Print

[Teddie33]

Payment cleared!!

Great, don't you just love a loan payment on a fraud loan........

Not as much as a 100% repurchase by Prosper, which is what it owes the lenders on this loan.

I don't understand the reason to let people with the means to pay out of this loan.

Who are you referring to?  A couple of payments have apparently been made by the BK trustee out of available funds from Mr. Gaerke, despite the fact that he was apparently a victim of ID-theft and never took out the Prosper loan.  Those payments aren't going to continue forever -- would you pay off a loan that you never took out? The person who should pay off this loan is Ms. Gaerke, but apparently she has no money so that isn't going to happen either.  So the next best payor of the loan is Prosper, because it is the one who allowed this ID-theft loan to originate.

I'm just waiting for you to claim you know who is making the payments.

[mhs505]

I wonder why a BK trustee who was convinced that there was fraud would make any payments on this loan?

[Nora_Lenderbee]

Payment cleared!!

Great, don't you just love a loan payment on a fraud loan........

Not as much as a 100% repurchase by Prosper, which is what it owes the lenders on this loan.

Ira, we don't know that the loan was really ID theft. Just because Mr. Gaerke says so doesn't mean it's true.

[bamalucky]

I don't really see how Prosper can weasel out of it unless they have taped voice conversations with the man.

[ira01]

Payment cleared!!

Great, don't you just love a loan payment on a fraud loan........

Not as much as a 100% repurchase by Prosper, which is what it owes the lenders on this loan.

Ira, we don't know that the loan was really ID theft. Just because Mr. Gaerke says so doesn't mean it's true.

That's true, although he said it in a sworn statement, and apparently every other creditor except for Prosper believed him.  Moreover, if Prosper had any evidence that it wasn't ID-theft, it probably would have so stated (instead of lying about who actually makes Prosper loans).  And, Gaerke's claims of no verification by Prosper are also consistent with what we know about Prosper.  All in all, I think it is considerably more likely than not ID-theft. 

[nonattender]

Payment cleared!!

Great, don't you just love a loan payment on a fraud loan........

Not as much as a 100% repurchase by Prosper, which is what it owes the lenders on this loan.

Ira, we don't know that the loan was really ID theft. Just because Mr. Gaerke says so doesn't mean it's true.

That's true, although he said it in a sworn statement, and apparently every other creditor except for Prosper believed him.  Moreover, if Prosper had any evidence that it wasn't ID-theft, it probably would have so stated (instead of lying about who actually makes Prosper loans).  And, Gaerke's claims of no verification by Prosper are also consistent with what we know about Prosper.  All in all, I think it is considerably more likely than not ID-theft. 

You could have stopped at "That's true" and been more right than you were without stopping.  But I am glad at least that you backed down from your "Ira01 finding of fact" statement, and are now saying "considerably more likely than not" - as weaselly as that sounds.

-t

[ira01]

Payment cleared!!

Great, don't you just love a loan payment on a fraud loan........

Not as much as a 100% repurchase by Prosper, which is what it owes the lenders on this loan.

Ira, we don't know that the loan was really ID theft. Just because Mr. Gaerke says so doesn't mean it's true.

That's true, although he said it in a sworn statement, and apparently every other creditor except for Prosper believed him.  Moreover, if Prosper had any evidence that it wasn't ID-theft, it probably would have so stated (instead of lying about who actually makes Prosper loans).  And, Gaerke's claims of no verification by Prosper are also consistent with what we know about Prosper.  All in all, I think it is considerably more likely than not ID-theft. 

You could have stopped at "That's true" and been more right than you were without stopping.  But I am glad at least that you backed down from your "Ira01 finding of fact" statement, and are now saying "considerably more likely than not" - as weaselly as that sounds.

And what burden of proof do YOU believe that Prosper should apply to its "100% ID-theft guarantee"?  A criminal conviction of the ID-thief?  Considering that Prosper's FAQ states:

What happens in case of identity theft?

Prosper has a 100% Identity Theft Guarantee in place to protect borrowers and lenders from identity thieves. If a lender is the victim of a defaulted loan from a person who has committed identity theft, Prosper will repurchase the loan for the unpaid principal amount, and will work with law enforcement authorities to track down and prosecute persons who have committed identity theft.

it is clear that Prosper says it doesn't require that.  Indeed, Prosper's own words appear to say that it will repurchase ID-theft loans even if the perpetrator is unknown (since it will "work with law enforcement authorities to track [them] down.")  So just what kind of proof is a victim of ID-theft supposed to provide Propser besides a sworn affidavit? 

[bamalucky]

Will Na answer this question?


If this guy wins his case,doesn't that mean Prosper has to rebuy the loan?

Isn't this in the best interest of the "lenders"

[xraider]

NA would rather take potshots at lenders than show that he can't justify the inexcusable. 

[Gogmagog]

it is clear that Prosper says it doesn't require that.  Indeed, Prosper's own words appear to say that it will repurchase ID-theft loans even if the perpetrator is unknown (since it will "work with law enforcement authorities to track [them] down.")  So just what kind of proof is a victim of ID-theft supposed to provide Propser besides a sworn affidavit? 

Do you really think there is any evidence solid enough to enforce an ID Theft claim against a spouse?  Especially if they already had mingled financial affairs?  Somehow I don't think so. 

[bamalucky]

Gog,all the other creditors dropped their claim on him.

[Gogmagog]

Gog,all the other creditors dropped their claim on him.

All of the other claimants have shareholders, bankers, and accountants backing them.  Prosper has rabid Internet-Loan-Shark-Bitch-Forum-Debtor-Prison-Lenders backing them. 

[bamalucky]

If the loan wasn't made to the person with the credit data,it doesn't matter if the loan is current or not.ID theft should kick in even if current.

Lenders didn't lend to anyone but the borrower.If it's not his loan,then they should be bought out.

[Gogmagog]

If the loan wasn't made to the person with the credit data,it doesn't matter if the loan is current or not.ID theft should kick in even if current.

Lenders didn't lend to anyone but the borrower.If it's not his loan,then they should be bought out.

truth

[ira01]

it is clear that Prosper says it doesn't require that.  Indeed, Prosper's own words appear to say that it will repurchase ID-theft loans even if the perpetrator is unknown (since it will "work with law enforcement authorities to track [them] down.")  So just what kind of proof is a victim of ID-theft supposed to provide Propser besides a sworn affidavit? 

Do you really think there is any evidence solid enough to enforce an ID Theft claim against a spouse?  Especially if they already had mingled financial affairs?  Somehow I don't think so. 

Yes I do.  If Prosper wants to require him to file a police report, that is fine with me (and apparently with him).  Filing a false police report is a crime that is not at all infrequently prosecuted.  That provides sufficient deterrence to false claims, especially where, as here, the so-called "borrower" has stated in a court pleading that Prosper never contacted him before funding the loan.  That would be a pretty risky claim for him to make if not true, because for all he knows, Prosper could have a recording of the call.  But apparently Prosper has no such recording, or other evidence, as it would have mentioned it if it did.  Lastly, Prosper, could have avoided this situation entirely by requiring a notarized signature before releasing loan proceeds.  It chose not to (and why not -- lenders, not Prosper, bear the costs of Prosper's shoddy verification).  Put together, I think it is a no-brainer that Prosper is obligated to repurchase this loan under its so-called "guarantee."