Hundreds of examples of fraud by Trump and his family, corporations

#376
#376
volinbham said:
I'm not wrong on either.

The fact the AG was prejudiced against Trump can certainly be brought to bear in the case.

At this point it is civil only - you can talk about you want about if (feds bringing charges/state doing it later) but the point is THIS case is civil in nature and it is entirely unclear who the victim is that experienced damages.
Click to expand...


"Brought to bear"? Maybe in the court of Donald Trump cult membership, but the rest of it see it for what it is, which is an excuse. And a lousy one.

It is not unclear who has been damaged. It is laid out in the lawsuit.
 
#377
#377
lawgator1 said:
"Brought to bear"? Maybe in the court of Donald Trump cult membership, but the rest of it see it for what it is, which is an excuse. And a lousy one.

It is not unclear who has been damaged. It is laid out in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Then who was damaged?
 
#378
#378
It is perplexing that the AG would present a civil complaint and not the entity that was allegedly defrauded. My understanding is that those who were "damaged" would bring a civil case for restitution while the State would prosecute a criminal case for punishment.

Can a lawyur comment on why the State would be driving the bus on a civil complaint?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and 825VOL
#379
#379
lawgator1 said:
"Brought to bear"? Maybe in the court of Donald Trump cult membership, but the rest of it see it for what it is, which is an excuse. And a lousy one.

It is not unclear who has been damaged. It is laid out in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The only sticking point I can see is the liquid assets, which has it own problems in the suit. Everything is not material enough to damage the parties as they were able to due diligence as to the worth of the assets. No matter how the assets were calculated, the bank could come up with its own. Matter of fact, IIRC in the suit they finally say Trump stopped even giving that information.

I don't see any "financial benefits" as they describe, there might have been damages but they are not benefits.

Hard to see how $3.1b of assets could have had a $250m swing off of interest. ????


- if I say I own X house but don't that is problematic
- if I say I own X house and it might be worth $10m, that isn't so problematic
 
#380
#380
LSU-SIU said:
The only sticking point I can see is the liquid assets, which has it own problems in the suit. Everything is not material enough to damage the parties as they were able to due diligence as to the worth of the assets. No matter how the assets were calculated, the bank could come up with its own. Matter of fact, IIRC in the suit they finally say Trump stopped even giving that information.

I don't see any "financial benefits" as they describe, there might have been damages but they are not benefits.

Hard to see how $3.1b of assets could have had a $250m swing off of interest. ????
Click to expand...

Of course there were financial benefits - if there weren't he wouldn't have sought the loans to begin with or risked allegedly misrepresenting anything.

go stand in the corner.
 
#381
#381
OHvol40 said:
Trump produces grifts, lawsuits, and subpoenas. If you want to call those valuable then more power to ya 😂
Click to expand...
Why you so mad bro? What are you so afraid of? Success in the private sector surely seems to trigger you government kneelers.
 
#382
#382
McDad said:
I have a single family home I've owned for 13 years.
It has a valuation of:
- $208,800 based on rental income.
- $165,000 based on county tax assessor.
- $225,000 based on my insurance.
- $345,000 based on price per sq ft comps of other houses recently sold.
- $570,000 based on my knowledge that a country music star grew up there.

What is the value of that home?
Click to expand...
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#383
#383
Septic said:
Of course there were financial benefits - if there weren't he wouldn't have sought the loans to begin with or risked allegedly misrepresenting anything.

go stand in the corner.
Click to expand...

You have to prove a lot more than he simply took out the loans. You have to prove that his representations were so outside of the norm that they were criminal in intent, not just him over estimating. Then you have to prove that these representations were accepted by the banks and insurers at face value with no due diligence done by the lenders or insurers, which would make the lenders and insurers look like morons. Next you have to determine by how much those assets were overvalued to determine if they had any actual "benefit". Did the LTV affect the rate he was given. Did it effect the DTI ratio enough to allow him to get approved for these loans when he otherwise would not have. It is very easy to allege something, it is entirely something else to prove it.

edit: trying to use terms like LTV and DTI so most folks understand. The complexity of large commercial loans are very different and involve many variables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#385
#385
lawgator1 said:
You are 100 percent dead wrong on both accounts.

That the state AG does not like Trump has nothing to do with whether, objectively, the claims are true and the lawsuit meritorious. It makes her look bad, but does not in any way, shape, or form, excuse Trumps' own misconduct. All it does is provide a distracting talking point -- much like you have done here.

