SHANGHAI/HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) – When Zhu Chenxia offered a flat early ultimate 12 months from Lei Yarong within the up-market Nanshan district of China’s southern town of Shenzhen, the two girls drew up three purchase agreements to cowl the deal.

Only one changed into reality.

In the legitimate contract, Zhu agreed to pay Lei 6.Forty-nine million yuan (about £725,766) for the ninety six-rectangular-meter condo close to the metropolis’s border with Hong Kong, in keeping with facts filed in a Shenzhen courtroom. With the assist of her property agent, Zhu cooked up a 2nd contract with Lei that overstated the fee of the flat at 7 million yuan. This one was for the financial institution.

If Zhu had provided her lender with the real buy rate, she might most effective have been entitled to borrow as much as 70 percent of that amount, or four.Fifty-four million yuan. Chinese policies stipulate that first-domestic customers in some principal towns should make a down fee off at the least 30percentto lessen bank exposure to danger. The better valuation convinced the Bank of China to lend Zhu 4.Eighty five million yuan, leaving the lender much less buff in opposition to a fee drop.

Details of the deception are contained in a court judgment from a next dispute between Zhu and Lei over the transaction. Remarkably, Zhu herself disclosed the fraud to the courtroom whilst she gave proof that showed the pair had conspired to cheat the financial institution and the government.



Mortgage fraud like the pair’s flouting of regulations designed to protect banks is rampant in China’s roaring assets marketplace, consistent with interviews with buyers, dealers and dozens of property marketplace insiders along with real property dealers, legal professionals, bankers, values and mortgage middlemen from 3 of China’s predominant cities and 4 smaller cities. Many of these people declined to be identified because they had been familiar with or worried in “re-packaged” loan applications, the industry euphemism for those frauds.

A Reuter’s exam, such as an evaluation of courtroom statistics of cases along with Zhu’s dispute with Lei, shows that across China, unqualified debtors use fake documents to at ease mortgages, whilst loans deceptively received for different purposes are funneled into a property. These frauds are frequently committed with the consent and encouragement of different parties to the transactions, consisting of lending agents, assets marketers, valuation organizations and the banks themselves.

And those alleged crimes are not often punished. Neither Zhu nor Lei suffered any penalty for the fraud.

Hu Weigang, a senior accomplice at Guangdong Shen Dadi Law Firm, would like to look the law enforced at the mainland as it is in Hong Kong, wherein creating a bogus record can result in prison. But, he acknowledges, the size of this cheating makes it definitely not possible.

“When all people are doing it, you couldn’t place everyone in prison,” says Hu, who makes a specialty of real property litigation.


While property charges in China continue to rise, mortgage fraud remains in large part a hidden threat, a great deal as subprime loans inside the United States remained primarily out of sight ahead of the 2008 worldwide financial crisis. The fear is that in a assets correction, fraudulent mortgages might get to the bottom of, accelerating a disintegrate of housing expenses in the world’s 2nd biggest economic system. This, in flip, could imperil China’s debt-encumbered monetary system.

The threat from gravity-defying home prices is clear to the ruling Communist Party. In his marathon speech on the 19th Party Congress in October, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned approximately the overheated property marketplace. “Houses are built to be lived in, not for a hypothesis,” he said.

Top bank officials also are involved. Xu Zhong, head of the studies bureau at the principal financial institution, the People’s Bank of China, sees pitfalls ahead. “We must be very conscious that swiftly growing housing fees couldn’t most effective bog down our monetary improvement, however ought to effortlessly bring about systemic dangers and negatively impact the macroeconomy, ” Xu wrote in an op-ed for a crucial financial institution-controlled mag in September.

The reason for considerable mortgage fraud is easy: fear of lacking out.

Millions of house owners are taking part in the feeling of ever-increasing wealth. The average price of residential housing in China more than tripled between 2000 and 2015 as a massive property marketplace emerged from the early many years of economic reforms.

So far, China’s new domestic-owning class has yet to experience a sustained downturn in housing values. Official records confirmed prices grew 12.4 percent in 2016, the fastest rate seeing that 2011. A record tracking home charge traits by using the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a country think tank, showed costs in 33 principal towns soared forty-two percent in 2016. Private estimates and anecdotal evidence advise prices in most big Chinese towns without a doubt doubled or tripled since past due 2015.

For hundreds of thousands of Chinese, buying a home is now a rite of passage to the middle magnificence. In 2016, the rise in property fees boosted total family wealth in 37 of China’s maximum advanced cities by 24 trillion yuan, nearly twice the fee of overall disposable profits of 12.9 trillion yuan, according to a March studies notice from Deutsche Bank.

For many shoppers without the specified down charge or profits to qualify for a loan, a fraudulent mortgage software is a tempting if unlawful avoid. Home values inside the Haiyue Garden complicated in which Zhu sold her flat have elevated 40 percent in the ultimate two years, in keeping with local belongings retailers.

Zhu stood to make a tidy profit. She becomes no longer so keen to share profits with the government. Under the 0.33 settlement she drew up with Lei, the Shenzhen flat was valued at simplest 2.Eight million yuan, much less than 1/2 its genuine fee, the court statistics display. That settlement turned into for displaying to the taxman. At that cost, Zhu might have stored more than 50,000 yuan in taxes, in step with Shenzhen rules.

In the enormous majority of instances, fraudulent loan packages stay concealed as expenses preserve to rise and buyers meet their payments. In Zhu’s case, the fraud best became public because she fell out with Lei, the seller.

A clause within the true settlement between the two women stipulated that Lei, the vendor, agreed to refund Zhu the greater 310,000 yuan that Zhu extracted from the Bank of China using the faux loan software. It isn’t always clear from the courtroom files what Zhu meant to do with the extra money. In impact, though, the financial institution might be refunding a part of Zhu’s down price. However, Zhu alleges, Lei reneged and saved the cash.

Court documents display that Zhu final yr sued Lei in Shenzhen to get better the finances plus interest. In taking Lei to court, Zhu disclosed the information of the fraudulent contracts she signed with Lei.

In her court submissions, Zhu described her cope with Lei as a “yin-yang” contract – a widely used expression in China’s property marketplace which means real and faux agreements working side-by-side.

Almost all contracts for the sale of current assets in China have a few “yin-yang” detail, consistent with Denny Jiang, a former banker and recent home customer in Beijing.


Zhu’s willingness to admit to wrongdoing in courtroom shows that this sort of deception in China isn’t taken into consideration an extreme crime. The People’s Court of Nanshan District of Shenzhen dominated towards Zhu considering the fact that the seller and buyer had dedicated fraud.

Zhu later appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, arguing that her agreements with Lei confirmed the pair had taken element within the scheme collectively.

The appeals court, too, found that the two ladies had committed fraud. But it additionally generic Zhu’s argument that she turned into entitled to her share of the gains from the scheme. The courtroom ordered Lei to pay Zhu the amount they’d fraudulently extracted from the bank – in spite of acknowledging in its ruling that the pair had engaged in “unlawful behavior.” Lei’s lawyer said she complied with the ruling. The Bank of China did no longer reply to questions from Reuters about the case or allegations of massive loan fraud in China.

Zhu’s lawyer, Zhou Zhengfeng, declined to relay inquiries to Zhu or answer precise queries approximately his purchaser’s case.

In an interview with Reuters, the attorney was frank approximately the superiority of loan fraud. Buyers, he said, were, in reality, the use of the bank’s cash to speculate in real estate. “In the last few years in Shenzhen, there were masses of over-valuations used to get better loans,” stated Zhou, a specialist in property disputes at his company, China Commercial Law in Shenzhen. “It’s been pretty insane.”