@Mott-The-Hoople
Are you REALLY that stupid? The whole POINT is it was DONALD TRUMP who did those deals, are you REALLY from planet Earth? You ever watch anything but OAN or Newsmax? I know you probably don't even watch Fox now that Trump has dissed it.
Try watching news shows that aren't obvious rightwingers who will never tell you the whole story.
@sh76 saidTrump convinced banks to loan him money by lying about the value of his assets and his overall financial condition. They wouldn't have done so otherwise and he knew it.
The marginal difference manifests itself in loans that generally shouldn't be made in the first place. Irresponsible loan origination is what caused the financial crisis of 2008 (it was primarily the fault of the investment banks and not the borrowers, but that's beside the point).
If anything, anything that limits actuarily unsound loans is a good thing.
Of course, in a ...[text shortened]... Donald convinced a bank to lend him money that might otherwise have gone to actuarily unsound loans.
That you think otherwise they MIGHT have made loans that MIGHT have been "actuarily unsound" is uninteresting besides being legally irrelevant. His actions violated long standing NY law and your tears are unnecessary to hold him financially accountable for doing so.
@mott-the-hoople saidSure, it can be but profits from fraud can be recovered in civil actions as well.
who presented documents they knew were false?
and fraud is a crime
Trump and the officials at his company did even to his own accountants according to the trial testimony.
Here's what Donald Bender, who worked for the accounting firm Mazars. testified to:
"Bender made absolutely clear that under the terms of the engagement for compilation services, the client was responsible for ensuring that assets were stated at their “estimated current values,”and that Weisselberg was responsible for determining which GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - no1] departures were identified and disclosed. TT 237-238, 319-320. The engagement letters, signed by a combination of Weisselberg, Donald Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr., confirmed this by unambiguously acknowledging that Donald Trump, through his trustees, was responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the personal financial information in accordance with GAAP. See, e.g., PX741.
Bender later learned that the Trump Organization had withheld records, such as appraisals, that Mazars had requested while preparing the compilations, leading Mazars to conclude that the Trump Organization had falsely represented that it had complied fully and truthfully with all inquiries from Mazars. Mazars subsequently terminated its relationship with the Trump Organization."
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/02/nyag-v-trump-verdict-20240216.pdf at P. 7
@no1marauder saidyou do realize judge engoron found Trump guilty before any evidence was heard?
Here's what Donald Bender, who worked for the accounting firm Mazars. testified to:
"Bender made absolutely clear that under the terms of the engagement for compilation services, the client was responsible for ensuring that assets were stated at their “estimated current values,”and that Weisselberg was responsible for determining which GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounti ...[text shortened]...
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/02/nyag-v-trump-verdict-20240216.pdf at P. 7
Every application advised to do your own due diligence.
But let’s not pretend this is not about election interference.
Just about any NY businessman can get caught up in this lawfare abuse.
A sorry lot you are.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Yeah, we should just fall over and play dead to your incredible knowledge of law.
I guess you figure that judge was a Trump hater out to get him any way he could, false evidence, great, let's run with it........
It is abundantly clear you will follow your religious leader Trump no matter what he is convicted of, like the 25 million already fined for Trump so called University and Trump so called charity, and then 88 mil for defamation and half billion for fraud ALL with no evidence. Amazing.
@mott-the-hoople saidAny ny businessman who artificially inflates the value of their assets by a lot, and then deflates them for tax purposes, should be caught up in this.
you do realize judge engoron found Trump guilty before any evidence was heard?
Every application advised to do your own due diligence.
But let’s not pretend this is not about election interference.
Just about any NY businessman can get caught up in this lawfare abuse.
A sorry lot you are.
Hopefully it sends a message not to do this.
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's not true. Both sides moved for summary judgment based on the discovery which had been provided over the last several years including documents, depositions and expert submissions. Plaintiff's motion was granted in part. You can read why here: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/full-text-trump-civil-fraud-ruling-new-york-pdf-rcna117499
you do realize judge engoron found Trump guilty before any evidence was heard?
Every application advised to do your own due diligence.
But let’s not pretend this is not about election interference.
Just about any NY businessman can get caught up in this lawfare abuse.
A sorry lot you are.
@wildgrass
It matters little what we say, since Moot is deep into the Trump religion he will push back yelling WITCH HUNT no matter what evidence is shown and no matter what conviction is rendered, like the fraud cases now numbering what, four now? To say nothing of the defamation of E Jean Carroll and there are DOZENS of cases in the works where DC cops are suing Trump for sicking that mob on DC, HAND MIKE PENCE, like they would have known Pence was going to fail the fake elector count, they didn't know that till the Trump tweet and all of a sudden scaffolds were built for Pence and they WOULD have hung him if they could have gotten him out of the building.
But that means nothing to Moot, who wishes he had been there to shove a few poles into the cops himself.
@mott-the-hoople saidOn another note, will you admit that it requires an immense amount of hypocritical gall for right wingers like yourself who insisted that Hillary Clinton be charged with crimes months before the election in 2016 to now whine about "election interference" because candidate Trump is facing various legal proceedings?
you do realize judge engoron found Trump guilty before any evidence was heard?
Every application advised to do your own due diligence.
