Judge Engoron's $355 Million Fine Against Donald Trump May Have Far-Reaching Consequences

[Lazaran]

@HisArpy and @Rightguide and @icanhelp1

____________

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

Let's look at the first bullet - the banks did a separate property evaluation - it is a wrongful assumption. The Honorable Judge Engoron's finding, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688, points out how the bank determined the validity of Trump's request for a loan via erroneous misstatements by Trump and a falsified SFC required for the loan.

The first layer in this cake of info: Trump and his sons had Donald Bender, an accountant who worked for Mazars USA LLP, their financial company, prepare documents about their worth based upon data Trump provided. Bender prepared the SFC relying on Trump's data to be accurate. Trump signed documents that it was. Bender signed the SFC that the numbers were accurate, a prerequisite for the loan application. Later, the company learned from the AG that they were not accurate and disassociated itself from Trump - fired Trump as a client.

The second layer in this cake is at the Deutsche Bank’s level as found in Engoron's document and states:

“In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013."

“Before approving the credit facility, the Private Wealth Management Division consulted Deutsche Bank’s Valuation Services Group about market conditions to arrive at a conservative estimate of the value of the commercial real estate should a need arise to liquidate during “bad market conditions.” TT 1013-1016. In so doing, the Valuation Services Group applied a 50% “haircut” to the valuations presented by the client, which Haigh affirmed was the “standardized number for commercial real assets.”6 TT 1016, 1041.

“Haigh, [banker's lending officer] affirmed that the Private Wealth Management Division would not have done business with Donald Trump without a personal guarantee and that the personal guarantee was the reason for favorable pricing on the loan and the large size of the loan itself. TT 1017, 1020-1021, 1032.”

This, in short, shows the Deutsche Bank relied on the SFC document, not it's own eval, to be accurately files and upon Trump's personal guarrantee that he had sufficient resources to cure any defaults. "A rich man's handshake." One that Trump had his fingers crossed to ward off the lies in the SFC doc.

Now, let's look at the second bullet - Fraud. In this case, it had to have a 'victim.' It doesn't according to the statues applicable to this case.

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law §63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

“Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.”

In short, the second bullet says the state of New York has an interest in assuring businesses adhere to standards of fairness even if, in this case, all the money was paid. [Note elsewhere in the threads, Trump defaulted and renegotiated terms on this and other loans reducing his debt by further legal means.]

I’ll try to condense / simplify that ^:

Without the GROSSLY fraudulent overvaluations, the bank based its loan on, it would STILL have given. the 50% "haircut" to the orange fraudster’s valuations.

So, if the actual values of the properties had been used to based the 50% "haircut" on, would the loan have even been approved??? At that favorable interest rate???



For example:

The orange fraudsters claimed he was worth $ 4.3 Billion, and the bank gave that number an approximately 50% "haircut", down to $2.3 Billion.

BUT…if the orange fraudster hadn’t GROSSLY exaggerated the value of those properties, and submitted a number that was more realistic, say, $1.5 Billion, the bank would STILL have given the 50% "haircut", and estimated the orange fraudster’s wealth at about $750 Million.

Would that ^ number have secured the loan, and at the most favorable interest rate???



Doubtful, imho, but Deutsche Bank was also embroiled in massive corruption scandals at the time, so…



The point about there being NO requirement for there to be an actual "victim" for a crime to have been committed is well established. Although, as I and others have pointed out, there WERE victims, if one considers those who were denied the money, and the loans at favorable rates, that the orange fraudster took off the table.



JFC

SAD!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

0

@HisArpy and @Rightguide and @icanhelp1

____________

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

Let's look at the first bullet - the banks did a separate property evaluation - it is a wrongful assumption. The Honorable Judge Engoron's finding, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688, points out how the bank determined the validity of Trump's request for a loan via erroneous misstatements by Trump and a falsified SFC required for the loan.

The first layer in this cake of info: Trump and his sons had Donald Bender, an accountant who worked for Mazars USA LLP, their financial company, prepare documents about their worth based upon data Trump provided. Bender prepared the SFC relying on Trump's data to be accurate. Trump signed documents that it was. Bender signed the SFC that the numbers were accurate, a prerequisite for the loan application. Later, the company learned from the AG that they were not accurate and disassociated itself from Trump - fired Trump as a client.

The second layer in this cake is at the Deutsche Bank’s level as found in Engoron's document and states:

“In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013."

