Thank you for using JustAnswer!
From the described facts, with respect to the person who authored the original letter, that person could only communicate that the changed information is not true. There is no independent legal action that the author could take.
Good luck and best wishes.
I hope that you find this information to be helpful and this answer to be ACCEPTable!
So the original person who wrote the letter can not take any legal action even though the letter was changed and signed with out her knowing?
Now, the dealership -- the employer of the person who did the changing -- they could discipline or fire the employee if they wanted to.
Is that for NJ.
That would be for anywhere.
See, the person who wrote the letter simply provided status information.
The person who wrote the letter has not suffered any legal injury.
The employer of the salesman -- now, again, the employer could discipline/fire the employee. That's a whole different ball of wax.
could they legally charge the employee of the dealership.
With a crime?
Not from the facts that you've described.
And here's why.
Criminal charges of fraud require the element that the "victim" relied upon the misrepresentation when making a decision. In other words, the victim would not have made a certain decision (e.g., approved the loan), if that representation was different.
From the facts you've described, the lender did not rely upon the letter when making the financing decision.
Does a criminal charge of fraud will not stick. Not all of the elements are there.
They originally approved the deal with prove of income. They got a letter then changed the letter. when the bank called for verification they spoke to the original person who wrote the letter. the then declined the loan because the income was not true. they then secured financing through another source that did not require any additional documentation. The original bank was not used. The financing never went through on the originall bank.
See, no one was defrauded.
They called to verify the letter. No money was lent based upon the false letter.
no because they never accepted the loan.
Right, so there was no damages.
Any "crime" is "incomplete."
Thus, not all of the elements are present for a prosecutor to successfully prosecute the case.
A jury would have to come back with a verdict of not guilty.
OK you have been very helpfull. I can let the employee know there are no worries. I just wanted to let him know just in case. I don't think it will go that far. The originall customer is satisfied with everything. Even if the author tried to persue im sure the attorney they speak to would advise them they have no case
I hope that you found the information to be helpful and this answer to be ACCEPTable!
Yes very helpfull
So there is no charge for attempt because even though the attempt was there no one was harmed financially?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).