KUBR

Home Capital found brokers had falsified borrowers' income on mortgages

Home Capital Group · Mortgage lending (listed)

Forged documentsRegulatory breachFunding shock

The case in brief

Visible before detection

    Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight

    1

    Document authenticity / direct pull

    Would have pulled income records directly from employers or tax filings.

    Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.

    2

    Operating-metric verification

    Would have tested approval rates per broker.

    Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.

    3

    Regulatory & litigation records

    Would have tracked regulator complaints.

    Can mislead when: Court records lag and name spellings vary. A clean record can mean the problem has not reached court yet.

    Where Kubr services would have helped

    Valuation context

    Offered in India
    • C8 Would have tracked regulator complaints.

    Financial diligence

    Offered in India
    • C5 Would have pulled income records directly from employers or tax filings.
    • C10 Would have tested approval rates per broker.

    IC note

    Offered in India
    • C5 Would have pulled income records directly from employers or tax filings.
    • C8 Would have tracked regulator complaints.

    Portfolio monitor

    Offered in India
    • C8 Would have tracked regulator complaints.
    • C10 Would have tested approval rates per broker.

    Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.

    A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.