And you are wrong about it being civil versus criminal. First, it has been referred to the feds to see if they want to prosecute criminally. Second, the state can always lodge criminal charges later, if they wish. Third, it makes sense to do it this way because it being brought as a civil case means broader discovery and access to documents and witnesses.

Ergo you are just as wrong as you could possibly be in both aspects of your post.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
#389
#389
825VOL said:
You have to prove a lot more than he simply took out the loans. You have to prove that his representations were so outside of the norm that they were criminal in intent, not just him over estimating. Then you have to prove that these representations were accepted by the banks and insurers at face value with no due diligence done by the lenders or insurers, which would make the lenders and insurers look like morons. Next you have to determine by how much those assets were overvalued to determine if they had any actual "benefit". Did the LTV affect the rate he was given. Did it effect the DTI ratio enough to allow him to get approved for these loans when he otherwise would not have. It is very easy to allege something, it is entirely something else to prove it.

edit: trying to use terms like LTV and DTI so most folks understand. The complexity of large commercial loans are very different and involve many variables.
Click to expand...

You're arguing about intent, which is absolutely debatable.

This is wholly separate from LSU's nutty assertion that the accusations noted in the complaint didn't result in "financial benefit."

Financial benefit would be the ONLY reason trump would have sought the loans. People don't take out loans with the intent to lose money.
 
#390
#390
Septic said:
You're arguing about intent, which is absolutely debatable.

This is wholly separate from LSU's nutty assertion that the accusations noted in the complaint didn't result in "financial benefit."

Financial benefit would be the ONLY reason trump would have sought the loans. People don't take out loans with the intent to lose money.
Click to expand...
Who is the victim?
As far as loans go, rich people never use their own money for anything, ever.
 
#392
#392
lawgator1 said:
"Brought to bear"? Maybe in the court of Donald Trump cult membership, but the rest of it see it for what it is, which is an excuse. And a lousy one.

It is not unclear who has been damaged. It is laid out in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

you are saying that prosecutor behavior cannot be used in court? hmmmm

who was damaged - what were the damages
 
#394
#394
volinbham said:
you are saying that prosecutor behavior cannot be used in court? hmmmm

who was damaged - what were the damages
Click to expand...
He said in a double negative that it's "not unclear" who had been damaged, and it was laid out in the lawsuit. It certainly was not "not unclear" to me.
 
#398
#398
VolStrom said:
Indulge me.
Click to expand...

No, it's been pointed out repeatedly. You don't have to like it, or even agree - but it's not hard to spot the damages if he indeed intentionally committed the crimes of which he is accused.

As was noted previously, insurance fraud in many cases doesn't even need to result in demonstrable damages in order to violate the law.

I don't know how well this translates to NY law but I suspect it isn't much difference:

Fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain a benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled or someone knowingly denies a benefit that is due and to which someone is entitled. According to the law, the crime of insurance fraud can be prosecuted when:
  • The suspect had the intent to defraud. Insurance fraud is a "specific" intent crime. This means a prosecutor must prove that the person involved knowingly committed an act to defraud.
  • An act is completed. Simply making a misrepresentation (written or oral) to an insurer with knowledge that is untrue is sufficient.
  • The act and intent must come together. One without the other is not a crime.
  • Actual monetary loss is not necessary as long as the suspect has committed an act and had the intent to commit the crime.
 
#400
#400
Septic said:
No, it's been pointed out repeatedly. You don't have to like it, or even agree - but it's not hard to spot the damages if he indeed intentionally committed the crimes of which he is accused.

As was noted previously, insurance fraud in many cases doesn't even need to result in demonstrable damages in order to violate the law.

I don't know how well this translates to NY law but I suspect it isn't much difference:

Fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain a benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled or someone knowingly denies a benefit that is due and to which someone is entitled. According to the law, the crime of insurance fraud can be prosecuted when:
  • The suspect had the intent to defraud. Insurance fraud is a "specific" intent crime. This means a prosecutor must prove that the person involved knowingly committed an act to defraud.
  • An act is completed. Simply making a misrepresentation (written or oral) to an insurer with knowledge that is untrue is sufficient.
  • The act and intent must come together. One without the other is not a crime.
  • Actual monetary loss is not necessary as long as the suspect has committed an act and had the intent to commit the crime.
Click to expand...

hate to be the broken record but you are posting criminal law again

I do not know that the "doesn't even need to result in demonstrable damages in order to violate the law" applies if it's not a criminal charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top