"which really hurts mobile notaries."
That's a fair issue. Perhaps the only REAL issue here. Even if there are not yet documented cases of fraud caused by RON, there is obvious evidence RON has already hurt the business of SAs. Isn't that what this is really about? That was one of Matt's original arguments.
Or, has the mobile notary business assigned itself to be the guardian of mortgage and notary compliance with so many other, and much more capable (CFPB) agencies to take on this mantle. If evidence surfaces that RON increases fraud, we'll hear about it and face even more compliance. Until then...
I asked a leading question below about cameras. I Wonder how a police officer would answer the following.
How often will an underaged person with a fake I.D. attempt to purchase alcohol, or a cashier attempt to sell it while on camera with a tape that won't disappear overnight? Will it totally prevent it? No. Will it more than likely mitigate the possibility of committing a crime while on camera recording both audio and visual?
As for placing more faith in DocuSign, I couldn't disagree more. I use it. I love it. During Covid, it was a lifesaver not to sign documents in person. You merely email the documents to two email addresses if joint borrowers and print a certification that signatures are true and correct for the underwriter. Who's to say that the same person didn't open both emails and do the signing? No one. There is no camera running to record audio and visual. There is much more potential for application fraud from DocuSign then there is from RON. Application and income fraud will always come out as the biggest culprits with or without RON. |