“Before approving the credit facility, the Private Wealth Management Division consulted Deutsche Bank’s Valuation Services Group about market conditions to arrive at a conservative estimate of the value of the commercial real estate should a need arise to liquidate during “bad market conditions.” TT 1013-1016. In so doing, the Valuation Services Group applied a 50% “haircut” to the valuations presented by the client, which Haigh affirmed was the “standardized number for commercial real assets.”6 TT 1016, 1041.

“Haigh, [banker's lending officer] affirmed that the Private Wealth Management Division would not have done business with Donald Trump without a personal guarantee and that the personal guarantee was the reason for favorable pricing on the loan and the large size of the loan itself. TT 1017, 1020-1021, 1032.”

This, in short, shows the Deutsche Bank relied on the SFC document, not it's own eval, to be accurately files and upon Trump's personal guarrantee that he had sufficient resources to cure any defaults. "A rich man's handshake." One that Trump had his fingers crossed to ward off the lies in the SFC doc.

Now, let's look at the second bullet - Fraud. In this case, it had to have a 'victim.' It doesn't according to the statues applicable to this case.

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law §63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

“Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.”

In short, the second bullet says the state of New York has an interest in assuring businesses adhere to standards of fairness even if, in this case, all the money was paid. [Note elsewhere in the threads, Trump defaulted and renegotiated terms on this and other loans reducing his debt by further legal means.]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-lawsuit-trial-new-york-53313f64d57b0aa99f756c2c791d29ab

Banker involved in big loans to Trump’s company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial​

NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”



At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fr...g-punishment-1355c3b48cdefa2894ce623ec59748bd

TRUMP’S CASE STICKS OUT​

A finding of fraud under the New York’s statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), does not require any misrepresentations or flat-out lies result in anyone getting duped or losing money. But AP’s review of nearly 150 cases reported in legal databases found that in the dozen cases calling for “dissolution,” victims and losses were key factors

TRUMP’S CASE STICKS OUT​

A finding of fraud under the New York’s statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), does not require any misrepresentations or flat-out lies result in anyone getting duped or losing money. But AP’s review of nearly 150 cases reported in legal databases found that in the dozen cases calling for “dissolution,” victims and losses were key factors

 

[dmallord]

0

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-lawsuit-trial-new-york-53313f64d57b0aa99f756c2c791d29ab

Banker involved in big loans to Trump’s company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial​

NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

This is a newspaper account of the trial, not a legal document. It supports what I posted. The article doesn't contradict Engoron's citation - it affirms it.

Yes, it shows the bank agreed they gave Trump the loan based on the SFC documents and added that they would not have loaned Trump the money without his personal promise to pay if in default. THAT REVIEW the bank did was Trump's false SFC numbers!

The DA, in the case decision I cited, said Trump lied about the accuracy of the SFC to a level of fraud. Trump's auditor firm concurred after finding out the real numbers from the DA and fired Trump. Judge Engoron concurred.

Trump lied, defrauded the State of NY according to the findings by the judge.

This AP article reiterates those facts - not disproves them.

Your post confirms my quotes of the trial records.

It is on the record, and you fail to recognize he lost. You are the zero here!

Trump has some time to appeal. You don't have that time - you lost the case of public opinion.

 

[icanhelp1]

This is a newspaper account of the trial, not a legal document. It supports what I posted. The article doesn't contradict Engoron's citation - it affirms it.

Yes, it shows the bank agreed they gave Trump the loan based on the SFC documents and added that they would not have loaned Trump the money without his personal promise to pay if in default. THAT REVIEW the bank did was Trump's false SFC numbers!

The DA, in the case decision I cited, said Trump lied about the accuracy of the SFC to a level of fraud. Trump's auditor firm concurred after finding out the real numbers from the DA and fired Trump. Judge Engoron concurred.

Trump lied, defrauded the State of NY according to the findings by the judge.

This AP article reiterates those facts - not disproves them.

Your post confirms my quotes of the trial records.

It is on the record, and you fail to recognize he lost. You are the zero here!

Trump has some time to appeal. You don't have that time - you lost the case of public opinion.

My point is the bank did evaluate Trump’s self worth and downgraded from 5 billion in net worth to 2.6 billion. There was no victim.

 

[dmallord]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fr...g-punishment-1355c3b48cdefa2894ce623ec59748bd

TRUMP’S CASE STICKS OUT​

A finding of fraud under the New York’s statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), does not require any misrepresentations or flat-out lies result in anyone getting duped or losing money. But AP’s review of nearly 150 cases reported in legal databases found that in the dozen cases calling for “dissolution,” victims and losses were key factors

Again no points here either. This article does not say the actions taken were illegal just that the AP reviewed many cases and didn't find one that had been tested in this manner.

