I think I recognize the different types of fraud. I just keep reading where a significant number of posters think (or infer) that Prosper was obligated to buy back any type of loans where any type of fraud existed. I do not believe they were or are.
I don't think many people here think that -- I know I don't. However, I do think that Prosper breached various contractual and fiduciary duties to us in the way that they originated many loans, such as when they originated loans despite being warned that there was fraud afoot and being provided with the evidence. IMHO, Prosper would be liable for the damages to lenders on such loans.
Moreover, I think it is beyond debate that Prosper breached its so-called "100% identity-theft guarantee." There were many examples of loans that were obviously identity theft (including the infamous Leporello identified one in which he provided Prosper the name and phone number of the NYPD detective handling the purported "borrower's" identity-theft case, and Prosper failed to contact the detective, and refused to repurchase the loan, until there was such a shit-storm on the forum that Prosper was finally obligated to repurchase the loan after about a year). And
the last time I checked, Prosper had only repurchased TWO loans under its "guarantee" that had been originated in something like a two-year period. Prosper even refused to repurchase the infamous Gaerke loan, despite Mr. Gaerke filing sworn papers in federal court that he was the victim of identity theft and hadn't taken out the loan in his name -- instead, Prosper filed a response that mislead the judge as to how Prosper operated, which Prosper was then forced to repudiate after The Motley Fool raised a stink in its
"Avoid this Company Like the Plague" article.