It's Official: Trump Appeals $355 Million Ruling in New York Civil Fraud Case -- February 26, 2024

[martybegan]

Correct, equal to the amount of the illegal profits gained since disgorgement/restitution is not punitive.

WW

Dude, half a Billion dollars where no one was harmed sure as hell is punitive.
'

 

[martybegan]

And lost. Now he has to put collateral. You say Trump is rich, it should be no problem.

Figures someone of your presentation on this board doesn't understand the concept of liquidity with regards to assets.

 

[Rawley]

And lost. Now he has to put collateral.

LOL You should look up appeal.

You say Trump is rich, it should be no problem.

And you said he's the best candidate in your lifetime. So why are you arguing against him?

 

[Zincwarrior]

I'm suggesting you have no victim so no crime. you can't even define the crime.

I am sure that argument will work on appeal. its weird how they didn't appear to bring that up during the trial.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the Bank is prepared to loan you $500,000 because you say your income is $100,000 annually, but its really $25,000 thats fraud.

That's why the comparison to a home mortgage isn't valid.

In a home mortgage the banks have two parts to the process:

• Principal
• Interest/Profit

In terms of the principal they loan at 80-90% of value meaning they have a built in 10-20% equity in case of default to reclaim principal. Now there are some loan programs where 100% can be loaned, but those mean a 3rd party has insured to borrower - for example VA loans involving veterans.

The profit comes from the RATE they charge for interest and in a home loan situation they are going to look at W-2's, pay ships from an employer, and Credit Report from the major credit bureaus.
.
.
.
.
That's where the comparison to investment banking and insurance for deals worth 100's of millions of dollars breaks down.

The investors still loan the principal based on the property value, but the RATE is determined by looking at the borrows net worth and ability to pay. Because of falsifying records, FPOTUS#45 got lower rates exposing's the investors to higher risk without just compensation for that risk. The way that the investors evaluate this "Net Worth" is by requiring the borrower to submit legal documents called "Statements of Financial Condition" listing the assets and liabilities (i.e. Net Worth).

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dude, half a Billion dollars where no one was harmed sure as hell is punitive.
'

No it's not, it's restitution for illegally gains profits. That's what disgorgement is.

WW

 

[Zincwarrior]

LOL You should look up appeal.

Judge already ruled. No stay. Its appeal time. Put the assets up. Interest is $100K a day.

And you said he's the best candidate in your lifetime. So why are you arguing against him?

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

You have not stated why the disgorgement was illegal. He can post collateral to support his appeal until it is heard.


Appeals are generally concerning questions of law, not fact.

It sounds like he is attempting to put together syndicates of bond providers. I think a syndicate for the $83mm judgement would be easier as the $455mm one is directly based on fraudulent asset values - which directly impugns taking assets to support them...

The “fine” isn’t a ”disgorgement” until and unless it is demonstrated that the complained of book keeping entries actually caused any financial harm to anyone. But … there were no victims.

You can’t “disgorge” a defendant’s money if you cannot show how it was illicitly taken from somebody.

So let’s call it what it really is. It’s a fine not based on any damages. No damages exist. It is a fine in the nature of a penalty because — orange man bad and perhaps his book keeping was crappy.

But a fine that is excessive is unconstitutional. How can this massive “fine”/“penalty” not be considered excessive? It relates to no victim and no damages.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The “fine” isn’t a ”disgorgement” until and unless it is demonstrated that the complained of book keeping entries actually caused any financial harm to anyone. But … there were no victims.

You can’t “disgorge” a defendant’s money if you cannot show how it was illicitly taken from somebody.

So let’s call it what it really is. It’s a fine not based on any damages. No damages exist. It is a fine in the nature of a penalty because — orange man bad and perhaps his book keeping was crappy.

But a fine that is excessive is unconstitutional. How can this massive “fine”/“penalty” not be considered excessive? It relates to no victim and no damages.

I am sure your argument will be breathlessly compelling to the appellate court.

 

[para bellum]

Correct, equal to the amount of the illegal profits gained since disgorgement/restitution is not punitive.

WW

Of course it's punitive, there is no one to "restore". Hell, it's purely punitive.

Supreme Court Decides Kokesh v. SEC

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) issued its decision in Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529, unanimously holding that disgorgement claims brought as part of enforcement actions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) operate as penalties and...

www.natlawreview.com

 

[dudmuck]

The “fine” isn’t a ”disgorgement” until and unless it is demonstrated that the complained of book keeping entries actually caused any financial harm to anyone. But … there were no victims.

