Wells Fargo Student Loan Consolidation

GentleGrace said, "In order to prevail in an action for FRAUD, you must prove 1. motive 2. intent 3. opportunity and 4. repetitive acts 5. Witness statements and 6. concealment."

The corporation of Wells Fargo and the persons who were party to this fraudulent transaction can indeed be prosecuted.

1)Clearly there is an onus on each employee of a company like Wells Fargo to create more loans with high interest rates. Thus they build in quotas and the employees are under a form of duress to perform... often by doing unethical things... this is only possible if the corporation does not have adequate checkpoints to prevent it... thus both the corporation and the employee have motive and 2) INTENT if there is no checkpoint to ensure the transactions are legal. And since there has been no resolution that might alert Sallie Mae to the illegal actions Wells Fargo agents have committed, not only is there intent to defraud by the management, there is further 6)concealment. 3) Obviously if the employee did this, there was opportunity and 4)without detailing the terms to the encumbered person and then without dealing with the problem when they were caught doing an illegal loan, they 6) lied to conceal the fact that their actions were not legal, and 5) the documents serve as the only witness needed to prove fraud. But those calls and letters should provide further evidence to capture each of the participants and this goes up the line into management. Thus Wells Fargo is in this up to their top management and legal department.... just hoping this person will go away without prosecuting.

Your posting has been noted as your opinion of how their actions "fit" the requirements for fraud. Your posting is full of "may be", 'Might", etc.

You may or may not be right. Unfortunately, you nor I either one are on the jury, nor are we the judge.....

But BOTH of us should admit that poster needs to see the state attorney general to get this kind of fraud stopped.

While the AG WILL make WF uncomfortable enough to force them to admit to Sallie Mae that they paid off/cancelled poster's account before they sent the loan details to poster, it won't happen until poster gives a copy of these documents and calls and letters to the AG. This isn't really negotiation, more like threatening criminal action or a class action suit against WF, it can accomplish the same thing.

Sallie Mae also has the direct loan department that poster can go to to make this known without cooperation from Wells Fargo... and that would be my first stop, but this is NOT an ERROR, it is FRAUD. There are simple requirements of banks in how they operate that REQUIRE them to give the terms and get a signature AFTER those terms have been reviewed... and signed off on before they proceed with the loan. Those are standard operating procedures for all banks. So this is not an error. This is a bank who no longer operates under the law. Their upper management agreed to fix it AND DID NOT. This puts them deep into the arena of fraud. Clearly they lack foresight, but this does not happen in a bank that is following the law.... and if THEY have a person who does this kind of thing, THEY FIX IT with lots of apologies. Clearly WF is on the other side of the law.

I agree that the States Attorney's office investigates allegations of wrongdoing. I do not agree that they arbitrate between disgruntled customers and the business in question.

Their concern is CRIMINAL, not civil and they are categorically NOT arbitrators.

I would FEEL personally ( NOT LEGALLY--this is JUST opinion) like this was fraudulent if it happened to me. But, sadly, what I think or feel isn't always what the law says.

I do agree they should pursue it. BUT not with the expectation that the states attorney's office is going to act as the Better Business Bureau in arbitrating between them.

I said nothing about the AG being an arbitrator. You've been complaining about it being said by another poster.

What I said is that I know the procedures for creating a loan include certain documents that have to be signed by the person taking the loan... in a certain order... and that if the loan company gets this out of order or sends out a loan document without having put the terms on that document, then the loan company is setting up its employees to do something illegal.

The fact that she followed up and got assurances from their management that it would be corrected... and it was not... speaks volumes for what Wells Fargo fears most in times like these.... and that they willingly harmed her by NOT correcting the loan situation. This is the second point in showing that Wells Fargo is not following LEGAL practices of creating a loan.

With the poster's original statements and all the documentation she has, it is going to be clear sailing for the AG to take this company to task, forbid them from doing business in the state until they comply with the LEGAL methods of creating loans... and "dearie" that includes fixing the problems they caused for THIS POSTER. And YES, the AG can bar them from doing business in the state by simply presenting her evidence to the court showing what they did... out of order and illegal as hades.

While it is NOT being an arbitrator, it is MUCH more effective because the AG has the weight of the court behind her while an arbitrator has nothing more than an agreement to abide by the settlement... and that could be overturned by court action.

