While late-night TV scams and robocall schemes are coming under increased scrutiny by state and federal officials, new real estate-related swindles continue to come to light.

The latest is what title company executive Thomas Cronkright calls the “owner-not-present” ruse in which fraudsters claim to be the owners of vacant lots and unencumbered properties to shoot for a quick sale by offering below-market prices.

Cronkright, who also owns CertifID, a company which works to uncover and prevent wire fraud, says the crime has “grown quickly” into the second-largest risk category of real estate fraud.

The scam first hit his radar last summer when a ring out of Germany was discovered to be focused on non-owner-occupied houses. But “now we’ve seen enough of it to realize there is a definite trend growing around vacant and unimproved property without mortgages.”

Here’s how the scam works:

The swindler searches public records to find real estate that is free of mortgages or other liens -- often vacant lots or rental properties -- and identifies the true owner. Then he poses as the owner and contacts a real estate agent to list the property for sale.

That’s exactly what happened to a lot owner in Nantucket, who found out his land was being targeted when someone who had seen the listing on Zillow called to see if he would take a lower price. He immediately ordered Zillow to remove the listing, and no harm was done.

But he’s lucky. Most owners don’t find out they’ve been had until they discover their taxes haven’t been paid.

According to Cronkright, all communications are done digitally, either through email, messaging or other means -- but never in person. The listing price is generally below market to stir immediate interest. The scammer prefers an all-cash transaction, and when an offer is made, it is quickly accepted.

The scammer refuses to sign documents in person, though. Instead, he asks for a remote notary signing. But when the papers arrive, he impersonates the notary and returns falsified documents to the title company or closing attorney. And at settlement, the proceeds are transferred to the sharpie.

Typically, says Cronkright, the fraud isn’t discovered until a point at which the documents are recorded with the applicable county, which can take days or even weeks in some jurisdictions. “The detection level is almost nil,” he told me. “And it can be an absolute mess if it reaches the courts.”

CertifID has worked with federal authorities on several of these kinds of cases. In North Carolina, a title agency and real estate agent were scammed out of $33,000 on an empty lot transaction. But CertifID worked with the Secret Service to freeze and ultimately gain the fund’s return. In two other cases, one in Ohio and the other in Florida, the supposed owners contacted real estate agents online, out of the blue, with no previous connection.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating Home Title Lock for possible violations of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by allegedly misleading consumers with deceiving statements concerning the prevalence of the theft of real estate titles and the need for the company’s services.

Paxton is trying to determine if Home Title Lock’s claims and advertisements are false, misleading or deceptive. Toward that end, the California-based company has been required to turn over documents concerning its advertisements and all documents substantiating specific claims.

“I won’t tolerate false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements targeted to any Texas consumers,” the AG said in a statement. “If Home Title Lock is misrepresenting its services or the need for its services, I will put a stop to its unlawful behavior.”

Last summer, this column warned consumers about Home Title Lock’s claims that the FBI says title theft was “one of the fastest-growing” crimes in America. The FBI said it has no record of making such an assertion. And the document the company sent to ABC News to justify its claim was more than 20 years old and was about mortgage fraud, not title theft.

For about $20 a month, the company says it will monitor a subscriber’s title and notify him right away if it is tampered with. But homeowners seemed to be left to themselves if Title Lock found something amiss.

Moreover, monitoring your title is something consumers can do for themselves. And in many places, the county recorder’s office will do it for you at no charge.

At the same time, the Federal Communications Commission has taken steps to squelch the ability of MV Realty to run a robocall campaign aimed at pushing unsuspecting homeowners into signing 40-year leasing contracts. I covered this outfit in October.

Acting after attorneys general in three states -- Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania -- have filed suits against MV for using misleading robocalls to “swindle” and “scam” owners into effectively mortgaging their homes in exchange for cash payments, the FCC has told telecommunications companies not to carry the suspected illegal pitches. MV Realty told me that it “only engages” with people who respond to its advertisements.

“Mortgage scams are some of the most pernicious types of robocalls we see,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “Sending these junk calls to financially stressed homeowners just to offer them deceptive products and services is unconscionable. That’s why we are shutting down these calls right now.”

