A friend just told me that they had photoshopped a letter from a CA to read that they had notified the CRAs to delete, and faxed it in. Apparently the account was deleted! Wondering what the penalties would be if discovered? Is this a federal crime? I would be too afraid to try it (not to mention that I don't own photoshop!) THoughts?
This is something you definately want to stay away from. Yes fraud is a criminal offense and you can and in all likelyhood will be prosecuted. It is hard enough to get the CRA's to delete when you have a legitimate UDF I can't imagine it was that easy with a forgery. I am sure stranger things have happened though.
From my experience they say that they letter must have the company letter head, tell the CRA to delete, have a specific name and number to call to verify that the letter is real and a signature. Then again, I suppose that is not too hard to do. But sending that in would be evidence in court against whoever did it. You could never get it back. A very good Prosecutor would try and get you for doing something across state lines(if applicable). Your fingerprints on the paper would not be easy to explain. Where's the envelope it came in? What if they were suspicious and called company to see if that person really worked there? Even if you covered your butt and got the real name of someone that worked there. You signed the letter "Chris Webber" and sent it in. And the REAL Chris Webber's fingerprints are nowhere on the paper(how are they not if he filled it out and signed it?) and he doesn't know anything about the letter he supposedly sent out. Not to mention the signatures don't match. Jail time.
That was my reaction as well. I told my friend I thought he was nuts, but his response was his FICO went up 30 points. His point was that it is only a crime to fraudulently apply for credit -- and he wasn't applying for credit -- he has no contractual relationship with the credit bureaus, and simply faxed them a piece of paper -- e.g. what they chose to do with it is their business. According to him, the only downside was that if they called to verify, and they found no record of the letter, the derog would stay on. He calimed to be breaking no laws. That's what made me ask -- what law exactly is he breaking? In some senses, it doesn't seem worse than the various website tricks people are using and discussing here.
At first glance it is fraud and misrepresentation. I imagine there is simple common law that covers such things. Then again I'm not a lawyer.
Hmmm. I'm sure the police could find something. Identity theft if he signed it in someone else's name. Actually, now that I think of it, the company whose name she put the letter in could press charges for fraud. Something like fraudulent use of a company logo. It seems as if he's out of the clear now, but i wouldn't try it twice if I was him.
Oh Cmon, We discuss using the law as it's written to improve the situation, operating within the framework of what is legally correct.
I meant simply the various browser tricks I've been hearing about. I don't dispute anyone's right to dispute an inquiry, but defeating the technology to do so seems marginal. Bumpage, too, though certainly not illegal, is certainly a grey area. My point was only that I wasn't sure I understood the difference between fooling a CRA with a document and fooling a website's technology to delete inquiries. I am certainly not subscribing to the methodology myself. I was merely curious as to what the legal ramifications would be.
Well When you metion "fooling a browsers website to delete inquiries" you are still missing the point. i.e. the page is still there and accessable, there is no automatic deletion of inquiries because there is still an investigation process (I happen to know because mine are still being investigated) and after the investigation they may or may not delete. As opposed to sending in a forgery of a UDF which is basically an order to delete on sight without further investigation.
Agreed. But he didn't send a forged UDF, which I agree would be insane, and clearly illegal. What he told me was that he sent a letter addressed TO HIM, ostensibly from the CA, agreeing to delete the item with the CRAs, and noting that they had notified them. his point to me was that it is up to the CRA to verify the document he sent them, and they never do. Still too scary for me, but I am still unsure which laws it breaks. He simply sent supporting documentation supporting his claim that there was inaccurate data being reported. And the CRA bought it. (By the way,it actually WAS inaccurate, I'm told, which is why he didn't worry too much, since he knew that if the CRA actually bothered to do the investigation they ar required to by law, they would discover this fact. His popint was that he simply sped up the process...)