You can’t “disgorge” a defendant’s money if you cannot show how it was illicitly taken from somebody.

So let’s call it what it really is. It’s a fine not based on any damages. No damages exist. It is a fine in the nature of a penalty because — orange man bad and perhaps his book keeping was crappy.

But a fine that is excessive is unconstitutional. How can this massive “fine”/“penalty” not be considered excessive? It relates to no victim and no damages.

an example is Deutsche Bank lost out on almost $170 million in interest because of Trump’s false assertions.

there is an analogy with drunk driving laws, meaning that government has a legitimate interest in discouraging reckless behavior, regardless of whether anyone is hurt by a specific instance of that behavior.

 

[iku]

from trump. You have no brain huh? what is the title of the thread. hilarious shit you all always bring in. I never stop laughing.

Honest mistake. I am on your side

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course it's punitive, there is no one to "restore". Hell, it's purely punitive.

Supreme Court Decides Kokesh v. SEC

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) issued its decision in Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529, unanimously holding that disgorgement claims brought as part of enforcement actions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) operate as penalties and...

www.natlawreview.com

All findings are "punitive" when viewed by the defendant.

Kokesh had to do with limitations on the SEC under federal law, but this is a state law case and they Judge was very careful to base the amount using a process testified to by an expert witness.

I said earlier in this thread (or one of the others on the subject), I could see the amount being reduced maybe 15-30%, but the case is unlikely to be overturned the facts. Oh and the barring of being a corporate officer for 3-years will likely be upheld as a punitive action.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

No it's not, it's restitution for illegally gains profits. That's what disgorgement is.

WW

No. It’s not. It is a penalty which can be called whatever you wish when facts don’t matter to you. But there is no disgorgement of illegally gained profits if the money wasn’t illegally gained.

Here (despite the ruling) the money wasn’t illegally gained since there was no evidence of fraud. All the elements need to be met. All. And one of the elements of fraud (as properly defined in both the civil and the criminal law) is that there have been “damages.”

Since there was absolutely zero evidence of anyone being damaged (there were no actual “victims”), there couldn’t have been any civil or criminal fraud.

Bad book keeping (even if intentional and even if used to seek a loan) can absolutely be part of the elements. But standing alone, it isn’t sufficient.

The judge twisted and contorted to apply the law in a manner that literally makes no legal sense. His imposition of a several hundred million dollar fine is therefore clearly excessive.

 

[Rawley]

Judge already ruled. No stay. Its appeal time. Put the assets up. Interest is $100K a day.

He's appealing the judge's denial of a stay to post the bond. Extreme example, but say a judge orders you to post your left kidney if you want to appeal. Should you be able to appeal that ruling without posting your left kidney?

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You put words in my mouth, I put them in yours. That's game you started.

 

[Zincwarrior]

He's appealing the judge's denial of a stay to post the bond.

Thats great but he still has top put up the colleteral while that appeal is pending. I am sure it will be heard in a couple of years.

Extreme example, but say a judge orders you to post your left kidney if you want to appeal. Should you be able to appeal that ruling without posting your left kidney?

That is not this. Its over $500mm between the two suits. Pony up.

You put words in my mouth, I put them in yours. That's game you started.

So you're full of it. Got it.

 

[para bellum]

I am sure that argument will work on appeal. its weird how they didn't appear to bring that up during the trial.

It was brought up pre-trial. The judge ruled it was not a requirement of the statute. No crime (or even intent to commit a crime) is needed.

 

[Rawley]

New York Law 62(12) authorizes the AG to file such civil suits for the people of New York.

WW

But the people she said were defrauded testified they were not defrauded.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But the people she said were defrauded testified they were not defrauded.

So?

Not a requirement or a part of the case.

The state showed the persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices. That was the relevant part of the case.

WW

 

[jc456]

All findings are "punitive" when viewed by the defendant.

Kokesh had to do with limitations on the SEC under federal law, but this is a state law case and they Judge was very careful to base the amount using a process testified to by an expert witness.

I said earlier in this thread (or one of the others on the subject), I could see the amount being reduced maybe 15-30%, but the case is unlikely to be overturned the facts. Oh and the barring of being a corporate officer for 3-years will likely be upheld as a punitive action.

WW

who was damaged? still waiting. why do you fail to provide said victim?