Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually you can start with this article which provides plenty of information and actual factual pieces. Take the time to read it through before you sound off as it does point to one person who had a felony conviction directly related to real estate fraud and was allowed to retain their license. It also references several other agents/brokers who plead guilty to real estate fraud crimes and also are allowed to maintain their license. Pleading guilty is no different than being forced to admit guilt in a trial! This is a Nov of 2010 article in a newspaper. The writer provides names and dates which can be verified if you choose.
Many suspected, convicted of fraud still have real estate licenses - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/12/3179325/many-suspected-convicted-of-fraud.html - broken link)
Many times it takes bringing these cases to the forefront, in the media and public's eyes before the appropriate agencies will take any action.
As for your own State of Texas they publish their disciplinary actions on the WEB site for your licensing agency. These are were very surprising to see some of the offenses that agents/brokers commit and are allowed to retain their license. You can view the Texas disciplinary actions here:
TREC - Disciplinary Actions Main Page (http://www.trec.state.tx.us/complaintsconsumer/DiscipActions.asp - broken link)
The fact still remains that these agencies have to much leeway in making capricious decisions on who can or can not retain their "Professional" license! These government agencies are tasked with controlling the issue of "Professional" licenses, monitoring their licensed individuals and companies, and enforcing the rules and regulations that come with the "Professional" license.
If a convicted felon is barred from voting, owning a handgun, obtaining various types of government backed loans or grants, being forced into a restrictive probationary status, or even incarcerated for years at the taxpayers' expense then what makes this particular group of "Professionals" (the real estate group including all professions) any different from the rest?
Jbiggs, checked out the (latest) violations for Dec 2010 on our TX site and 90% were License suspensions for offenses that were way short of criminal felonies. You're picking on the wrong state for people keeping a license after a felony.
This state will revoke a license for a whole lot less then a felony conviction.
But like usual the thread has been Hijacked by people who have agendas. Not sure how any of this applies to the original post.
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,311,234 times
Reputation: 6471
According to the article: "Out of 260"...."At least 45 of the accused or convicted wrongdoers were listed as licensed brokers or salespeople by the Department of Real Estate, and consumers would have no way of knowing of the accusations. (leaving 215) Another dozen on The Bee's list have had their licenses suspended or revoked.(leaving 203) The remainder either did not work in the real estate industry (borrowers who lied on mortgage applications, for instance), did not have a license or had an expired license."
Hmm would the Sac Bee care to break out the number on that one? I think we're still in America where accusations and convictions are quite a different thing. Out of 495,000 real estate licensee's at the end of 2009, I'd say that the number is pretty insignificant. One in eleven thousand?
I love folks who take a apocryphal headline and use it to paint with the broadest brush available. Critical thinking is a lost art apparently.
According to the article: "Out of 260"...."At least 45 of the accused or convicted wrongdoers were listed as licensed brokers or salespeople by the Department of Real Estate, and consumers would have no way of knowing of the accusations. (leaving 215) Another dozen on The Bee's list have had their licenses suspended or revoked.(leaving 203) The remainder either did not work in the real estate industry (borrowers who lied on mortgage applications, for instance), did not have a license or had an expired license."
Hmm would the Sac Bee care to break out the number on that one? I think we're still in America where accusations and convictions are quite a different thing. Out of 495,000 real estate licensee's at the end of 2009, I'd say that the number is pretty insignificant. One in eleven thousand?
I love folks who take a apocryphal headline and use it to paint with the broadest brush available. Critical thinking is a lost art apparently.
I see licenses suspended in NC on a regular basis for failure to disclose a DUI, or other less-than-felony crimes.
Jbiggs, checked out the (latest) violations for Dec 2010 on our TX site and 90% were License suspensions for offenses that were way short of criminal felonies. You're picking on the wrong state for people keeping a license after a felony.
This state will revoke a license for a whole lot less then a felony conviction.
But like usual the thread has been Hijacked by people who have agendas. Not sure how any of this applies to the original post.
Your license violation records go back years and not just the past month. Not sure what you are talking about?? The felony issue the other agent wanted proof of was for California. And of course the other agent did not read the article as I expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMenscha
According to the article: "Out of 260"...."At least 45 of the accused or convicted wrongdoers were listed as licensed brokers or salespeople by the Department of Real Estate, and consumers would have no way of knowing of the accusations. (leaving 215) Another dozen on The Bee's list have had their licenses suspended or revoked.(leaving 203) The remainder either did not work in the real estate industry (borrowers who lied on mortgage applications, for instance), did not have a license or had an expired license."
Hmm would the Sac Bee care to break out the number on that one? I think we're still in America where accusations and convictions are quite a different thing. Out of 495,000 real estate licensee's at the end of 2009, I'd say that the number is pretty insignificant. One in eleven thousand?
I love folks who take a apocryphal headline and use it to paint with the broadest brush available. Critical thinking is a lost art apparently.
Read the article and you will see that several plead guilty to felonies and one was even convicted of a felony (major case as well). There was no broad brush painted here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
I see licenses suspended in NC on a regular basis for failure to disclose a DUI, or other less-than-felony crimes.
This is not an attack but a DUI? That is tough enforcement then! Does NC have a rigid penalty matrix they enforce without prejudice? Almost sounds like it if they suspend for a DUI. That is good and maybe not always good. Not every transgression should result in a stiff penalty, but a felony should be an immediate revocation as soon as the offender pleads guilty. If they are truly innocent they should not plead guilty.
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,311,234 times
Reputation: 6471
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbiggs
Read the article and you will see that several plead guilty to felonies and one was even convicted of a felony (major case as well). There was no broad brush painted here.
Amazingly, since you can plainly see I copied and pasted FROM the article, I read it. For you to indict the entire system or those other 495,000 licensees who don't commit felonies or misdemeanors, is indeed painting with a broad brush.
This is not an attack but a DUI? That is tough enforcement then! Does NC have a rigid penalty matrix they enforce without prejudice? Almost sounds like it if they suspend for a DUI. That is good and maybe not always good. Not every transgression should result in a stiff penalty, but a felony should be an immediate revocation as soon as the offender pleads guilty. If they are truly innocent they should not plead guilty.
I did not say they suspend for DUI.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