But let’s not pretend this is not about election interference.
Just about any NY businessman can get caught up in this lawfare abuse.
A sorry lot you are.
@no1marauder
I guess he figures every businessman does business that way, up his property value to get better interest on loans but when taxes come due all of a sudden that same property is now magically 10% of what it was when the loan went through, they ALL do that I guess would be his reply.
Not knowing or caring Trump has done that for DECADES without recrimination or consequences till now.
@no1marauder saidIt's an accepted practice, local councils (for the sake of local taxes) cannot charge full value because who knows what a property is worth to whom at what time, values are constantly in flux from day to day. Same on the other side, what's a property worth to the owner, what's the property worth to a prospective buyer it's all cloudy and constantly changing.
You're dodging.
Do you favor government intervention against fraud? A "Yes" or "No" will do.
The banks can't file because they were not the ones damaged. That was others who would have obtained loans but were prevented from doing so because of Trump's fraud. And they, not being parties to the fraud tainted transactions, were in no position to do "due diligence" reg ...[text shortened]... why government must step in or Trump will profit by and others will suffer because of Trump's fraud.
The banks only concern is are they covered if there is a default. And you can be sure they do their due diligence on the collateral in the case of large loans and small loans, they don't rely solely on what some bloke said. Large unique properties require more investigation, smaller properties it's easier to get a record of what's selling for what dollars in which area. A large single loan has advantages over multiple small loans.
There's a difference between the values that's a given, and it's the case for everyone, about all you can get your undies in a twist about is the amount of the difference, and for that you'll have to dig around in your butt, because like property values it's all subjective.
Both the local council and the bank do not rely solely on what the owner says, they do their own investigations before agreeing to the tax or the loan.
@sonhouse saidYou do it sunstroker.
@no1marauder
I guess he figures every businessman does business that way, up his property value to get better interest on loans but when taxes come due all of a sudden that same property is now magically 10% of what it was when the loan went through, they ALL do that I guess would be his reply.
Not knowing or caring Trump has done that for DECADES without recrimination or consequences till now.
@wajoma saidI guessed you missed my question:
It's an accepted practice, local councils (for the sake of local taxes) cannot charge full value because who knows what a property is worth to whom at what time, values are constantly in flux from day to day. Same on the other side, what's a property worth to the owner, what's the property worth to a prospective buyer it's all cloudy and constantly changing.
The banks only ...[text shortened]... ely on what the owner says, they do their own investigations before agreeing to the tax or the loan.
Do you favor government intervention against fraud? A "Yes" or "No" will do.
There's no sense requiring financial information from a prospective borrower IF he is allowed to freely lie about any matter in it. Valuations are not "subjective" in the sense that ANY will do; they must be done according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Both the parties know this going in; when one doesn't abide by this rule, he is violating the rules and committing fraud. The amount of "due diligence" the other party does or doesn't do is irrelevant.
So answer my question.
EDIT: The Judge rejected your "everything is subjective" claim on p. 19 of the Summary Judgment Decision:
". NO. 1531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023 made available to their counterparties because no sophisticated counterparty would have considered the SOFCs and other information provided by the Defendants alone as material to extend credit or set an interest rate, or issue an insurance policy or price a risk, without doing their own due diligence.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 45. Defendants also argue: “[i]t follows that if the user [of the SFCs] is in possession of the correct information, then the financial statements are not materially misstated.” Id. at 39. Defendants’ stance is, practically speaking, that they may submit false SFCs so long as the recipients know, from their own due diligence, that the information is false.
Accepting defendants” premise would require ignoring decades of controlling authority holding that financial statements and real property valuations are to be judged objectively, not subjectively, FMC Corp. v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 191 (1998) (“objectively reasonable conclusion, drawn by a competent and experience appraiser, was based on credible evidence” that demonstrated “property was overvalued&rdquo😉 (emphasis added).
Moreover, courts have long found that “generally, it is the ‘market value” which provides the most reliable valuation for assessment purposes.” Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 NY2d 236, 239 (1977); Consol. Edison Co. of New York v City of New York, 33 AD3d 915, 916 (2d Dept 2007) (“the standard for assessment remains market value”), affd 8 NY3d 591. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but value is in the eye of the marketplace."
Nor were these deviations submitted by defendants within the realm of reasonable differences of expert opinion:
". OAG has submitted conclusive evidence that between 2014 and 2021, defendants overvalued the assets reported in the SFCs between 17.27-38.51%; this amounts to a discrepancy of between $812 million and $2.2 billion dollars. NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 at 70. Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be “immaterial"."
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/full-text-trump-civil-fraud-ruling-new-york-pdf-rcna117499
@no1marauder saidYou have right to live your life free from force, threats of force and fraud.
I guessed you missed my question:
Do you favor government intervention against fraud? A "Yes" or "No" will do.
There's no sense requiring financial information from a prospective borrower IF he is allowed to freely lie about any matter in it. Valuations are not "subjective" in the sense that ANY will do; they must be done according to Generally Accepted Accounting P ...[text shortened]... mount of "due diligence" the other party does or doesn't do is irrelevant.
So answer my question.
It is the role of goobermint to protect you from force, threats of force and fraud.