Liquefaction in Sapporo caused by poor soil conditions

The September 2018 Hokkaido Iburi Earthquake resulted in severe liquefaction in part of Sapporo’s Kiyota Ward, leaving roads caved in and homes leaning at dangerous angles.As at October 3, as many as 1,452 homes had suffered damage in Kiyota Ward. This wasn’t the first instance for the neighborhood with liquefaction observed during the 2003 Hokkaido Earthquake which had an epicenter 300 kilometers away. The liquefaction hazard map issued by the city had previously designated this area as being of high risk for liquefaction damage.

Behind the real estate investment scams that have Japan’s regional banks concerned

The following is a summary of the recent information that has come out since the share house and whole-building investment scam scandal has been exposed in Japan.

Inflated rental projections

Guaranteed or estimated market rents were set much higher than actual market rents in order to inflate yields and sale prices. Share houses were perfect for this since it can be difficult to gauge appropriate market rent, making it easy to inflate figures. Share houses operated by one defunct operator were running at occupancy ratios of just 20%.

Whole building investment scam widens

The scandal surrounding dubious lending practices and falsified loan documents on investment properties widened last week with the Asahi Shimbun newspaper obtaining over 1,000 records of correspondence that allegedly implicates real estate agents and several Suruga Bank employees. The correspondence, which took place via email and LINE messages, is alleged to show the bank staff receiving numerous falsified documents including faked rent rolls for investment buildings.

Second share house company files for bankruptcy

In the wake of a widening investment loan fraud scandal, a second share house company in Tokyo has filed for bankruptcy.

The company operated by developing and selling share houses to individual investors and then managing the properties on behalf of the buyers, offering high yields and guaranteed rents. However, as was the case with the other defunct share house operator that filed for bankruptcy last month, the vacancy rates of the share houses was higher than forecast and the company was not able to make the guaranteed rent payments to investors.

Falsified documents submitted to 11 Bank Branches

A report by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper on May 5, has alleged that that mortgage fraud scandal now extends to 11 Suruga Bank branches across Japan. The newspaper alleges that five companies are involved in obtaining loans from various Suruga branches that were based on falsified income statements, resulting in over-loans to borrowers. The Suruga branches that have discovered faked documents include Tokyo, Shibuya, Shinjuku, Midtown, Futako-Tamagawa, Kawasaki, Omiya, Tama Plaza, Sendai and Kyoto.

On May 7 the newspaper dropped another bombshell, reporting that the lawyers representing a group of investors had received an audio recording of a phone call that took place in April 2016 between a real estate agent and an alleged bank employee. In the recording, which was released to the public, the broker asked the bank staffer for advice on what to do if a sales agency was unable to tamper with the loan application documents. The bank staffer mentioned a company that takes on a lot of those requests. The broker then called the company in question and they confirmed that they could falsify documents. Suruga’s share price briefly dropped by as much as 11% the following morning before recovering.

Share house investment scam sees bank share price dive 20% in one day

The scandal surrounding a failed share house developer continues to grow this month as more information about dodgy spruiking tactics and falsified documents comes to light. As many as 700 investors from a single share house developer are facing potential bankruptcy, but the number of victims could easily rise as other investment-spruiking companies are put under the spotlight.

A lawyer representing a class action by investors against the Tokyo-based share house company alleges that the inflated price of the share houses sold to investors was determined by the maximum amount that the bank was willing to lend a buyer, rather than the true market price. A gross return was 8 ~ 9% was then applied to the sale price, even if it was higher than the market rent. The buyer would buy under the assumption that they could rely on stable, guaranteed rents that would provide them with a cash surplus each month. The high yield was only possible because the share house operator was providing a rental guarantee that far exceeded the rent they were receiving – causing the operator to lose money each month.

Share house investors find themselves entangled in alleged mortgage fraud

The Asahi Shimbun newspaper has reported on potential mortgage fraud occurring with companies that tout share houses to real estate investors.

When buying an investment property from one of these companies, buyers typically entrust the entire loan application process to one of the many real estate agencies connected to the seller. The seller’s side will take copies of the buyer’s bank book showing their savings. At some point, and by whom remains unclear, the documents submitted to the bank are forged in order to improve the chance of obtaining finance or obtaining a loan much larger than would normally be approved. There are apparently cases where a buyer’s savings have been falsely inflated by as much as 10 times the true amount, along with false records showing a large deposit made to the seller.

Share house investors left high and dry

Investors in share houses have been left struggling to make loan repayments after their subleasing companies failed to make rental payments to landlords. A non-profit support center for landlords reported over 100 calls from distressed property owners over the past month.

Two different share house operators have recently reneged on their sublease agreements with landlords.

Company 1

On January 17th, a Tokyo-based share house operator held a meeting with investors informing them that they would no longer be able to pay rent to the landlords due to financial difficulties.

Double-end commission still at high levels

According to an article in ZAi Online, some of Japan’s major real estate agencies are collecting double-end commissions on over half of their sales. Collecting brokerage fees from both the buyer and seller may be illegal in some countries, but is a legal and common practice in Japan. Many times the buyer or seller will be unaware as there are no duties to disclose this to the customer.

In some companies, the agency has represented both the buyer and seller for as many as two-thirds of all transactions. Agencies are heavily dependent on this practice as it makes up a significant portion of their annual sales, and it is not likely that heavy regulation will be introduced to curb this behavior.

In early 2016, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) introduced reporting requirements for agencies that use the REINS online listing database. Agencies with exclusive-listing agreements are obligated to update the status of the property on the database if an offer has been received. This is an attempt to boost transparency in the real estate market, but appears to have had a limited effect.

Developer loses 6 billion Yen in fraudulent land sale

Major property developer Sekisui House has reported to have lost as much as 6.3 billion Yen (approx. 58 million USD) to scammers in a fraudulent land sale in central Tokyo.

According to a public announcement made by Sekisui earlier this month, they had agreed to purchase the property from a company that claimed to have already signed a tentative sales agreement with the alleged property owner. On the day of settlement, the property title was to be transferred from the original owner to the middle company and then to Sekisui. After the money had changed hands, the registry office (the government agency responsible for recording official changes in property titles) rejected the deed-change application because the title and identification documents from the alleged seller were falsified. By this point the ‘seller’ and associated parties had fled with the money and could not be contacted.