- Apr 5, 2010
- 81,832
- 33,345
- 2,300
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.
'
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct, equal to the amount of the illegal profits gained since disgorgement/restitution is not punitive.
WW
And lost. Now he has to put collateral. You say Trump is rich, it should be no problem.
LOL You should look up appeal.And lost. Now he has to put collateral.
And you said he's the best candidate in your lifetime. So why are you arguing against him?You say Trump is rich, it should be no problem.
I am sure that argument will work on appeal. its weird how they didn't appear to bring that up during the trial.I'm suggesting you have no victim so no crime. you can't even define the crime.
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.
Dude, half a Billion dollars where no one was harmed sure as hell is punitive.
'
Judge already ruled. No stay. Its appeal time. Put the assets up. Interest is $100K a day.LOL You should look up appeal.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about.And you said he's the best candidate in your lifetime. So why are you arguing against him?
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 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...
I am sure your argument will be breathlessly compelling to the appellate court.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.
Of course it's punitive, there is no one to "restore". Hell, it's purely punitive.Correct, equal to the amount of the illegal profits gained since disgorgement/restitution is not punitive.
WW
an example is Deutsche Bank lost out on almost $170 million in interest because of Trump’s false assertions.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.
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
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.No it's not, it's restitution for illegally gains profits. That's what disgorgement is.
WW
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?Judge already ruled. No stay. Its appeal time. Put the assets up. Interest is $100K a day.
You put words in my mouth, I put them in yours. That's game you started.I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
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.He's appealing the judge's denial of a stay to post the bond.
That is not this. Its over $500mm between the two suits. Pony up.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?
So you're full of it. Got it.You put words in my mouth, I put them in yours. That's game you started.
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.I am sure that argument will work on appeal. its weird how they didn't appear to bring that up during the trial.
But the people she said were defrauded testified they were not defrauded.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.
who was damaged? still waiting. why do you fail to provide said victim?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