Only ONE person on this forum uses the word "complaining" in regard to my postings, Donallie. Shame on you.

I am not complaining, I am systematically pointing out incorrect advice.

AND the attorney general does NOT simply TELL the court they are in violation. IF they CHARGE them with wrongdoing, there is a TRIAL and they have a right to face their accusers----the attorney general does not make a judgment about wrong doing, THEN tell them to STOP their business. There is a COURT HEARING if they are charged--a trial and THEN the determination is made as to their innocence or guilt.

I can remember laughing at your complaints about my postings several months ago... before my computer died and I had no place local to go to get online. I still haven't fixed the old Dell, but now I have an HP. Neither one of them has ever had DONALLIE at the keyboard, but I can certainly say that it is a shame that DONALLIE was banned for complaining about you. He was pretty straight on his advice and seemed to have found about five or six postings where your advice was against the original poster's best interest... kind of like this one where you quote a tiny bit of law, did some posturing and then left him to discover what was going to REALLY happen on his own.

The AG has many avenues to stop a company from operating illegally in their state. A suit is the first and only depends on the current case, but there is also the AG's influence on the governor who certainly can make an administrative order to stop their illegal activity, and then there is the threat of closing their offices statewide in a full out investigation.

The AG can do quite a bit to inform any company that they have to follow the law.

Oh, how silly.

In any regard, people are banned for terms of service violations, the same way people lose privileges on this site, like the ability to receive and send private messages---because they ABUSE the system and lose the privilege-----not because I complain. I hardly have the POWER to do any such thing. What a goofy thing to say.

Were I to be complaining I wouldn't BE here for heading on to 3000 postings. I ENJOY what I do here and YOUR postings ( as Denny, Donallie and this name) have been shared WORLDWIDE, rest assured! ROFL!!

The balance of your comments are irrelevant because betting ten to one that 1. WELLS FARGO isn't even IN the posters state and 2. a determination as to whether or not the law was even broken has not been MADE yet.

The attorney general does not bring SUIT against Wells Fargo. THEY deal in CRIMINAL acts, not CIVIL.

It is so simple. Try to understand.


And if something is 'against someone's best interest" it is subjective. Whether or not something is right or wrong is not subjective--it is what the law says. BUT the best course of action is SUBJECTIVE--there may be several roads to take within the confines of the law---after all, I'm NOT the one telling people to lie to get out of their contracts, yanno. (pointed look).

You hold to your uneducated untrained legal opinions---I have absolutely NO problem with that. But of course, I will continue to prove why , as a matter of law, what you are saying is incorrect-----like that silliness about "quashing motions" to show judges how to do it.

NO such thing even EXISTS in a criminal hearing. Keep making it up as you go and I will keep explaining why it is incorrect. Not because I THINK it is, but because that's what the law says.

I'd bet WF is in almost ALL of our 50 states and several territories too.

And I still believe that your lack of interest in helping poster do anything about this WF fraud is that YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THAT BANKS HAVE TO FOLLOW LENDING RULES OR BE GUILTY OF FRAUD... WHICH IS EVER SO SMARTLY A CRIMINAL ACT BY AN AGENT OF THEIRS.

I bet Wells Fargo IS in every state. Your point?

If the Wells Fargo SHE entered into the agreement with is NOT in her state (that specific branch) you cannot hold the branch on the corner responsible for the acts someone else out of state did.

Oh my gosh--BANKS commit FRAUD?? How in the hades did I get through law school without KNOWING that??? GASP. Thank Jebus you were here to tell me.

DUH. Of course banks have rules.

That isn't the issue. THE issue is DID THIS BANK FOLLOW the rules? WE don't know. You think they did not intentionally and committed fraud. I don't believe this meets the definition of fraud--intentional acts, etc. and the other criteria I mentioned. YOU offered reasons YOU think their acts met the definition of fraud, but a JUDGE and JURY did not make that ruling. So, it is just that--OPINION.

Try to follow--I will make it simple:

Of course banks can and DO commit fraud.

HOWEVER, NO ONE HAS SAID THIS BANK DID ---YET. That is for a JUDGE and JURY to decide. AND I never said the Attorney General could not help ---I said the ATTORNEY GENERAL is NOT an arbitrator, as you said below, Donallie.