At its simplest, property fraud is a form of identity fraud targeting conveyancers and their clients in property transactions.
Conveyancing firms are a prime target for such frauds, owing to the large volume of client monies held, along with long-term increases in property values. Thankfully, by being aware of key red flags and undertaking rigorous due diligence, firms can protect themselves from potential claims.
What is property fraud?
There are many types of property fraud, but scams will typically involve a fraudster hacking into a client’s email account to impersonate a third-party. Specific types of fraud include:
Pretending to be a buyer – fraudsters pretend to be interested in purchasing a property, in order to obtain information regarding the seller or property. This information can be used to conduct title fraud, which may enable the fraudster to take out loans using the legitimate owner’s property as collateral.
Pretending to be a seller – by conducting title fraud, fraudsters may be able to sell the relevant property without the knowledge of the legitimate owner. Alternatively, fraudsters may use email hacking to infiltrate the email of a seller or conveyancer. They can then provide the conveyancer with fake bank account details, before making off with the proceeds of sale.
Pretending to be a lender – in which a fraudster impersonates a mortgage lender where a mortgage is being redeemed in an effort to fraudulently receive the redemption monies.
Pretending to be a conveyancer – fraudsters may also use email hacking to impersonate a conveyancer, before providing the buyer with fake bank account details. This type of fraud was once labelled ‘Friday Afternoon Fraud’, having usually occurred on a Friday – a popular day for completions.
These are not the only means by which fraudsters may seek to commit property fraud. In the case of Davisons Solicitors v Nationwide [2012] EWCA 1626, fraudsters created a fictitious firm that obtained a branch address registered with the Law Society, before posing as acting for a seller. In that case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law firm acting for the purchaser had checked the Law Society’s records, which was sufficient, but the outcome would probably have been different had that check not been completed.
Statistics suggest that property fraud is a growing threat. According to Lloyds Bank, conveyancing scam reports increased 29% in the second half of 2023 (opens a new window), compared with the six months prior. Earlier this year, a case emerged of one solicitor (opens a new window) who was duped into transferring more than £290,000 to a hacker, resulting in regulatory fines of £26,000. Advances in technology, such as the rise of AI-enabled deepfakes (opens a new window), further heighten the risk to firms and their clients.
Red flags for property fraud
During the course of any conveyancing transaction, there are various red flags that may indicate a potential fraud, and which should not be ignored, including:
Urgency to complete on the part of the seller
Lack of a selling agent
Sale of a (unencumbered) mortgage-free property, or cash purchase
Outdated or very recent identification documents (driver’s license, passport, etc.)
Absence of available documents from the time of the initial purchase
Lack of interest or concern in any problems identified with the title
Absence of information around who acted on the initial purchase
Alterations or inconsistencies in names, email addresses, or company information (these may be subtle e.g. ‘m’ changed to ‘rn’).
Implications for conveyancers
Homebuyers are the most obvious victim of property fraud, with many losing the entirety of their deposit to successful frauds, with losses typically running to six or seven figures.
However, the impact on conveyancers themselves can be equally severe. Firms who fail to identify fraud may find themselves liable for the lost client monies, and can suffer significant reputational damage. Where firms are found to have breached a relevant code of conduct, such as failing to carry out significant AML checks, they may incur regulatory fines. Earlier this year, one such firm was fined £20,000 (opens a new window) for unwittingly enabling conveyancing fraud.
Even where systems and processes are in place to mitigate fraud, failure to follow these is likely to leave conveyancers responsible. In the well-known Court of Appeal case of P&P Property v Owen White and Catlin [2018] EWCA Civ 1082, the firm who ‘acted’ for the imposter seller was not able to obtain relief from their breach of trust due to their failure to follow their own due diligence. They did not complete the client ID form and took no notice of the fact that the fraudster had told them that he was working abroad.
Similarly, although software is available to help identify when a new or fraudulent email address is used, this does not help when clients have their emails hacked. These claims might be defendable, but only where a firm can point to clear warnings of fraud being sent at the outset of a transaction and repeated in email footers.
Even when the completion money arrives safely, it can only be paid away to the correct recipient in order to achieve a genuine completion. The Law Society Code for Completion by Post was updated in 2019, to make it clearer that the seller’s solicitor only gives undertakings where there’s a genuine sale. For a buyer and their legal team, the risk is reduced, but they are unlikely to escape responsibility if it transpires the seller’s solicitors are not insured or have their insurance claim declined for dishonesty. In this scenario, the buyers’ solicitors may seek Section 61 Trustee Act 1925 relief from sanctions, which is to a large degree within the discretion of a court and so, in practice, is granted only in exceptional cases.
When acting on a mortgage or re-mortgage, there is often one firm acting for the lender and one for the borrower, which adds another layer of risk. If the borrower turns out to be a fraudster, the innocent owner of a property will have any fraudulent charge removed, leaving the lender unsecured and, inevitably, the mortgage will not be repaid. There are no concluded cases on the point, but it is certainly arguable that the lender’s legal team will have some liability in these circumstances given their access to the borrower, and a potential responsibility to identify them for their principal.
How conveyancers can protect against property fraud
To prevent and manage the risk of fraud in conveyancing transactions, it’s essential to observe due diligence processes rigorously and be alert to potential threats throughout.
Key steps to follow include:
Ensure that your client onboarding processes are robust and up to date – does the client’s given reason for the sale seem legitimate?
Keep your due diligence and ‘Know Your Client’ processes up to date
Ensure teams are fully trained on the systems and the importance of anti-fraud processes, and that those processes are followed rigorously
When acting for a buyer, include both your client and the seller’s solicitors in your investigations
Bear in mind the potential warning signs of fraud, and remain alert to any suspicious activity
Exercise extra caution at the point of completion – take stock before funds are paid away (potentially never to be seen again)
Keep up to date with the latest fraud detection techniques, and balance the cost of any new technology against the potential impact of any claims
Remember that if the transaction doesn’t feel quite right, it is worth consulting a senior colleague for guidance
Consider a rigid policy of not accepting a change of client bank details once they have been given, the risk is too high.
Fraudsters continue to find new ways to steal completion money. Nevertheless, the majority of claims we see could have been avoided if existing safeguards had been followed properly.
Contact us (opens a new window) for more information, or visit our Solicitors (opens a new window) page for further insights.
The information provided in this article is for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal or professional advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, the authors and publishers make no warranties regarding its completeness of accuracy.
This article has been co-authored by Jason Nash, Solicitor at Browne Jacobson, Jim Simpson, Senior Claims Specialist at HDI, and Nicola Anthony, Risk Manager & Vice President at Lockton.
