Ontario regulators have sanctioned the former Homewise Solutions Inc. agents, Satyamkumar Trivedi and Sasitharan Somasekarampillai. Together they are facing a total of $230,000 in fines. This penalty is the consequence of their dangerous behavior in perpetrating fraud schemes in connection with mortgage transactions. The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) revealed a shocking fact. Both agents failed to check basic information that would have prevented fraudsters from misleading an investor referred to as “HP.”
Her misconduct during a high-speed mortgage dance that led to closing in 38 days flat. Trivedi negotiated the terms of the mortgage and submitted the appraisal report. In the meantime, Somasekarampillai collected important due diligence documents on the borrower and the property. These regulatory findings reveal shocking failures in these mortgage agents’ duties. This brings into question their serious professionalism and adherence to industry state and federal regulations.
Details of the Case
In July 2023, HP filed a complaint alleging that the mortgage scheme was a fraudulent sham. It was this complaint that set the investigation in motion against Trivedi and Somasekarampillai. Federal regulators argue that Trivedi “underwrote” the deal, even though she never spoke to the borrower. He based his entire testimony on double hearsay from Somasekarampillai.
“Trivedi never met with, or dealt with, the borrower directly. He received all of his information through Soma.” – regulators
The regulators slammed Trivedi for not having an independent basis to validate any of the information given to him. That included some key documents like an appraisal report and borrower identification, which were later found to be faked.
“This included not verifying the appraisal report and borrower identification, which were falsified.” – regulators
Absence of verification enabled both agents to dismiss crucial red flags that would have stopped the fraudulent deal from proceeding. The FSRA alleged that Trivedi failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the fraud. If only he had acted sooner to authenticate the validity of the information being sent his way—the sophisticated scam would have undoubtedly been thwarted.
“If he had done so, the fraud likely would not have occurred.” – FSRA
Financial Implications
Yet, Trivedi conceded that he earned a $65,000 broker’s fee from the deal. He falsely claimed that he evenly divided this fee with Somasekarampillai. Bank records indicated that Trivedi did indeed receive all of that money, a total of $66,622 from four separate transactions. That leads to even more questions about the suspicious financial practices of both men while they served as mortgage agents in the scam.
Regulators found smoking guns showing both of these actors conspiring to keep the mortgage process opaque and confusing. Their actions undermined accountability in ways that deserve serious concern.
“He took no steps to verify any of the information he received, did not confirm that Soma had done so, ignored red flags, and still proceeded to provide the information to his client, HP.” – regulators
Their actions might have been well-intentioned, the implications are dire. They allowed themselves to be manipulated into advancing fraudulent and illegal activity within the mortgage sector.
“allowed themselves to be used to facilitate dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.” – regulators
Consequences and Regulatory Action
Because of their misconduct, both Trivedi and Somasekarampillai are now personally liable for a total penalty of $230,000. The FSRA stressed that such penalties are required for the deterrence of future wrongdoings for the entirety of the mortgage sector.
Authorities announced that the deal with HP did not go through. Consequently, both of these agents were uncompensated for their time and talents. This unexpected result brings the importance of proper ethics in financial dealings to the forefront. It further bolsters regulatory promises to keep industry’s wolf from the door.
“hindering, concealing information and providing false or misleading information to FSRA.” – regulators