Everyone knows this was the first novel case tried like this. Trump is a novel case creator. Nothing wrong with the actions taken or the way it was used, either. Go back and read my Al Capone analogy for a refresher.

That's, again, an appeal item. As 'rich' as Donald is, he can easily get this overturned, right? So, let's see that outcome before you start crying over this again.

 

[icanhelp1]

Again no points here either. This article does not say the actions taken were illegal. Just that the AP reviewed many cases and didn't find one that had been tested in this manner.

Everyone knows this was the first novel case tried like this. Trump is a novel case creator. Nothing wrong with the actions taken or the way it was used, either.

That's, again, an appeal item. As 'rich' as Donald is, he can easily get this overturned, right? So let's see that outcome before you start crying over this again.

But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

Some legal experts worry if the New York judge goes ahead with such a penalty in a final ruling expected within the next couple of weeks, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.

“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer who once sued a Trump condo building.”

My point is this is unprecedented and sets into motion the ability for NY to arbitrarily go after companies based on political bias.

 

[icanhelp1]

Again no points here either. This article does not say the actions taken were illegal just that the AP reviewed many cases and didn't find one that had been tested in this manner.

Everyone knows this was the first novel case tried like this. Trump is a novel case creator. Nothing wrong with the actions taken or the way it was used, either. Go back and read my Al Capone analogy for a refresher.

That's, again, an appeal item. As 'rich' as Donald is, he can easily get this overturned, right? So, let's see that outcome before you start crying over this again.

Having a conversation is not crying. My point is this case is politically motivated, it lacks precedence and fails to apply equal application of the law as well as over the top sentencing guidelines. This judge will give NY a business black eye. It will be appealed but the appellate process will have done its damage. Typical democrat M/O who possess the levers of judicial power. Apply strong armed gestapo tactics and ruin individuals by over prosecuting them into poverty.

 

[dmallord]

Having a conversation is not crying. My point is this case is politically motivated, it lacks precedence and fails to apply equal application of the law as well as over the top sentencing guidelines. This judge will give NY a business black eye. It will be appealed but the appellate process will have done its damage. Typical democrat M/O who possess the levers of judicial power. Apply strong armed gestapo tactics and ruin individuals by over prosecuting them into poverty.

I acknowledged it didn't have precedence, also. That's the meaning of a novel case.

I'll grant you that politics can become a part of judicial acts. Laws are passed by politicians and some judges and DAs are elected so there is that element. Laws also evolve to address needs. I cited those from Engoron's brief in this case as well. So, yes, politics do shine on occasion - we expect those who adjudicate to put their bias aside during the trials.

Businesses who behave as Trump's businesses deserve a black eye. One AG and one judge have put the business world on notice that anyone acting at Trump's dishonest level is subject to the law in equal measure. Whether a Republican or Democrat, they get equal treatment under the law.

You do know if this were gestapo action, or Putin modis operandi, Trump would be behind bars, probably physically abused. As to poverty level as a result of this, I wouldn't thing so. Trump claimed he had the money for this in cash. So, it's just a little setback - a slap on the wrist for a guy worth $10B. Although his hands have been kept off the business for three years.

 

[icanhelp1]

I acknowledged it didn't have precedence, also. That's the meaning of a novel case.

I'll grant you that politics can become a part of judicial acts. Laws are passed by politicians and some judges and DAs are elected so there is that element. Laws also evolve to address needs. I cited those from Engoron's brief in this case as well. So, yes, politics do shine on occasion - we expect those who adjudicate to put their bias aside during the trials.

Businesses who behave as Trump's businesses deserve a black eye. One AG and one judge have put the business world on notice that anyone acting at Trump's dishonest level is subject to the law in equal measure. Whether a Republican or Democrat, they get equal treatment under the law.

You do know if this were gestapo action, or Putin modis operandi, Trump would be behind bars, probably physically abused. As to poverty level as a result of this, I wouldn't thing so. Trump claimed he had the money for this in cash. So, it's just a little setback - a slap on the wrist for a guy worth $10B. Although his hands have been kept off the business for three years.

