Secret Service Thwarts $21 million scam

Standard

The United States Secret Service announced in a press release dated September 1 that on August 23, it was successful in thwarting a real estate related business email compromise (BEC) scheme that sought to defraud a purchaser of more than $21 million.

The scheme attempted to divert closing funds to a fraudulent bank account. After quick action by the Secret Service and its private sector partners, the funds were returned to the victim.

Please refer to this Underwriting Memorandum issued by Chicago Title’s South Carolina State Office on September 20 warning that fraudulent wiring instruction schemes are on the rise.

These schemes typically employ altered or fictitious payoff statements. The fraudster often impersonates a mortgage broker, lender, borrower, or an agent of the borrower to request a copy of the payoff statement. Alternatively, the fraudster may intercept the payoff statement by a hacking or phishing ploy.

Armed with the payoff statement, the fraudster will create and transmit a bogus “updated” payoff statement with wiring instructions intending to divert the funds to the fraudster. The statement may also alter contact information so that telephone calls to verify payoff information will be answered by the fraudsters.

Chicago Title’s memorandum advises closing attorneys to take the following proactive measures to minimize the risk that payoff funds will be diverted:

  • Obtain payoff statements early so they can be properly reviewed and verified.
  • Verify banking information and payoff amounts directly with the payee using known, trusted numbers rather than information from the payoff statement.
  • Refer to prior payoff statements from the same payee to confirm the banking information matches.
  • Maintain repetitive wire information within systems or databases to use for future wires. Lock this information to restrict alterations.
  • If it is impossible to make a verbal confirmation by a known trusted telephone number, consider sending overnighting a check.

Be careful out there, closing attorneys!

EAO 21-01 says it’s ethical to pay $249 to be on lender’s closing attorney list

Standard

The first Ethics Advisory Opinion of the year is noteworthy for South Carolina real estate practitioners.

Here is a brief summary of the facts:  In a residential refinance, the lender’s loan estimate package provided the name of a specific South Carolina licensed attorney that the bank “identified” as one who could close the loan. The package expressly said the borrower could “shop for (the borrower’s) own providers” for legal and other services.

The borrower informed the bank that a different lawyer had been selected, but the bank’s second set of loan estimate documents again identified a different lawyer and again said the borrower could chose its own provider.

When the borrower asked why another lawyer’s name was identified, the bank responded that the borrower’s chosen lawyer could sign with a third-party company that the bank had contracted with to produce loan forms for an annual fee of $249 to be included on the list.

The borrower’s lawyer did not enroll in the program but did close the loan.

The question to the Ethics Advisory Committee was whether a lawyer may participate in a service provider network for an annual fee of $249 to be listed as an “identified” service provider without violating S.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(c)?

Rule 7.2 (c) generally provides that a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services. One exception to the rule is that a lawyer may pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by the Rule.

The Committee pointed to Comment 7 which states that a communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities. The bank’s form in this case only provides contact information for participating lawyers and indicates the lawyers on the list have been identified. And the borrower is told in each instance that he or she can choose a different lawyer.

The Committee said these limited statements hardly match up the verbs and nouns used to describe a “recommendation” in the comment because the language in the forms says nothing substantive about the credentials, abilities, competence, character, or professional quality of the listed lawyers.

The Opinion further stated that participation in the network appears to be open to any real estate attorney and that the fee appears to be reasonable considering the enrollment, onboarding, and maintenance charges for including attorneys in the network.

The short answer to the question was “yes”, a lawyer may pay the fee and participate in the network of legal service providers and be “identified” as a possible service provider.

It is interesting that the facts included this statement: “The package and disclosures are assumed to be compliant with federal and state requirements for loan applications and attorney-preference notices.” The Committee answered the very specific question put to it and clearly has no authority to address federal law.