Who Did Trump Intend to Defraud when he Allegedly Falsified Business Records?

[Dante]

The New York law Trump is on trial for violating:

View attachment 943987

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

View attachment 943988

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1158/236829/20220902124059970_3835_001.pdf

Well? Who did Trump specifically intend to deceive and deprive when he allegedly called money he paid his lawyer "legal fees?" Who was the "another?"

You are so stupid.

What is the law?



SECTION 175.10

Falsifying business records in the first degree

Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

 

[Dante]

And she believed that?

Wow! That's pretty gullible.

What's gullible is you.

Trump Has Long Been Known as a Micromanager. Prosecutors Are Using It Against Him.​

Witnesses have described the former president monitoring the minutiae of his business, a portrait prosecutors are drawing to help convince the jury that he couldn’t have helped but oversee a hush-money payment to avoid a damaging story.

 

[Dante]

Great point...

You've gotta be kidding



THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are so stupid.

What is the law?



SECTION 175.10

Falsifying business records in the first degree

Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Who did he intend to defraud?

That's the question on this thread.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What's gullible is you.

Trump Has Long Been Known as a Micromanager. Prosecutors Are Using It Against Him.​

Witnesses have described the former president monitoring the minutiae of his business, a portrait prosecutors are drawing to help convince the jury that he couldn’t have helped but oversee a hush-money payment to avoid a damaging story.

You're a complete idiot if you believe that Trump sits at a ledger and makes entries.

 

[Rawley]

And she believed that?

Wow! That's pretty gullible.

THe whole case relies on gulibility

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The voters saw the records which were of checks drawn on Trump's personal account. The prosecution did not prove up their charge.

 

[Dante]

Who did he intend to defraud?

That's the question on this thread.

There is no "who" you just made that shit up.

SECTION 175.10

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

It's a "what" what other crime --

 

[Dante]

You're a complete idiot if you believe that Trump sits at a ledger and makes entries.

No one is claiming that. You just made up more shit.

 

[Dante]

THe whole case relies on gulibility

At Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, his lawyers have insisted he had “nothing to do” with any of the felony charges against him.
But testimony from prosecution witnesses over the last several weeks has called that argument into question, underscoring that Mr. Trump can be obsessive about two all-important aspects of his work: Anything having to do with the media, and anything having to do with his money.

The 34 documents at the heart of the prosecution’s case relate to both obsessions.

The Manhattan district attorney says Mr. Trump orchestrated the disguise of 11 checks, 11 invoices and 12 ledger entries to continue the cover-up of a damaging story, paying his former fixer $420,000 in the process. And the testimony about Mr. Trump’s management style could play a central role as prosecutors seek to convince the jury that there is no world in which Mr. Trump was not tracking the outflow of cash from his accounts.

The prosecutors’ strategy illustrates the risk of a criminal trial for Mr. Trump, one of the most famous men in the world, whose character and habits are familiar even to those who have not tracked his every move. The Manhattan district attorney’s office has accused him of orchestrating the falsification of the 34 documents to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels.

Trump Has Long Been Known as a Micromanager. Prosecutors Are Using It Against Him.

Witnesses have described the former president monitoring the minutiae of his business, a portrait prosecutors are drawing to help convince the jury that he couldn’t have helped but oversee a hush-money payment to avoid a damaging story.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is no "who" you just made that shit up.

SECTION 175.10

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

It's a "what" what other crime --

It's the law, dumbass.

"Fraud" is a noun. "Defraud" is a verb that is done by a person to a person or persons.

Since you admit that there is no person who Trump defrauded, there is no case. Likely that's why Bragg did not want to press it, until he saw that his was the only case that could go to trial before the election.

 

[Dante]

It's the law, dumbass.

View attachment 945211

"Fraud" is a noun. "Defraud" is a verb that is done by a person to a person or persons.

Since you admit that there is no person who Trump defrauded, there is no case. Likely that's why Bragg did not want to press it, until he saw that his was the only case that could go to trial before the election.

again, dumbo -- ry reading the law, and stop focusing on only a clause in a sentence -- taking things out of context again. Stop making shit up. Stop lying through omission. Stop it. Stop.

