One, you can't prove it was a 'lie', valuations are subjective, and I guarantee that all of the relevant 'facts' were not allowed at trial as to why some properties were valued as they were.
Two, the bank negotiated the deal and took on the risk of what the values of the properties were and what value they would continue to hold going forward.
Three, only a portion of Trump's holdings needed to be used as collateral for the loan, the SFC contains everything, the deal may have only used a few of the properties or holdings as collateral, and not necessarily the ones that were brought up in the trial.
Four, it's up to the bank to verify any valuation to mitigate the risk that is taken on by the bank.
Five, you have zero knowledge of how any of it works, but you will defend corruption no matter what in your hatred of Trump.
Six, you've yet to show or point out where this has been used as it was in Trump's trial with anyone else, and then stupidly claim that maybe no one else has done it. And that is because it's never been used in this way, ever.