 

[icanhelp1]

Abuse of power period. Crossfire hurricane, Mueller investigation, 2 impeachments, 4 indictments, with a total 91 charges has the appearance of impropriety and politically motivated. Lady justice is supposed to be blind. Democrats hate Trump and have crossed all ethical barriers to destroy one individual. Included in this effort by the left to destroy Trump are states attempting to disqualify him from their ballots. You Dems claim to defend democracy, using fascist tactics says otherwise. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton violated classified document statutes and get a pass, Trump is railroaded by a corrupt DOJ using gestapo LIKE tactics. Clinton obstructed justice by destroying evidence and Comey refused to prosecute, much similar to the Hur/ Biden debacle. As long as Dems hold the levers of judicial authority equal protection under the law, equal application of the law are just words. I’m all done with this conversation. Lady justice is no longer blind! YOU ARE! We can’t govern a nation when one side feels that the ends justify the means even if it means bastardizing the constitution and bill of right to achieve an end goal. How many people’s lives have been destroyed by rogue DOJ, FBI, federal prosecutors abusing their authority. It’s not just the Trump cases that bother me, the abuse of the judiciary against J/ 6 demonstrators has turned us into a Putin style authoritarian state.

 

[Lazaran]

Abuse of power period. Crossfire hurricane, Mueller investigation, 2 impeachments, 4 indictments, with a total 91 charges has the appearance of impropriety and politically motivated. Lady justice is supposed to be blind. Democrats hate Trump and have crossed all ethical barriers to destroy one individual. Included in this effort by the left to destroy Trump are states attempting to disqualify him from their ballots. You Dems claim to defend democracy, using fascist tactics says otherwise. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton violated classified document statutes and get a pass, Trump is railroaded by a corrupt DOJ using gestapo LIKE tactics. Clinton obstructed justice by destroying evidence and Comey refused to prosecute, much similar to the Hur/ Biden debacle. As long as Dems hold the levers of judicial authority equal protection under the law, equal application of the law are just words. I’m all done with this conversation. Lady justice is no longer blind! YOU ARE! We can’t govern a nation when one side feels that the ends justify the means even if it means bastardizing the constitution and bill of right to achieve an end goal. How many people’s lives have been destroyed by rogue DOJ, FBI, federal prosecutors abusing their authority. It’s not just the Trump cases that bother me, the abuse of the judiciary against J/ 6 demonstrators has turned us into a Putin style authoritarian state.

^
(Quoted for posterity and stupidity)

Considering that the corrupt orange traitor has skated on nearly EVERY corrupt and criminal act in that corrupt orange POS’s life, this recent quest for accountability for beyond the pale violations of the law doesn’t come close to balancing the scales of justice… but it’s a start.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Abuse of power period.

He committed fraud,got caught was convicted and fined. You're going around posting that it's government persecution, well of course it is. That's exactly what the legal arm of government does.

Do you whine about this around the supper table? Throw shit at the TV while watching Fox, and your wife quietly sneaks out of the room, wondering why you became such a grumpy old man?

 

[HisArpy]

@HisArpy and @Rightguide and @icanhelp1

____________

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

Let's look at the first bullet - the banks did a separate property evaluation - it is a wrongful assumption. The Honorable Judge Engoron's finding, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688, points out how the bank determined the validity of Trump's request for a loan via erroneous misstatements by Trump and a falsified SFC required for the loan.

The first layer in this cake of info: Trump and his sons had Donald Bender, an accountant who worked for Mazars USA LLP, their financial company, prepare documents about their worth based upon data Trump provided. Bender prepared the SFC relying on Trump's data to be accurate. Trump signed documents that it was. Bender signed the SFC that the numbers were accurate, a prerequisite for the loan application. Later, the company learned from the AG that they were not accurate and disassociated itself from Trump - fired Trump as a client.

The second layer in this cake is at the Deutsche Bank’s level as found in Engoron's document and states:

“In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013."

“Before approving the credit facility, the Private Wealth Management Division consulted Deutsche Bank’s Valuation Services Group about market conditions to arrive at a conservative estimate of the value of the commercial real estate should a need arise to liquidate during “bad market conditions.” TT 1013-1016. In so doing, the Valuation Services Group applied a 50% “haircut” to the valuations presented by the client, which Haigh affirmed was the “standardized number for commercial real assets.”6 TT 1016, 1041.

“Haigh, [banker's lending officer] affirmed that the Private Wealth Management Division would not have done business with Donald Trump without a personal guarantee and that the personal guarantee was the reason for favorable pricing on the loan and the large size of the loan itself. TT 1017, 1020-1021, 1032.”