The FCC received some 1,500 unwanted call complaints from consumers related to mortgages last year.

Homebuyers hunting for financing often turn to online mortgage comparison platforms to find the lowest rates available. But some may have been duped into choosing lenders that paid these websites to put them at the top of their lists -- even though they were charging consumers more.

To date, no particular site has been charged with such illegal behavior, at least in the mortgage space. But Uncle Sam's chief financial watchdog agency has fired a warning shot across the bow of consumer-facing comparison sites and mobile apps that steer consumers to the lenders that pay the sites the most.

In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission came down on LendEDU.com on charges that the site's operators favored companies that paid for top-of-the-list placement, even though the site claimed to provide unbiased information about student loans, personal loans and credit cards.

Now, in a new advisory opinion said to be aimed at helping law-abiding companies comply with the rules, Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, says that "if similar conduct is observed in the mortgage market, the CFPB will not hesitate to act."

The bureau calls the practice "double dealing" and says it violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by guiding shoppers to lenders by using pay-to-play tactics rather than providing them with comprehensive and objective information.

"We are working to ensure that online platforms are not manipulating their search results in order to coerce kickbacks from lenders," Chopra said.

The goal is to make certain small banks, credit unions and other lower-cost alternatives can be seen. And the bureau offered several examples of how that might not happen.

For example, a "non-neutral" site could manipulate information provided by a consumer to make sure lenders who pay the site rank higher than those who don't. Or it could de-emphasize -- or even exclude -- criteria that would favor a lower-cost alternative. In other instances, platforms could provide information on all participant lenders, but only offer links to paying providers. Or sites might ever-so-slyly highlight paying lenders by showing others in a smaller font or requiring consumers to scroll down to find them.

Sometimes users are just presented a list of lenders from which operators have extracted kickbacks. Some platforms may have a financial stake in referenced companies, a conflict of interest they conveniently fail to reveal. Or they might just hand off a shopper to the highest bidder, indicating it is the best option.

There are all kinds of ways pay-to-play platforms can manipulate their algorithms. But the CFPB is having none of it.

Said Chopra: "These platforms produce results that are rigged. ... Instead of being neutral referees, (they) extract illegal kickbacks to steer shoppers towards more expensive or lower quality lenders."

Faced with such skullduggery, borrowers smart enough to hunt for low-rate financing could still end up paying thousands more in interest than necessary. And these anticompetitive schemes also hurt fair-and-square mortgage lenders, brokers and loan officers.

In fact, the CFPB says it regularly receives complaints about RESPA violations from mortgage professionals forced to pay to play -- more complaints, in fact, than it gets from consumers, who may never know they've been had.

I was told by a source, on background, that consumers' lack of complaints is "to be expected," and that it is "part of the problem." Why? Because consumers are not aware that "backdoor kickbacks distort the market."

On the other hand, the CFPB advisory said that "honest mortgage professionals shouldn't feel that middlemen get to extort fees for them to be able to compete and have their mortgage offerings seen by consumers."

The move to rein in the manipulation of digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms is part of a broader, government-wide effort to end the illegal injection of bias into ostensibly neutral platforms.

As part of this effort, the CFPB has taken steps to combat fake reviews on digital platforms. A year ago, it issued policy guidance that posting fake positive reviews or falsifying customer ratings may be a violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

The FTC, too, has advised companies that, if they use endorsements to deceive consumers, the agency will be ready to hold them responsible "with every tool at its disposal." In particular, it is looking at contractual "gag" clauses that attempt to silence consumers from posting an honest review.

More than two years ago, I wrote in this column that consumers might want to look askance at online reviews, noting that they may not be all that reliable. Better to ask for the names, email addresses and phone numbers of recent clients from any company you are considering working with, then contact them directly for their opinions.

You also can check with other sources such as your local Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs agency. And search online for the name of the company you're screening, plus the word "complaint." Realize, though, that unhappy customers tend to post their beefs much more frequently than satisfied customers post about their experiences. So personal contacts are always best.

