Yesterday, I saw a friend say that Dongzhang reported on a real estate fraud case involving Tianxian Bureau, and then a follower DM asked me to analyze it. I originally thought about making a video to share, but considering that the amount of knowledge is too heavy and difficult to digest, I decided to explain it in words to make it easier to understand slowly. Friends who are interested should first google "Second-hand Building Tianxian Bureau" or read Dongzhang's report on September 4. We will discuss it after understanding the background. The following discussion is very complex and academic, and I believe it is not easy for even insiders to understand. If you don’t understand, just jump to the conclusion.

One of the focus points of the report is to discuss "whether the seller's law firm is involved." My idea is: the seller's lawyer's operation as a whole maximizes the interests of the third mortgagor "Ms. Deng", in addition to ensuring that he can obtain stable benefits from the sale and purchase process. Collecting the deposit that has been collected also ensures that the outstanding balance of $2.7 million can be recovered in the future; from this point of view, Ms. Deng, the third mortgagor, may be the person who really leads the entire transaction. The entire operation process of the seller's law firm was very precise. After signing the formal sales agreement on March 18, the order was immediately placed on March 20, and then on March 21, a personal mortgage of Ms. Deng was registered on the same property; This process seems reasonable but somewhat contradictory. The seller's lawyer claimed that he had received a letter from Ms. Deng on March 18, stating that he was "willing to cancel the mortgage for only 600,000 yuan." So in fact, as long as the deposit is paid directly to Ms. Deng, isn't it already satisfying Ms. Deng's request? ? Why deliberately register a $2.7 million mortgage after paying the deposit? Of course it is procedurally correct, but I very much doubt that the seller's lawyer has foreseen that the seller will go bankrupt, and Ms. Deng has no intention of giving up collecting the total debt of $2.7 million, and expects to continue to collect the balance after the seller goes bankrupt.

I have heard similar tactics in the past when I communicated with some property investment experts. It also appeared when there was a large amount of negative equity more than ten years ago: the seller's law firm colluded with the financial company to squeeze out the entire property and then bought it together. The deposit for the home was taken away, and the owner was filed for bankruptcy. This method is extremely close to breaking the law but is difficult to prove, and the loopholes in this area have not been filled. I saw some online comments saying that the buyer’s law firm should stop the seller from placing the order as soon as possible. To be honest, I kind of think this is an afterthought; it is an industry norm to hand over the deposit to the seller’s law firm for custody. "There is no turning back." If the seller's lawyer or at least his attorney has colluded with the seller, the buyer's lawyer can't stop him from transferring the money to the seller or his authorized person.

If we really want to force accountability, we can only say that the buyer's lawyer did not pay attention to the fact that the seller's lawyer may be represented by some notorious "Master Firm", and then during the appointment stage, he already stated that he would not allow the booking to be made; why would I guess it was a "Master Firm" Woolen cloth? Frankly speaking, it was only a deposit of 60,000 to 700,000 yuan, and he still had to settle accounts with Ms. Deng, the mastermind behind it, and even other financial companies, so he could only get more than 100,000 or 200,000 yuan every minute; even if it really happened, it was not worth it. Lawyers risk delisting. But if a lawyer misappropriates the name of a lawyer and messes up which lawyer's license, it will be a big deal and he will work in another law firm. Repeat it over and over again, and it will be easier to find a lawyer every minute. So instead of telling all prospective owners to handle it carefully --- you won't listen anyway. As long as the lawyer's fee is equal to one thousand, even if the person dealing with it is a master and not a lawyer, no matter how great the risk is, you will just ignore it --- I will tell you more I would like to appeal to colleagues to pay attention: If you are not familiar with building sales, you really should not do it, let alone delegate the power to your master. In the past, several law firms have fallen into the hands of the master. Why don’t you pay attention?