Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(118,365 posts)
2. One reason why I believe it might be a proper safeguard
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:25 AM
Dec 2016

is that while real estate agents deal with the public, they also are frequently alone with both sellers and potential buyers in the property that is going on the market. Someone that has a record of sexual assault or abduction could present a danger. In addition, having people with criminal histories creates a liability for the company employing the agent if something does occur. While it is ultimately the responsibility of the employer to check the legal status of their agents periodically, it most likely will not occur unless there is something to prompt that check.

In addition, there are the fiduciary crimes such as forgery, fraud and theft that would appear on a criminal record. If an agent forges documents so that full disclosure about the condition of the property is not revealed then it could not only hurt the buyer, but the company/bank financing the mortgage.

Background checks are required for other occupations which present less risk to the public and are considered unskilled positions. Since being a real estate agent is considered as a skilled occupation it doesn't seem like an unreasonable imposition.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»South Carolina»Bill would require backgr...»Reply #2