The shift toward all-electric living is underway. But if you are a buyer in today’s new home market, how do you navigate the transition to make sure your house is not outdated before you’ve hardly settled in?

The best way, says Matt Power, editor-in-chief of Green Builder magazine, is to concentrate on your home’s biggest energy uses first and tackle other uses as they come into the mainstream.

Here is Power’s list of priorities, which is the same one he recommends to builders looking to get ahead of the march toward net zero:

-- HVAC. Specify high-efficiency electric heat pumps that perform well in extreme temperatures, the veteran journalist advises. And add smart thermostats that can adjust temperatures automatically; they can cut your electric demand by 20%.

Meanwhile, current owners who want to switch to a heat pump may be eligible for a credit on their federal tax returns for 30% of the cost, up to $2,000.

-- Water heater. Select hybrid models that employ heat pump technology to extract moisture and heat from the surrounding air, Power says. Look for units with wire controls, leak detection and vacation modes. Install your choice in a spot “where it can do double duty” by providing dehumidifcation.

-- Vehicle charging. With the growth in popularity of electric vehicles, the longtime proponent of net-zero buildings puts electric vehicle charging stations one notch above smart appliances. Noting that electric cars and trucks are becoming one of the biggest energy guzzlers in new houses, Power says the timing of home charging needs to be managed, and the home’s wiring infrastructure needs to be set up for both supply and discharge.

(For those in the market for electric cars and trucks, a tax credit of up to $7,500 can ease the pinch. But there are income limits: $150,000 for single filers, $250,000 for heads of households and $300,000 for those filing jointly.)

-- Smart appliances. Your appliances need to be “smarter” than what is, for the most part, being offered today. Today’s models focus more on lifestyle than efficiency, and Green Builder’s research shows most people never use their smart oven or refrigerator features. So look for units that offer ways to reduce energy and water demands; i.e., shorter washing cycles for dishes and clothing.

-- Dashboard. Power says the “best tool” for managing energy use is a control center that allows you to see what power you’re using in real time. It will give you “a way to centralize control of all your energy inputs with all your end uses,” he says. Some panels can even be configured to switch power from one source to another during blackouts and outages.

There are few specifics, but Russian oligarchs, high-ranking Russian officials, sanctioned individuals and their family members moved a lot of money out of the Motherland around the time Putin invaded Ukraine a year ago. Some of it went into real estate here and abroad.

According to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, residential and commercial property in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates “has increasingly become a safe haven for Russian wealth, both legitimate and illicit.”

In one instance, an oligarch transferred more than $2 million to a UAE-based real estate outfit to buy and sell houses. In another, a member of the Russian junta transferred funds to a family member who used the money to make payments on real estate.

FinCEN also discovered that several members of the Russian ruling class moved funds to the United States either before or around the invasion, using the money for “property-related expenses.” In some cases, oligarchs who had been hiding money here for years increased the frequency and value of their transactions.

One wired money to the U.S. that was then used to maintain property he already owns and then sent the proceeds of these real estate investments out of the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department is moving ahead with new regulations that focus on increasing transparency in real estate transactions. The rules, which should come out this spring, are aimed at preventing “corrupt elites and others” from using real estate “to launder and hide their ill-gotten wealth.”

The Internal Revenue Service has more than 40 types of abusive tax schemes on its radar, including several involving real estate. These arrangements are aimed at reducing tax liability using gimmicks that are either not supported by the tax code or manipulate the law in a manner that is inconsistent with its intent.

One is a tax avoidance maneuver known as syndicated conservation easements.

A conservation easement is an agreement granting an organization the right to restrict the development and use of property for conservation purposes with the intent of preserving the land or buildings. If statutory requirements are met, taxpayers may donate an easement to a qualified organization and receive a charitable income tax deduction for the appraised value of the easement.

A conservation easement is “syndicated” if a person or company promoting the easement offers multiple investors in a partnership or pass-through entity the opportunity to claim charitable deductions based on the value of the easement in return for cash.

Syndicated conservation easements are legal until the value of the easements, and consequently the write-offs, are improperly inflated. Investments in syndicated easements run in the millions. But deductions resulting in lost federal tax revenue are in the billions.