Trump loses in NY
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Would it be any different for a corporation vs. a person?
-
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
Here's where I can't connect the dots.
Judge: "This was a venial transgression. No one was harmed. But, you're an asshole, so cough up a third of a billion - plus interest at $90K a day."
It’s not about being harmed. I guess the banks were harmed because they should’ve made more interest, but nonetheless. It’s like if someone falsifies their financial statements to pay less tax. No one was harmed but if they’re caught they will owe what they should’ve paid, plus interest/fines, and if they don’t acknowledge their fraud then the judge won’t be very happy.
-
@89th said in Trump loses in NY:
It’s not about being harmed.
As @jon-nyc pointed out, you're right. It's not about harm being done.
I guess the banks were harmed because they should’ve made more interest, but nonetheless.
But they weren't. They were happy, and wanted to continue business because they made money.
It’s like if someone falsifies their financial statements to pay less tax. No one was harmed
Stop right there. The government was harmed by a loss of revenue. That's not the case here. This has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with loans, which the banks approved and profited from.
-
Section 63...
A pertinent part:
Starting by posting part of the exact law in question:
SECTION 63 General duties
- Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.
- Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
-
-
@89th said in Trump loses in NY:
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
Here's where I can't connect the dots.
Judge: "This was a venial transgression. No one was harmed. But, you're an asshole, so cough up a third of a billion - plus interest at $90K a day."
It’s not about being harmed. I guess the banks were harmed because they should’ve made more interest, but nonetheless. It’s like if someone falsifies their financial statements to pay less tax. No one was harmed but if they’re caught they will owe what they should’ve paid, plus interest/fines, and if they don’t acknowledge their fraud then the judge won’t be very happy.
No, no, no. This is a private business transaction between 2 corporate entities. It is the responsibility of the bank to establish and verify the property values, and believe me, they did. If they didn’t, the crime here is on the part of the banks by ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to the depositors in their bank. In addition, it is in no way shape or form the responsibility of any government to establish the value of a business. That is the responsibility of businesses to come to an agreement on the values. Finally, utilizing a law to target a specific person? Police in some states aren’t allowed to pull over cars with expired safety inspections because it might be seen as targeting communities, to use a bad law to specifically target an individual? As Uncle President Joe would say, C’mon Man!
-
By the way, as somebody against Trump, this ought to REALLY piss you off. All this does is solidify support for Trump. I’m a “Never Again, Trumper” but this make me feel much more sympathetic to the cause. There will be many other voters that were in the fence that will be leaning towards Trump now.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump loses in NY:
No, no, no. This is a private business transaction between 2 corporate entities. It is the responsibility of the bank to establish and verify the property values, and believe me, they did. If they didn’t, the crime here is on the part of the banks by ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to the depositors in their bank. In addition, it is in no way shape or form the responsibility of any government to establish the value of a business.
I haven’t reviewed the details but I believe the government has plenty of proof and testimony that the financial statements Trump used were purposefully inflated (aka fraudulent), no?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump loses in NY:
By the way, as somebody against Trump, this ought to REALLY piss you off. All this does is solidify support for Trump. I’m a “Never Again, Trumper” but this make me feel much more sympathetic to the cause. There will be many other voters that were in the fence that will be leaning towards Trump now.
Don’t really think so. Those who will vote for Trump already know it. It’s a smaller number than what he got in 2020 because of his election loss antics. I doubt anyone will be like “well I wanted to vote for someone else but now I feel bad for Trump being held accountable for fraudulent financial statements to banks”
-
@89th said in Trump loses in NY:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump loses in NY:
No, no, no. This is a private business transaction between 2 corporate entities. It is the responsibility of the bank to establish and verify the property values, and believe me, they did. If they didn’t, the crime here is on the part of the banks by ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to the depositors in their bank. In addition, it is in no way shape or form the responsibility of any government to establish the value of a business.
I haven’t reviewed the details but I believe the government has plenty of proof and testimony that the financial statements Trump used were purposefully inflated (aka fraudulent), no?
Absolutely irrelevant
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
@jon commented (or was it @kluurs?) that the statute that Trump was found in violation of states that the intent to deceive is the crime, not the deception itself, not the financial loss of anyone.
Criminal? Misdemeanor? Or Civil? Seems to me that the state really can’t bring Civil. So if it’s Felony or Misdemeanor, there should be an established penalty. Fined up to _____, Jail up to ______.
Beyond that, we are dealing with Value. What is the value of these properties? Let me ask you a question. Is the value of my house what Redfin says? The tax assessor? Or is the value of my house what you are willing to pay and what I’m willing to accept? Once the state is determining value, we’re all fucked. Trump said the value of the properties is _______. The banks agreed. End of story. Beyond that, Trump paid (surprisingly) these loans off. End of story. Now, we can say that Trump lied on the applications. Fine. There should be an established and simple proscribed penalty. And that penalty should be the same no matter the value discrepancy. The penalty for stealing a Bentley is the same as stealing a Honda Civic, no?
I can not stand Trump, but this decision is breathtaking in the implications.
-
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
@jon commented (or was it @kluurs?) that the statute that Trump was found in violation of states that the intent to deceive is the crime, not the deception itself, not the financial loss of anyone.
If the intent is the crime (how Catholic is that?) then the penalty is not variable. If the financial loss is irrelevant then it’s irrelevant to the penalty.
-
@LuFins-Dad , I agree with you. For a (in the judge's words) venial sin (how Catholic is that?), to impose a fine of almost half a billion dollars....
I think Andy McCarthy said that Trump has a reasonable shot at an 8th amendment appeal.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
