Chase Laundered WAMU Loans Through Offshore Accounts with Fictitious Names
Here is what we know:
- Washington Mutual (WAMU) was in the business of originating loans not lending money.
- WAMU sold every originated loan before, during or after loan origination. Its securities subsidiary ppcoletedd then profits and was liable for buy-backs which everyone knew could never be funded.
- This process resulted in the origination of of approximately $1 Trillion in mortgage loans.
- No assignments of mortgage were ever recorded in which WAMU was the assignor and WAMU executed the instrument. Some were attempted by Chase as “attorney in fact.”
- No indorsements of any promissory note was ever produced or signed directly by WAMU.
- While the debt, note and mortgage were sold by WAMU contemporaneously with origination (actually for a fee where WAMU did not fund the loan), a gap existed in the title record. The purchasers of the loans could have corrected the record with affidavits and court orders which could have been easily obtained with proof of purchase. One of the purchasers could even have been a Chase subsidiary.
- No effort was ever made on or off record by anyone to clarify the owner of the debt, note or mortgage.
- WAMU went bankrupt in 2008, its estate subject to the control of the US Trustee in bankruptcy.
- WAMU was seized and liquidated by the FDIC in 2008, as receiver of the estate.
- The FDIC never issued any power of attorney nor any assignment or endorsement of any loan because there were no loans to assign or endorse in the WAMU estate. The estate did not own the debt, note or mortgage of any loan.
- Chase bought the WAMU estate on September 25, 2008. This included the servicing rights, if they existed, on loans that WAMU had originated. Many of these servicing functions had already been sold or transferred prior to the sale. The consideration for the entire deal was zero.
- Chase claimed servicing rights on every loan originated by WAMU.
- Chase then claimed ownership of the debt, note and mortgage on each loan even though they had been previously sold. This was a blatant lie.
- Chase then foreclosed on thousands of homes as if it was the party entitled to enforce the mortgage — i.e., the party who had paid value for the debt — a condition precedent to enforcement under Article 9 §203 UCC.
- The success of Chase in these illegal foreclosures, in most instances by default, resulted in windfall profits, most of which were recorded offshore to avoid taxes. Each time a property was sold the money proceeds were distributed as revenue to the participants who aided in the illegal foreclosure activity.
- None of the proceeds of sales of illegally foreclosed property was ever distributed to any owner of the debt.
- Thus Chase successfully converted assets to revenue, avoided taxes on windfall profits, and will argue that it was return of capital (payment of principal amount of loan) even though they never invested one dime in any of the WAMU loans at origination or acquisition.