This, in short, shows the Deutsche Bank relied on the SFC document, not it's own eval, to be accurately files and upon Trump's personal guarrantee that he had sufficient resources to cure any defaults. "A rich man's handshake." One that Trump had his fingers crossed to ward off the lies in the SFC doc.

Now, let's look at the second bullet - Fraud. In this case, it had to have a 'victim.' It doesn't according to the statues applicable to this case.

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law §63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

“Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.”

In short, the second bullet says the state of New York has an interest in assuring businesses adhere to standards of fairness even if, in this case, all the money was paid. [Note elsewhere in the threads, Trump defaulted and renegotiated terms on this and other loans reducing his debt by further legal means.]

tl;dr

 

[Fuzzy1975]

tl;dr

I'll give you the Cole's notes.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't realize Trump's entire 83 million dollar verdict to E. Jean Carrol (now 91 million with interest) is due this Friday by close of business, or else her lawyers can start placing liens on his real property.

Of course, Trump's lawyers filed an "emergency" three day extension today at court in New York......
I wonder what variation of "it's NOT FAIR!" they will use as "legal" justification this time?

Perhaps JimArpy can give us some insight.

 

[dmallord]

tl;dr

Tl;dr: I gave you that in the opening statements. The rest was support documentation.

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

And you claim to be a lawyer. I figured you'd be face-deep in perusing the legality of it. It doesn't speak well of you as a lawyer now.

 

[dmallord]

I didn't realize Trump's entire 83 million dollar verdict to E. Jean Carrol (now 91 million with interest) is due this Friday by close of business, or else her lawyers can start placing liens on his real property.

Of course, Trump's lawyers filed an "emergency" three day extension today at court in New York......
I wonder what variation of "it's NOT FAIR!" they will use as "legal" justification this time?

Perhaps JimArpy can give us some insight.

I suspect Jim will be quiet on this. Trump has been conversing with another real billionaire, presumably looking for a loan. Not happening.

My bet is that Trump will now claim he doesn't have the upfront funds to appeal and wants to 'bargain' down the exorbitant amount - not like the nearly 600K he needs for the fraud case. BTW, that clock is ticking as well.

 

[HisArpy]

Tl;dr: I gave you that in the opening statements. The rest was support documentation.

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

And you claim to be a lawyer. I figured you'd be face-deep in perusing the legality of it. It doesn't speak well of you as a lawyer now.

The "facts" you claim about the bank never doing their own assessments are false and are brought to you by those with an interest in continuing the controversy surrounding Trump because it sells advertising generated by clicks on the lies being published.

I never claimed that fraud had to have a "victim." I've quoted the required elements for fraud in one of the threads and I'm sure you've misread it like you idjits always seem to do.

Elements for fraud:

• A false statement
• Of a material fact
• Made for the purpose of inducing another to rely on the false statement
• And the false statement was actually relied upon.

Applying those elements in the light most favorable to the accused (as REQUIRED by the law) results in:

Trump gave his opinion on the value of his property which is consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood (which is called comps in the real estate world). This is not a "material fact" because bargaining on price isn't a material fact, statements about the quality and condition of the item being bargained for are. Trump's statements about the quality and condition of the property supporting the value he claimed are supported by comps of other properties.

The bank stated that they did not rely on the values Trump provided. See:

“We are expected to conduct some due diligence and verify the information provided, to the extent that is possible,” David Williams, a banker in the wealth management group at Deutsche Bank, said on Tuesday. He said repeatedly that the bank had performed that diligence and factored its own analysis into the relationship with Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html

If you read the NY Times story you'll get some other interesting facts too. One of which is that Engoron determined that Trump had committed fraud BEFORE the trial began.

That's very interesting to say the least since fraud isn't purely a question of law. Fraud requires evidentiary facts provided by witness testimony and evidence. Deciding that fraud occurred before those witnesses and evidence could be brought to light is beyond the province of the judge when deciding questions of law.

In the end your determination that Trump committed fraud, like Engoron's decision, is rooted in bias rather than facts or law. You are wrong, Engoron is wrong, and the decision will be overturned on appeal.

You don't have to like it but pitching a public fit because you don't like the result of the law being applied evenly to Trump is unacceptable.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Elements for fraud:

• A false statement

Claimed his apartment was triple the size.

• Of a material fact

Claimed his apartment was triple the size

• Made for the purpose of inducing another to rely on the false statement

Passed off exaggerated apartment size to a bank to inflate his portfolio value

• And the false statement was actually relied upon.

Bank used the evaluations supplied by Trump

Wow thanks for laying out that Trump did commit fraud!! Thanks carbon water boy!!

