If they wait longer, the market might go down more and may not recover for many years. banks are not in the habit of owning and managing the properties they foreclose on. If they can't get tenants, and still have to pay the property tax and strata fee, it just adds up to more money that they will have to recover in a bad market.
Thank sir for the Info . Good Info to keep in mind when buying / trading Pty
better than you fucktard Chaocheebye who only talk cock but never dare put up any figure and always try to talk up the market. I am having the last laugh . unlike you who talk cocck and suffering from nightmares about paying your mortgage which would rise very soon. only 2 weeks ago I did told you about shorting the market . Now with the swiss francs depegging and eurozone collapsing and STI dropping, you sure not happy I made a big fat bundle from shorting the stock markets and laughing to the bank. even the euro bankers did not predict such a move. hahahhahahha. born losers like you only talk cock and ccb here and there like some madman . now regret not listening to moir. too bad no more tips for you. now you know what I posts over last 3-4 years all carry alot of weight and very prescient. unlike you who only like to put down people but dare not even make a stand and talk crap. you are the low class shits who did not even know they have wifi on first class flights and your type only fit to fly budget airlines, forever. fark off if you cannot even fly business classs. now you know I move in very elite circle.kiss my ass as I am laughing all the way to the bank
Last edited:
Sir , I got Update here :
26 Jan 2015 08:50
UOB suit: former agents' sons, daughter, nephew also named
By: LYNETTE KHOO
Publication: The Business Times 19/01/2015
Lending bank claims conspiracy by 8 defendants in purchase and mortgages for 38 Sentosa condo units
[email protected]
@LynetteKhooBT
Singapore
TWO former real estate agents and their related parties have denied allegations by United Overseas Bank that they were involved in a "conspiracy" to mislead the bank into offering them inflated housing loans.
Goh Buck Lim, a former employee of ERA Realty, and Aurellia Adrianus Ho, a former freelance property agent, said in their statement of defence that they are not liable to the plaintiff for any alleged purchase price misrepresentations of 38 condo units at Marina Collection (MC) in Sentosa.
The other five defendants - all closely related to either of the agents - also filed their defence with the court last week, saying that they have no knowledge of the matters pleaded in UOB's claims.
They are Mr Goh's sons Clarke Goh and Ewis Goh, Ms Ho's daughter Jennifer Janeth, Ms Ho's nephew Erfan Syah Putra and his wife Theodora Budi Halimundjaja. All five of the younger defendants were in their 20s and 30s at the time of the transactions.
In what is seen as an unprecedented lawsuit, UOB is suing a Lippo Group subsidiary (first defendant) and the seven individuals for allegedly misleading the bank into granting inflated housing loans for 38 MC units between late 2011 and July 2013. The bank claimed that they failed to disclose substantial furniture rebates amounting to 22-34 per cent discounts on the purchase prices averaging S$6 million.
"As a result, the Housing Loans exceeded the maximum permissible amount of loan stipulated in the MAS Notice 632 in relation to Residential Property Loans, and indeed, the actual purchase prices in all instances," UOB said in its statement of claims.
The bank also alleges that many of the buyers procured by Mr Goh and Ms Ho were "fronts for the second to eighth defendants and did not in fact have the financial means to service the housing loans".
Of the 38 units, 37 have defaulted. Two buyers have since admitted to the bank that their purchases of the units were not genuine, UOB claims.
Mr Goh and Ms Ho revealed in their statement of defence that six purchasers were direct buyers, in other words the intended beneficial owners, while the other 32 purchasers were nominees for various investors based in Indonesia.
"Such nominee arrangements are common in Indonesia and amongst Indonesians and were not wrongful or unlawful to (their) knowledge and belief," they said.
But they claim that their role in the housing loan application "was that of liaison between the Plaintiff and the Purchasers" and that they provided no input on how the forms were to be filled.
Mr Goh's sons were studying in Singapore during the material time when the alleged conspiracy took place. They explained that their father "would request that they sign blank cheques" from their bank accounts but they did not know what the signed cheques were for.
As for Ms Janeth, she said in the statement of defence that she was not involved and did not have knowledge of details concerning the purchase of an MC unit, except that she was informed by her mother Ms Ho that they were going to buy an MC unit under her name and that Ms Ho would service the loan. Since Ms Janeth was studying in the US, Ms Ho would ask her to "pre-sign blank cheques when she was in Singapore".
Mr Goh and Ms Ho are represented by Straits Law Practice; Mr Goh's two sons and Ms Janeth are represented by Eugene Thuraisingam LLP. The youngest defendant Clarke Goh was around 22 years old when the transactions in question took place.
Mr Putra and his wife, represented by Mallal & Namazie, say in their statement of defence that they each secured housing loans from UOB to buy MC units, after Ms Ho approached her nephew Mr Putra "with the opportunity to invest in property in Singapore, specifically, at the MC".
But the couple claim that they were not aware of the furniture rebates. Neither do they have knowledge of cheques being issued by them to any of the 28 other buyers.
UOB alleges that the several deposit payments made via personal cheques issued by Mr Goh and his two sons, Ms Janeth, Mr Putra and his wife are evidence that the purchases of 28 buyers were actually purchases by the second to eighth defendants, acting individually or collectively.
There were also funds transfers between the accounts of the purchasers and the accounts of Mr Goh and his sons so that there would be sums ranging from S$200,000 to S$1.2 million in the bank accounts of the purchasers at the time of their housing loan applications. UOB claims that they did this knowing that having S$200,000 in assets under management with the bank was one of the criteria for loan approval.
Meanwhile, Lippo Marina Collection asserts in its filing of defence that financing of the units is a matter solely between the purchasers and their bank.
