Hacker News Reader

Comment by vundercind | Hacker News Reader

Ever watched The Wire?

Discussing federal prosecutions, specifically, they talk about something known in slang as “the head-shot” for federal investigators and prosecutors: finding that someone took a loan from an associate, then used that money to secure a bank loan (a mortgage, say) while misrepresenting the loaned money as their own, then later paid the money back (making it clear, in the paper trail, that it was in fact a loan).

It’s very easy to understand, easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s fraud, and it’s a great entry to comb through the books looking for more crimes.

“Something every kid does with their parents to buy their first home”, one Baltimore cop observes.

View on HN

You shouldn't get your worldview from a TV show. Such a scheme can only be used for pre-approval, to prove you can later make a down payment, not to secure an actual loan.

Yes? Exactly? How is this a correction? Doing this means misrepresenting the amount of debt you have, in order to get a loan you’d not otherwise manage to secure. It can happen on larger scales or for business purposes, too, home mortgages are just how (lots and lots of) normal people commit that particular crime.

The parts of the show I have some real-world understanding of are remarkably observant and accurate. I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt for parts I’m less familiar with.

My point was simply that financial crimes, including some really common ones that often go un-prosecuted until suddenly it matters, are often components of federal cases. Piling on stuff like that, or using them for early charges to secure warrants for further investigation or to gain leverage, is fairly normal. I chose a high-quality pop culture reference to illustrate that because… that’s an effective way to communicate.

How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)? What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?

> How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)?

When it’s passed off as a gift.

> What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?

I dunno, but it’s pretty common. Maybe unknown in SES levels either too low (no money to loan) or too high (no fraud, because it’s actually a gift) but it’s common.

Moving the goal posts I see.

No? Seriously, what moved?

I’m entirely baffled at the pushback on this, incidentally. Do folks just really not want this to be true, for some reason?

Can you explain how borrowing money from your parents that you immediately pay back helps you acquire a bank loan? This was your original claim.

More and more TV shows these days are realistic as FUCK And inspired by reality. The Wire Especially

i would not put "these days" and the wire in the same paragraph but otherwise I agree. For most if not all of David Simons content.

What? You just report the money to the lender as a gift from parents, you can't pretend the money is yours even if you wanted to because the banks ask for years of bank statements in order to verify your income. When they see a giant injection of cash that wasn't reported they'll demand that you explain it.

Yes, you report it as a gift. If you later pay it back, you committed fraud.

[edit] to clarify what may be a point of confusion:

Rich parents are often in a position to comfortably gift their kid(s) tens of thousands of dollars for their first down payment.

Non-rich parents are more often in a position to somewhat-uncomfortably “gift” that money. It’s a gift on paper, but it’s actually a loan and they need the money back eventually (maybe for the next-oldest kid to borrow for the same purpose, lol). That’s when it’s fraud.

Definitely not.. they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was a loan originally.

You agree it’s illegal (it is) but don’t think it can be proven?

“Here are bank records showing the defendant received $5,000 dollars. Here are further records that show payments back to the person who sent the original $5,000. They occur over a span of eleven months. Eight transactions are for $500, one is for $450, and a later one is for $550, totaling $5,000. Only one month in this otherwise contiguous span—December—is skipped, with no payment occurring. Mr. [defendant], was this $5,000 in fact a loan?”

You’d have reasonable doubt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com