Жалған несие беру және қарызқорлықтың зиянды тәжірибелері

Unethical lending practices
Predatory lending refers to unethical practices conducted by lending organizations during a loan origination process that are unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent. While there are no internationally agreed legal definitions for predatory lending, a 2006 audit report from the office of inspector general of the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) broadly defines predatory lending as "imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers", though "unfair" and "abusive" were not specifically defined. Though there are laws against some of the specific practices commonly identified as predatory, various federal agencies use the phrase as a catch all term for many specific illegal activities in the loan industry. Predatory lending should not be confused with predatory mortgage servicing which is mortgage practices described by critics as unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices during the loan or mortgage servicing process, post loan origination. One less contentious definition of the term is proposed by an investing website as "the practice of a lender deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, or systematically violating those terms in ways that make it difficult for the borrower to defend against". Other types of lending sometimes also referred to as predatory include payday loans, certain types of credit cards, mainly subprime, or other forms of (again, often subprime) consumer debt, and overdraft loans, when the interest rates are considered unreasonably high. Although predatory lenders are most likely to target the less educated, the poor, racial minorities, and the elderly, victims of predatory lending are represented across all demographics. The continued occurrence of predatory lending can be viewed as a litmus test for the effectiveness of philanthropic lending that aims to foster entrepreneurship. Where such philanthropic lending initiatives (microfinance) are widely available, loan sharks and other predatory lenders should not continue to thrive. Predatory lending typically occurs on loans backed by some kind of collateral, such as a car or house, so that if the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender can repossess or foreclose and profit by selling the repossessed or foreclosed property. Lenders may be accused of tricking a borrower into believing that an interest rate is lower than it actually is, or that the borrower's ability to pay is greater than it actually is. The lender, or others as agents of the lender, may well profit from repossession or foreclosure upon the collateral. Predatory lending is often compared to (but not to be confused with) loan sharking, however a key difference between the two is that loan sharks do not seriously attempt to operate within the law.

Because many minority communities have been excluded from loans in the past, they are and have been more vulnerable to deception. Oftentimes, they are targeted because of these vulnerabilities. Organizations and agencies including ACORN, HUD, the American Civil Liberties Union, United for a Fair Economy and more prove that predatory loans are disproportionately made in poor and minority neighborhoods. Brokers and lenders preyed on these neighborhoods with the knowledge that these people were often denied for loans and the demand for loans were high. Lenders called these neighborhoods never never land. This created the subprime predatory lending world. Subprime lenders specialize in B, C, and D paper. Predatory lending is the practice of overcharging a borrower for rates and fees, average fee should be 1%, these lenders were charging borrowers over 5%. Consumers without challenged credit loans should be underwritten with prime lenders. In 2004, 69% of borrowers were from subprime lending. The 2007 mortgage drop and economy fail were from over lending. Organizations such as AARP, Inner City Press, and ACORN have worked to stop what they describe as predatory lending. ACORN has targeted specific companies such as HSBC Finance, successfully forcing them to change their practices. Some subprime lending practices have raised concerns about mortgage discrimination on the basis of race. African Americans and other minorities are being disproportionately led to sub prime mortgages with higher interest rates than their white counterparts. Even when median income levels were comparable, home buyers in minority neighborhoods were more likely to get a loan from a subprime lender, though not necessarily a sub prime loan. Consumers believe that they are protected by consumer protection laws, when their lender is really operating wholly outside the laws. Refer to 15 U. S. C. 1601 and 12 C. F. R. 226. Media investigations have disclosed that mortgage lenders used bait and switch salesmanship and fraud to take advantage of borrowers during the home loan boom. In February 2005, for example, reporters Michael Hudson and Scott Reckard broke a story in the Los Angeles Times about "boiler room" sales tactics at Ameriquest Mortgage, the nation's largest subprime lender. Hudson and Reckard cited interviews and court statements by 32 former Ameriquest employees who said the company had abused its customers and broken the law, "deceiving borrowers about the terms of their loans, forging documents, falsifying appraisals and fabricating borrowers' income to qualify them for loans they couldn't afford". Ameriquest later agreed to pay a $325 million (~$ in ) predatory lending settlement with state authorities across the nation.

Some subprime lending advocates, such as the National Home Equity Mortgage Association (NHEMA), say many practices commonly called "predatory," particularly the practice of risk based pricing, are not actually predatory, and that many laws aimed at reducing "predatory lending" significantly restrict the availability of mortgage finance to lower income borrowers. Such parties consider predatory lending a pejorative term.

In many countries, legislation aims to control this, but research has found ambiguous results, including finding that high cost mortgage applications can possibly rise after adoption of laws against predatory lending.

Many laws at both the Federal and state government level are aimed at preventing predatory lending. Although not specifically anti predatory in nature, the Federal Truth in Lending Act requires certain disclosures of APR and loan terms. Also, in 1994 section 32 of the Truth in Lending Act, entitled the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, was created. This law is devoted to identifying certain high cost, potentially predatory mortgage loans and reining in their terms. Twenty five states have passed anti predatory lending laws. Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Carolina are among those states considered to have the strongest laws. Other states with predatory lending laws include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. These laws usually describe one or more classes of "high cost" or "covered" loans, which are defined by the fees charged to the borrower at origination or the APR. While lenders are not prohibited from making "high cost" or "covered" loans, a number of additional restrictions are placed on these loans, and the penalties for noncompliance can be substantial.