I think really, UOB should shut the fuck up before they further shoot themselves in the foot. Now, they are admitting in court that they made a mortgage loan to young adults in their 20s to buy $6 million condos without doing due diligence. Lets face it, how many young people this age group have a strong and established income that can service a mortgage this size (75% X 6million = $4.5 million). And to make matters worse, some of the applicants were studying in the US at that time they applied for the mortgage. So, UOB did not even have the client in front of them to do a face to face application. Who makes a $4.5 million loan without meeting the applicant? I know many Indons will simply fly into the country to sign documents with the bank or meet up with their banker. The UOB banker has to make a request to have the borrower in his office so he can meet and evaluate the applicant. A young person like that buying a $6 million condo raises all sorts of alarm bells whether they have the down payment or not. Money laundering comes to mind. Truly, UOB lending practices are lax to the extreme. If I had known it was so easy to qualify with UOB, I would have bought a unit there myself and take 20% "furniture discount" from James Riady.
Wee Cho Yaw and son got pwned! Malu sia!
Shiok man! Machiam robbers met thief.....haha
Shiok man! Machiam robbers met thief.....haha
if like that All Existing Owners at Marina Collections less the 38 ( problem owners ) should launch a Class Action
against UOB for the current Steep decline in its Project .
MAS should start work on UOB soon
sir , I think UOB next move is to Report the matter to CPIB and CAD
why UOB still waiting ???
Altogether now. Huat Ah !!
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20091027-176248.html
Jailed for cashback scam
Tue, Oct 27, 2009
The Straits Times
By Khushwant Singh
A PROPERTY agent was jailed for two months on Monday for his role in a cashback scheme in 2004.
Tay Choon Hung, 33, inflated the purchase price of a Jurong East flat from $157,000 to $193,000 for the buyer to obtain a higher bank loan.
Tay also faked documents to indicate that his client, who was then working as a driver, earned a higher income to qualify for the mortgage.
uob is going for broke . if those cheaters don't own up . CPIB and CAD will be called in
uob is going for broke . if those cheaters don't own up . CPIB and CAD will be called in
http://amuletforums.com/threads/uob...ondo-units-in-sentosa-for-181-million.107057/
When the property market tanks and more investors are unable to pay for the property bought, this is where the scandals will finally be revealed, as it has.
United Overseas Bank (UOB) is suing a subsidiary of major Indonesian conglomerate Lippo Group and seven other people for $181 million for conspiring to get inflated housing loans.
The suit involves 38 condominiums at the Marina Collection in Sentosa, which the loans have been taken for.
What's more, Marina Collection was actually developed by Lippo Marina Collection (LMC).
Marina Collection was launched in 2007 and each unit costs an average of $6 million.
But 37 of the loans have since been defaulted.
UOB said that "very substantial" discounts of between 22 and 34 percent were given to the buyers but it was not informed of these discounts.
This meant that even though the buyers put on the loan forms that they had paid higher amounts, they actually paid much lesser for the units they bought.
UOB said that this is a breach of the Monetary Authority of Singapore's rules. Moreover, the loans also meant that the buyers were loaned more than what they needed to pay their units for.
UOB said that it agreed to the loans only after Lippo's lawyers said that the buyers had already paid the reminder of the purchase price. But it found out that the reminder was never paid but was replaced by discounts or "furniture rebates".
UOB also said that most of these buyers were fronts.
Tags:
Editorials
Tweet
Wrap Text field:
There were only five real buyers who were linked to two property agents, ERA housing agent Goh Buck Lim and freelance housing agent Aurellia Adrianus Ho.
The real buyers would transfer $200,000 to $1.2 million to the front-buyers, so that it looked like the front-buyers had at least $200,000 in their accounts and would thus meet the criteria to get the loan.
According to UOB, it found that one of these front-buyers have admitted that he was paid $100,000 to become a proxy.
But LMC is denying UOB's claims and is vigourously defending itself.
LMC said that UOB was the one who dealt with these buyers on their loans and if there was any misrepresentation of the purchase price, they did not know of it.
LMC also threw the ball back in UOB's court and said that UOB should have done its own checks and not blame others for its own mistakes.
LMC also said it had only contact with Mr Goh and that Mr Goh was the one who asked LMC for the "furniture rebates", which LMC agreed to.
But LMC said that such rebates are a "fairly common sales and marketing strategy". Rebates of 25 to 34 percent had been given for the units involved.
LMC also said that it does not know if Mr Goh or the buyers had not declared these rebates when taking up their loans with UOB.
UOB is represented by Tan Kok Quan Partnership and LMC by Premier Law. The other defendants are represented by Straits Law.
Continue reading...
Banks now checking for Bad Loans and See Borrowers are Fronts
Expect more lawsuits and Agent being hauled up for Kopi .
Expect more lawsuits and Agent being hauled up for Kopi .
This case is classic example of 强盗遇到贼
Robber encounter thief
Robber encounter thief
if like that All Existing Owners at Marina Collections less the 38 ( problem owners ) should launch a Class Action
against UOB for the current Steep decline in its Project .
MAS should start work on UOB soon
This will not work. I know lawsuits have been launched in other instances before when the developer drastically reduces its price. But in almost all cases, hard to win for the class action plaintiffs. The simple reason is that the developer is under no legal obligation to the previous buyers to keep the price at the level they bought. In fact, the market changed so much in Sentosa Cove that prior owners are lucky that Lippo did not out and out cut the price by 30% but instead tried to hide it via "furniture discounts". No judge will give the right to dictate prices to a developer from a bunch of prior buyers.
This is the question that I asked in the earlier posts to this thread. Namely, if UOB claim there was fraud and deceit in its transaction, why have they not pursued a criminal investigation from the SPF Commercial Affairs div or through a police complain for criminal breach of trust. Instead, they are treating this in civil court.
Similar threads