There is no "who" you just made that shit up.

SECTION 175.10

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

It's a "what" what other crime --

 

[Seymour Flops]

again, dumbo -- ry reading the law, and stop focusing on only a clause in a sentence -- taking things out of context again. Stop making shit up. Stop lying through omission. Stop it. Stop.

There is no "who" you just made that shit up.

SECTION 175.10

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

It's a "what" what other crime --

His intent to defraud cannot include an intent to conceal a crime unless the intent to defraud exists in the first place, without a person intended to be defrauded intent to defraud does not exist.

 

[Slade3200]

The New York law Trump is on trial for violating:

View attachment 943987

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

View attachment 943988

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1158/236829/20220902124059970_3835_001.pdf

Well? Who did Trump specifically intend to deceive and deprive when he allegedly called money he paid his lawyer "legal fees?" Who was the "another?"

Johnny Public. Poor John John

 

[Dante]

His intent to defraud cannot include an intent to conceal a crime unless the intent to defraud exists in the first place, without a person intended to be defrauded intent to defraud does not exist.

English, please.

 

[Dante]

His intent to defraud cannot include an intent to conceal a crime unless the intent to defraud exists in the first place, without a person intended to be defrauded intent to defraud does not exist.

again --

SECTION 175.10

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree --

when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree,

and

when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

 

[Dante]

His intent to defraud cannot include an intent to conceal a crime unless the intent to defraud exists in the first place, without a person intended to be defrauded intent to defraud does not exist.

Another flop...

Vague? Do you have brain damage?

read the indictment:


https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

THIRD COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by th...

 

[para bellum]

Trump wanted to pay Daniels in cash. Cohen said "no,no,no, I got this".

Weisselberg and Cohen worked up the amount and payment schedule.

Trump did not produce the invoices, Cohen did.

If a vendor sends me a false invoice, and I enter it into my system and pay it, I am not the one who committed the fraud.

 

[Dante]

Trump wanted to pay Daniels in cash. Cohen said "no,no,no, I got this".

Weisselberg and Cohen worked up the amount and payment schedule.

Trump did not produce the invoices, Cohen did.

If a vendor sends me a false invoice, and I enter it into my system and pay it, I am not the one who committed the fraud.

stretch

 

[Dante]

The Broad Scope of “Intent to Defraud” in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records

"While there are other legal hurdles for the Manhattan DA to cross in the indictment of the former president, this element of the relevant offenses poses no obstacle..."

www.justsecurity.org

As many greet the Manhattan District Attorney’s indictment of a former president as a step toward accountability and the equal application of the rule of law, that thesis will be tested by the strength of the case itself. It is accordingly proper, indeed necessary, to evaluate whether the criminal statute at issue is a close match for the alleged conduct in the case. In that regard, an important question is whether maintaining false business records to conceal hush money payments in a political campaign meets the “intent to defraud” element of the Falsifying Business Records statute, New York Penal Law § 175.05 and 175.10.

As we explain in this essay, the law is firmly on the side of the DA, and we do not think this question will give the DA’s office or Justice Juan Merchan much pause. Indeed, the jurisdiction in which this case will be brought – the First Department of New York – has settled law on the issue that defines “intent to defraud” in broad terms that cover the allegations in the Trump case...

We should note at the outset that some legal experts might assume “intent to defraud” has a narrow construction...But that is a category mistake. The U.S. Supreme Court was interpreting federal fraud statutes, and this case is about New York courts interpreting New York state statutes.

What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only expressly noted the distinction between the federal and state level, but also recognized states’ prerogative to fill in the gap...So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records?

On this standard, the law does not require prosecutors to show “pecuniary or potential pecuniary loss” to the government or otherwise..."In an indictment for first degree falsification of business records, the grand jury presentation is not required to establish commercial or property loss.”

by Ryan Goodman, Norman L. Eisen, Siven Watt, Joshua Kolb and Joshua Stanton
April 3, 2023