California Real Estate Agent Sentenced for Undisclosed Kickbacks

Rachel Dollar —  March 28, 2017 — 3 Comments

Dianna Woods, 60, Citrus Heights, California, was sentenced to three years in prison for four counts of making false statements on loan applications.

According to evidence presented at her four-day trial in December 2016, Woods was a licensed real estate salesperson who worked at a company called VLD Realty, doing business as Trade House USA, in the Sacramento area. VLD built and sold houses in residential developments in Sacramento, Carmichael, and Copperopolis, Caifornia. As the housing market began to weaken from 2006 through 2008, VLD sought to sell the houses by offering money to buyers in the form of paying the down payment or giving the buyers money after the transaction, neither of which was disclosed to the lenders.

For her part, Woods purchased two houses based on the undisclosed kickbacks. Further, for the purpose of obtaining mortgage loans to purchase the properties, Woods also signed and submitted loan applications and other documents that contained false statements as to Woods’s income, employment, assets, the purpose of the property, the sales price, and whether the down payment was borrowed. Woods also assisted another buyer in making false statements to the lenders to get loans for the purchase of two properties in the housing developments and falsely verified his employment. The banks suffered nearly $2 million in losses with respect to fraudulent transactions in which Woods was involved.

Woods was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb. The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert and the case was the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Shelley Weger and Todd Pickles prosecuted the case.

Be Sociable, Share!

Rachel Dollar

Posts Google+

3 responses to California Real Estate Agent Sentenced for Undisclosed Kickbacks

  1. honesty is best policy

  2. I don’t understand how the mortgage brokers and lenders are granted permission by the borrowers signature from the signed 4506-T form to verify the borrowers income from the two years required tax returns and they still somehow approve the loan? Seems like more are involved to close these loans.

    • Depending on internal policies and investor requirements, transcripts are not necessarily required in order to approve the loan. However, during the re-verification process, not having these verifications can uncover inaccuracies in the application. During the underwrite, multiple red flags can arise when viewing time and type of employment. Discrepancies on pay stubs involving erroneous check numbers, tax deductions, etc. can tip off the underwrite of possible misrepresentation. When VODs are provided and not actual asset statements in conjunction with a written verification of employment, that also can present a red flag since you have documentation to show that income going into the account, only the balances and an average. As regulations and requirements continue to evolve, so do the practices of these fraudsters.

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

*