 

[dmallord]

The "facts" you claim about the bank never doing their own assessments are false and are brought to you by those with an interest in continuing the controversy surrounding Trump because it sells advertising generated by clicks on the lies being published.

I never claimed that fraud had to have a "victim." I've quoted the required elements for fraud in one of the threads and I'm sure you've misread it like you idjits always seem to do.

Elements for fraud:

• A false statement
• Of a material fact
• Made for the purpose of inducing another to rely on the false statement
• And the false statement was actually relied upon.

Applying those elements in the light most favorable to the accused (as REQUIRED by the law) results in:

Trump gave his opinion on the value of his property which is consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood (which is called comps in the real estate world). This is not a "material fact" because bargaining on price isn't a material fact, statements about the quality and condition of the item being bargained for are. Trump's statements about the quality and condition of the property supporting the value he claimed are supported by comps of other properties.

The bank stated that they did not rely on the values Trump provided. See:




If you read the NY Times story you'll get some other interesting facts too. One of which is that Engoron determined that Trump had committed fraud BEFORE the trial began.

That's very interesting to say the least since fraud isn't purely a question of law. Fraud requires evidentiary facts provided by witness testimony and evidence. Deciding that fraud occurred before those witnesses and evidence could be brought to light is beyond the province of the judge when deciding questions of law.

In the end your determination that Trump committed fraud, like Engoron's decision, is rooted in bias rather than facts or law. You are wrong, Engoron is wrong, and the decision will be overturned on appeal.

You don't have to like it but pitching a public fit because you don't like the result of the law being applied evenly to Trump is unacceptable.

TL;DR

Just acknowledge he lied under oath - that's fraud enough. Guilty. End of the corrupt story.

 

[HisArpy]

TL;DR

Just acknowledge he lied under oath - that's fraud enough. Guilty. End of the corrupt story.

What you WANT to believe isn't necessarily the truth. Your refusal to inform yourself about the facts and the law only provide support for the truth of that statement.

Basically you want Trump to be guilty, therefore he is regardless of the actual facts or what the law requires.

Hey, how about that democracy you say Trump is the one who is trying to destroy?

 

[dmallord]

What you WANT to believe isn't necessarily the truth. Your refusal to inform yourself about the facts and the law only provide support for the truth of that statement.

Basically you want Trump to be guilty, therefore he is regardless of the actual facts or what the law requires.

Hey, how about that democracy you say Trump is the one who is trying to destroy?

It all comes down to the highest level of appeal in the end, correct?

I'll take that answer—I might not like it—but I will not put on my protective vest and oil up my AR-15 to march out in protest.

 

[HisArpy]

It all comes down to the highest level of appeal in the end, correct?

I'll take that answer—I might not like it—but I will not put on my protective vest and oil up my AR-15 to march out in protest.

Interesting tidbit; since the rise of the progressive Left, the trial courts don't make decisions anymore. At best they make interim rulings. Rulings where are then hashed out in the higher appellate courts and appealed again to the SCOTUS.

In essence the lawfare the Left is engaging in has cut out all the middle men and resulted in the only viable court being the highest court. And even then the Left refuses to accept the decisions that result. Look at MSNBC trying to say the UNANIMOUS decision in the Colorado case was "at best 6-3 or 5-4" to see how unreasonable the Left is being.

You're even falling for it.

 

[dmallord]

Interesting tidbit; since the rise of the progressive Left, the trial courts don't make decisions anymore. At best they make interim rulings. Rulings where are then hashed out in the higher appellate courts and appealed again to the SCOTUS.

In essence the lawfare the Left is engaging in has cut out all the middle men and resulted in the only viable court being the highest court. And even then the Left refuses to accept the decisions that result. Look at MSNBC trying to say the UNANIMOUS decision in the Colorado case was "at best 6-3 or 5-4" to see how unreasonable the Left is being.

You're even falling for it.

I read the unsigned decision and some commentary about the separate documents about this. All, or the unanimous part, referred to the agreement of concurrence with the States not having the right to remove Trump from the ballot.

I am not certain about the distinction between why some decisions apparently can be issued unsigned—the distinction is not clear to me.

As to the 'at best 6-3 or 5-4' concerned the feelings that some of the justices felt the decision went further than it should have in answering the matter.

Perhaps that is what MSNBC was pointing out.

You claim unreasonable reporting. They reported it as unanimous right and added some context, perhaps? Did they say the SC made a wrong decision or just pointed out some background to the story? I didn't see that news item.