However, once financing is guaranteed by the bank, both sides agree that they are going through with the sale, and any reason to cancel now means the buyer would lose his down payment.
In this case, the bank pulled funding at closing because they realized that documents were provided fraudulently. Hence, lost down payment.
Part of me wonders whether in addition to the cultural factors counseling loan repayment whether some buyers did not have an actual, and possibly reasonable, fear of the bank taking extrajudicial measures to collect on debts. (i.e. "If you don't pay, we send thugs to beat up your family.") This is suggested as a standard enforcement mechanism for hui, which were known to be a common funding practice for the bank's borrowers, and those borrowers might naturally assume that the big, well-connected bank had levers stronger than sending a strongly worded letter in the event of default.
One imagines that the yakuza have a better repayment rate than borrower profiles would suggest, too, but that isn't primarily a consequence of their fluffy-bunny-community-involvement.
This guy is a real piece of work. Look for extra context when you see his name. He was the DA in the Aleynikov case as well.
