lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 72,041
- Likes
- 42,581
So the state is the victim? And your defense is the state is incompetent at determining property values for the use in taxation and has no duty to arrive at their own valuation for such purposes? LMAO!They could get better terms than they did, based on the valuations. Plus, the lawsuit alleges that the scheme caused lower taxes owed.
What % of real estate people do this? Is this a Trump thing or common practice? If it is a Trump thing hopefully they will nail them to the wall. If it is common practice, why go after Trump for it?They could get better terms than they did, based on the valuations. Plus, the lawsuit alleges that the scheme caused lower taxes owed.
So the state is the victim? And your defense is the state is incompetent at determining property values for the use in taxation and has no duty to arrive at their own valuation for such purposes? LMAO!
Trump accountants to NYC tax assessor which apparently was accepted at face value?
View attachment 492363
Mortgage fraud is about the intent to deceive the lender. If one is using the stated values of property as collateral knowing they are misrepresenting those stated values - even if the loan is paid back, it's still fraud. If the bank had known his actual cash and real estate positions it's unlikely they would have given him as favorable terms or interest rates. Thus, cheating the bank out of collectable interest - which satisfies the States claims of "damages."
Using inflated values for insurance for lower property rates also would also defraud insurers out of collectable premiums.
Lol. The duty is on the bank to determine true value of assets and the duty is on the state to determine property value for taxation purposes. This is another red herring.Mortgage fraud is about the intent to deceive the lender. If one is using the stated values of property as collateral knowing they are misrepresenting those stated values - even if the loan is paid back, it's still fraud. If the bank had known his actual cash and real estate positions it's unlikely they would have given him as favorable terms or interest rates. Thus, cheating the bank out of collectable interest - which satisfies the States claims of "damages."
Using inflated values for insurance for lower property rates also would also defraud insurers out of collectable premiums.