@jj-adams saidHave you heard of the concept of the deterrence aspect of court decisions
350 million dollar fine?
The most he should have been fined would be the difference in interest payments he got at the lower rate, certainly nothing ridiculous like 350 million. Proves how biased the court was.
The only reason there were no victims was due to chance, if his business had gone pear shaped the share holders of the banks would have been left holding magic beans when they tried to collect on trumps collateral
HE COMMITTED FINANCIAL FRAUD, Again
301d
@jj-adams saidThat would have been no deterrent to a recidivist like Trump. The fine was punitive, to deter a repeat offense.
350 million dollar fine?
The most he should have been fined would be the difference in interest payments he got at the lower rate, certainly nothing ridiculous like 350 million. Proves how biased the court was.
@moonbus saidActually, no punitive damages were assessed. The monetary amounts were all based on what Donald Trump and the others received or saved through fraud:
That would have been no deterrent to a recidivist like Trump. The fine was punitive, to deter a repeat offense.
On page 82, the Court finds a savings of $168 million in interest from four loans based on the lower interest rates Trump got through fraudulent misrepresentation (which is the standard JJ said should have been used).
On page 83, the Court assesses a $126 profit from the Old Post Office sale which would not have happened but for the use of false financial statements (lesser amounts are assessed to Eric and Donald, Jr. for their share of the profit from that deal).
On page 84, Trump gets assessed $60 in windfall profits for selling a license to Bally's; a license the Court found he was able to maintain only by using fraudulent financials.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24432598-452564_2022_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision_after_trial_1688
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder saidwho made these decisions for the “ court”? what were their qualifications?
Actually, no punitive damages were assessed. The monetary amounts were all based on what Donald Trump and the others received or saved through fraud:
On page 82, the Court finds a savings of $168 million in interest from four loans based on the lower interest rates Trump got through fraudulent misrepresentation (which is the standard JJ said should have been used).
...[text shortened]... ments/24432598-452564_2022_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision_after_trial_1688
301d
@Mott-The-Hoople
So for you, being a card carrying Trumpite, there was no fraud. Nothing wrong with saying your condo was three times its real size for the purposes of getting a loan, which was just ONE of such claims your god king made.
These 'claims' were adjudicated by a team of financial experts and there is nothing you can do or say that would in any way clear your god king Trump AND his kids.
301d
@JJ-Adams
If you had actually gone through the grifts Trump pulled you would see just why it would be that large. They were not talking about a single grift like calling his condo 30000 square feet when in fact it was more like 10000 for the purpose of getting a loan, there were LITERALLY hundreds of such claims, like saying his Mar A Lago estate was worth one BILLION dollars when his own real estate dudes said it was something like 20 mil. You can bitch and whine all you want where you want to make it look like it was a witch hunt but these are proven by financial forensic experts. My guess is he profited a LOT more than a half bil from all his hundreds of grifts.
I guess you figure for instance, his former 'Trump university' and 'Trump Charity' being closed down because of all those witch hunts also, which BTW cost T 25 MILLION. Yeah, your god king is just a misunderstood philanthropist.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@sonhouse said“These 'claims' were adjudicated by a team of financial experts”
@Mott-The-Hoople
So for you, being a card carrying Trumpite, there was no fraud. Nothing wrong with saying your condo was three times its real size for the purposes of getting a loan, which was just ONE of such claims your god king made.
These 'claims' were adjudicated by a team of financial experts and there is nothing you can do or say that would in any way clear your god king Trump AND his kids.
No, its the opposite, the only experts to be heard all agreed this was on the up and up, its the way all businesses operate. Did you not hear the testimony of the bank official that gave Trump loans and said he would be glad to do business with him again?
The judge took it upon himself to dispute ALL the experts claims
301d
@mott-the-hoople saidTrump's attorneys presented experts, all were heard. Their only real defense was that the financial statements were "immaterial" for the loans given out by banks. But this is undercut by the clear legal rules that the financial statements need to be accurate.
“These 'claims' were adjudicated by a team of financial experts”
No, its the opposite, the only experts to be heard all agreed this was on the up and up, its the way all businesses operate. Did you not hear the testimony of the bank official that gave Trump loans and said he would be glad to do business with him again?
The judge took it upon himself to dispute ALL the experts claims
301d
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's an outright falsehood; the decision quotes in great detail the testimony of expert witnesses for both the plaintiff and the defendants.
“These 'claims' were adjudicated by a team of financial experts”
No, its the opposite, the only experts to be heard all agreed this was on the up and up, its the way all businesses operate. Did you not hear the testimony of the bank official that gave Trump loans and said he would be glad to do business with him again?
The judge took it upon himself to dispute ALL the experts claims
Yes, it was the judge's job to decide the facts and law of the case.
@mott-the-hoople saidThe judge per New York law.
who made these decisions for the “ court”? what were their qualifications?
301d
@kevcvs57 saidIf there was any chance of anything going pear shaped, I doubt the banks would have given him the loan in the first place. I'm sure they're not that stupid.
Have you heard of the concept of the deterrence aspect of court decisions
The only reason there were no victims was due to chance, if his business had gone pear shaped the share holders of the banks would have been left holding magic beans when they tried to collect on trumps collateral
HE COMMITTED FINANCIAL FRAUD, Again