Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[Marener]

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

Why would it be illegal to lie about your income if no one is harmed and the banks have an obligation to do due diligence?

 

[Marener]

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

This does not absolve Trump from his requirement to be truthful in business dealings.

It’s better for the economy if businesses can rely on their partners being truthful.

 

[Arlette]

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.

I'm unaware of an appellate ruling.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why would it be illegal to lie about your income if no one is harmed and the banks have an obligation to do due diligence?

Because lying about your income affects the risk analysis of being able to repay the loan. Again, trumps income wasn’t in question.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This does not absolve Trump from his requirement to be truthful in business dealings.

It’s better for the economy if businesses can rely on their partners being truthful.

I agree, it is better, but if this was the crime that everyone says it is, then why are the appellate court appearing like they are going to overturn this case?

 

[Marener]

Because lying about your income affects the risk analysis of being able to repay the loan. Again, trumps income wasn’t in question.

But banks have to do due diligence so if they don’t they’re accepting the risk.

Tell me how they’re harmed if the loan doesn’t default despite a false claim of income?

 

[Marener]

I agree, it is better, but if this was the crime that everyone says it is, then why are the appellate court appearing like they are going to overturn this case?

I’m not capable of reading their minds.

Given the economy benefits from this kind of law, it has a rational basis.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm unaware of an appellate ruling.

I said seemingly as in, forthcoming. According to the article I posted, they are, at least currently, appearing like they might overturn the conviction.

 

[Arlette]

I said seemingly as in, forthcoming. According to the article I posted, they are, at least currently, appearing like they might overturn the conviction.

You actually expect an appellate court to proclaim falsifying business records as proper conduct?

 

[Couchpotato]

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

This wasn’t about income. It was valuation of collateral. Should a bank (private institution) be allowed to accept whatever they want as collateral for a loan they are granting? So if I go into a bank and ask for a million dollar loan and they ask what do you have for collateral and I respond this bag of dog shit should the bank be allowed to accept or reject that offer of collateral?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Right that's what the appealing party does. They raise these questions and then the judges in the appeal court ask them of the prosecution.

They also grilled team trump about their claims.

The fact that the questions are asked doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there is an appeal happening.

 

[Marener]

This wasn’t about income. It was valuation of collateral. Should a bank (private institution) be allowed to accept whatever they want as collateral for a loan they are granting? So if I go into a bank and ask for a million dollar loan and they ask what do you have for collateral and I respond this bag of dog shit should the bank be allowed to accept or reject that offer of collateral?

The properties he was lying about weren’t collateral. They were used to determine risk of default. Same reason banks want to know your income.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The properties he was lying about weren’t collateral. They were used to determine risk of default. Same reason banks want to know your income.

Correct. And lying about the values of those properties garnered him lower interest rates.

This is criminal fraud.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But banks have to do due diligence so if they don’t they’re accepting the risk.

Tell me how they’re harmed if the loan doesn’t default despite a false claim of income?

i see your point, I really do, what I’m saying is..apparently the court doesn’t think it was a problem, if they rule as they appear they might.

It’s looking like they are not seeing any harm done. So..if that’s their opinion, then where are we?

Donald Trump fraud ruling could be reversed, appeals court indicates

One judge said he found the $489 million case "troubling."

www.newsweek.com

On Thursday, the five-judge appellate court questioned Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale about the lack of victims in the case and the huge penalty that Trump had to pay.

"The immense penalty in this case is troubling," Justice Peter Moulton told Vale. "How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?"

 

[Marener]

i see your point, I really do, what I’m saying is..apparently the court doesn’t think it was a problem, if they rule as they appear they might.

It’s looking like they are not seeing any harm done. So..if that’s their opinion, then where are we?

Donald Trump fraud ruling could be reversed, appeals court indicates

One judge said he found the $489 million case "troubling."

www.newsweek.com

Appeal to authority all you want, it doesn’t advance your argument, if you’re even trying to make one.

 

[Marener]

Correct. And lying about the values of those properties garnered him lower interest rates.

This is criminal fraud.

Banks have a vested interest not to hassle their high value clients. I do not trust that they would harm their relationships. In fact, they’re probably well aware that Trump lied but can’t say it. Rock and a hard place.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I’m not capable of reading their minds.

Given the economy benefits from this kind of law, it has a rational basis.

Neither am I, but if a New York court is willing to overturn this case, then it must be for a valid reason. Again, New York hates trump..so why would they overturn it unless it was absolutely the right thing to do?

 

[Marener]

Neither am I, but if a New York court is willing to overturn this case, then it must be for a valid reason. Again, New York hates trump..so why would they overturn it unless it was absolutely the right thing to do?

If you say so.

 

[BackAgain]

You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.

Wondering about it has nothing to do with whether there was any harm.

You pindick fuckwit.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The properties he was lying about weren’t collateral. They were used to determine risk of default. Same reason banks want to know your income.

True, but the banks can also look at the totality of a person assets and wealth and use that as a determining factor for risk.

Maybe they were comfortable with the risk based on the bigger picture.