Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[Couchpotato]

It’s fraud either way. Lying about the value of a property is the same as lying about the value of a watch.

Right so the answer is no this case wouldn’t have been brought if Trump weren’t a political candidate. Your endorsement of political prosecutions is noted.

 

[Marener]

Right so the answer is no this case wouldn’t have been brought if Trump weren’t a political candidate. Your endorsement of political prosecutions is noted.

You could say the same thing about Hunter Biden. Would have never been prosecuted if not for Joe Biden running.

 

[Couchpotato]

You could say the same thing about Hunter Biden. Would have never been prosecuted if not for Joe Biden running.

Ok.

 

[Foxfyre]

Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument

One judge asked the state about “mission creep” and wondered if the broad civil law used against Trump had morphed into something it’s not designed to do.

www.msnbc.com

Possibly the charges were too broad?





The question of harm is being raised, which is one that has been asked by people from the start.

Thoughts?

Way too broad when the charges were for non crimes for which nobody had ever been accused or prosecuted.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's called opportunity costs.

If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.

The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.

WW

But the lenders were happy with the transaction, they even testified to that fact. So, in that regard, no harm was done.

Now, if there is a case of him not paying enough in taxes, then yes, you go after him for tax fraud, but you wouldn’t have a case for business fraud, unless the banks were to have complained.

 

[Arlette]

Well, the article is saying they are questioning if any harm was done, and to whom.

Kinda like when you drive around drunk and don't get into a wreck?

 

[ThisIsMe]

That does not absolve the business from being truthful in it's required filings of legal documents.

You are correct in that the lender is free to make their own assessment, however we are talking a home loan here. We are talking high finance with the "collateral" being spread across the country and even internationally.

WW

It wouldn’t be akin to a home loan, not in thsg amount of money. Again, the. banks testified that they were happy with the dealings. This amounts to Letitia James filing an indictment on behalf of a bank who had no complaint.

 

[Arlette]

It wouldn’t be akin to a home loan, not in thsg amount of money. Again, the. banks testified that they were happy with the dealings. This amounts to Letitia James filing an indictment on behalf of a bank who had no complaint.

NY law requires that business records state the accurate financial situation of a company. That's the bottom line.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is someone absolved from responsibility for selling counterfeit Rolexes because the buyer could have had them checked to see if they’re real?

Deception isn’t acceptable if you believe that it can be discovered.

if I’m selling a Rolex and I say it’s worth $40,000 and you agree that it’s worth $40,000, and you buy it, they call that buyer beware. Also, if you are a store selling fake Rolex’s, you are selling to the general public.

However, this isn’t a sale of a product, it’s a loan where the principle will be repaid, the only variable circumstance is the amount of collateral and interest rate that will be charged. If the lender agree with your valuation and agrees with the risk, then they know what’s at stake. This is a transaction between a bank and one person. If the bank accepts the risk, and are happy with the outcome, then harm isn’t proven.

 

[Marener]

if I’m selling a Rolex and I say it’s worth $40,000 and you agree that it’s worth $40,000, and you buy it, they call that buyer beware. Also, if you are a store selling fake Rolex’s, you are selling to the general public.

However, this isn’t a sale of a product, it’s a loan where the principle will be repaid, the only variable circumstance is the amount of collateral and interest rate that will be charged. If the lender agree with your valuation and agrees with the risk, then they know what’s at stake. This is a transaction between a bank and one person. If the bank accepts the risk, and are happy with the outcome, then harm isn’t proven.

Is it mortgage fraud to lie about your income to a bank?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Kinda like when you drive around drunk and don't get into a wreck?

No, it’s not like that at all. If you drive around drunk, you stand a chance of physically hurting or killing someone, it’s a reckless action that can have dire consequence.

The loan the bank made, they agreed with the valuation of the property. If trump had defrauded, the worst that would have happened is the bank would have lost money, but again, they agreed the risk was worth it.

Since the loans were repaid in time with interest, the banks had no harm done to them. The banks have a right to do their own valuation before making the loan.

 

[ThisIsMe]

NY law requires that business records state the accurate financial situation of a company. That's the bottom line.

On bank loan applications? Did trump misrepresent his asset values to the state of New York? If so, then you got something. But we’re talking about a bank loan and a mutual transaction.

At the end of the day, these are not my words, it’s the argument of the appellate court.

 

[Marener]

On bank loan applications?

Yes. And in all business matters.

Effective business in this country relies on parties being honest and accurate. It harms the economy if businesses are allowed to brazenly lie whenever they feel like it.

 

[Arlette]

No, it’s not like that at all. If you drive around drunk, you stand a chance of physically hurting or killing someone, it’s a reckless action that can have dire consequence.

The loan the bank made, they agreed with the valuation of the property. If trump had defrauded, the worst that would have happened is the bank would have lost money, but again, they agreed the risk was worth it.

Since the loans were repaid in time with interest, the banks had no harm done to them. The banks have a right to do their own valuation before making the loan.

You are speculating that Trumpy would have gotten the loans if he had submitted accurate financial statements.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is it mortgage fraud to lie about your income to a bank?

Indeed it is, but if the appellate court is asking where the harm is, and there hasn’t been a case like this prosecuted in the past, then what are they telling us?

A deal between private individuals where both parties agrees with the risk? If it were open and shut, the appeals court wouldn’t be bringing this up. And this is New York, so it’s not like they are exactly friendly to trump

 

[Rawley]

No, it’s not like that at all. If you drive around drunk, you stand a chance of physically hurting or killing someone, it’s a reckless action that can have dire consequence.

The loan the bank made, they agreed with the valuation of the property. If trump had defrauded, the worst that would have happened is the bank would have lost money, but again, they agreed the risk was worth it.

Since the loans were repaid in time with interest, the banks had no harm done to them. The banks have a right to do their own valuation before making the loan.

Just a minor correction. The banks did do their own diligence and gave Trump’s valuation a 50% haircut. This case was absurd.

 

[Marener]

Indeed it is, but if the appellate court is asking where the harm is, and there hasn’t been a case like this prosecuted in the past, then what are they telling us?

A deal between private individuals where both parties agrees with the risk? If it were open and shut, the appeals court wouldn’t be bringing this up. And this is New York, so it’s not like they are exactly friendly to trump

Why would it be fraud to lie about your income? Surely the bank has the obligation to check.

Likewise, is it illegal to lie about your income if you do not default on the mortgage? I believe it is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes. And in all business matters.

Effective business in this country relies on parties being honest and accurate. It harms the economy if businesses are allowed to brazenly lie whenever they feel like it.

To the state? Or the bank. Remember, the bank has an obligation to do their own due diligence, to asses risk. Banks operate based off of risk analysis. If they agreed with trumps valuation, and the bank didn’t look at it themselves, then they are the ones accepting the risk.

I mean, apparently the court sees it like this? If they overturn it, then apparently they think this wasn’t foul of the law

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why would it be fraud to lie about your income? Surely the bank has the obligation to check.

Likewise, is it illegal to lie about your income if you do not default on the mortgage? I believe it is.

It’s illegal to lie about your income regardless, when applying for a mortgage, trumps income was not in question. Apparently the courts see this differently. Again, THEY are the ones asking who was harmed. So, THEY must think nothing wrong was done

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are speculating that Trumpy would have gotten the loans if he had submitted accurate financial statements.

No, I’m not speculating that at all, I have no idea what the bank was thinking. They apparently agreed with the risk, we’re happy with the outcome, and now the appeals court is agreeeing with that..seemingly.