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

[para bellum]

stretch

The first bar is Falsifying Business Records in the second degree. You cannot elevate the misdemeanor to a felony unless you can first prove the misdemeanor.

Penal Law Section 175.05
Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

1.Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, etc....

It's elevated to a felony only if the intent to defraud includes the intent conceal another crime. The "another crime" cannot be the "falsification of records".

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

But the DA is not arguing FECA violations as the underlying crime, he is arguing the never-used NY Election Law 17-152:

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

The "unlawful means" cannot be falsification of records. Trump was never charged with any FECA violations, and no other "unlawful means" have been offered to make "catch and kill" an illegal conspiracy...

The only thing Trump is guilty of, is overpaying a lawyer for shoddy and unprofessional work...

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

Who did he intend to defraud?

 

[Foxfyre]

The people, voters.

And exactly how did he do that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The first bar is Falsifying Business Records in the second degree. You cannot elevate the misdemeanor to a felony unless you can first prove the misdemeanor.

Penal Law Section 175.05
Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

1.Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, etc....

It's elevated to a felony only if the intent to defraud includes the intent conceal another crime. The "another crime" cannot be the "falsification of records".

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

But the DA is not arguing FECA violations as the underlying crime, he is arguing the never-used NY Election Law 17-152:

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

The "unlawful means" cannot be falsification of records. Trump was never charged with any FECA violations, and no other "unlawful means" have been offered to make "catch and kill" an illegal conspiracy...

The only thing Trump is guilty of, is overpaying a lawyer for shoddy and unprofessional work...

As usual, you are seriously confused.

Pay attention to the evidence presented and the testimonies. All will be revealed. Much of it already has been, you're just hard wired to reject news that makes a Magadonian uncomfortable.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who did he intend to defraud?

Stop making shit up. The prosecution is not arguing that. The law does not require that.

You're stupid as a rock and seriously confused.

keeper thread

 

[para bellum]

As usual, you are seriously confused.

Pay attention to the evidence presented and the testimonies. All will be revealed. Much of it already has been, you're just hard wired to reject news that makes a Magadonian uncomfortable.

If you don't have a substantive rebuttal, then STFU.

The "all will be revealed" and "read the transcripts" bullshit just means you don't know the answer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The first bar is Falsifying Business Records in the second degree. You cannot elevate the misdemeanor to a felony unless you can first prove the misdemeanor.

Penal Law Section 175.05
Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

1.Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, etc....

It's elevated to a felony only if the intent to defraud includes the intent conceal another crime. The "another crime" cannot be the "falsification of records".

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

But the DA is not arguing FECA violations as the underlying crime, he is arguing the never-used NY Election Law 17-152:

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

The "unlawful means" cannot be falsification of records. Trump was never charged with any FECA violations, and no other "unlawful means" have been offered to make "catch and kill" an illegal conspiracy...

The only thing Trump is guilty of, is overpaying a lawyer for shoddy and unprofessional work...

Homework assignment: You do not have to agree with the opinions of the authors, but try and refute any of the facts given.

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

3. Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election

A more likely candidate for the crime that may convert the books and records charge to a felony is N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Under that statute, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Trump appears to have conspired with Cohen (and others) to promote his own election by making the hush money payments. The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law.

Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime). In a 100-year-old opinion, the state appellate court with authority over Manhattan ruled that “unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview

Analyzing DA Bragg's options for felony charges, including campaign finance crimes and conspiracy to prevent an election, and Trump's defenses.

www.justsecurity.org

and...

Detailed Timeline of Trump Hush Money-2016 Election Investigation

A highly detailed chronology of the facts under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney in the case of former President Donald Trump's alleged hush money payments.

www.justsecurity.org

Conclusion​

In sum, the New York case law offers clear guidance on the broad scope of the “intent to defraud” for the offense 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 based on the known facts in the case.

-----------------------------------------------------
You Mr. Pancakes \/ have been dismissed before...

Who did he intend to defraud?

This was laid out in 2023 by some informed legal minds.
As noted by McKinney’s Penal Law §175.05, “there is no Penal Law definition of ‘intent to defraud.’”

If as expected the DA charges former President Donald Trump with falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments as campaign finance or election law violations, that will fit the test, with government authorities being frustrated in their ability to regulate elections. Nor is the harm limited to them.

Falsifying hush money payments as legal services frustrated New York State authorities’ more broadly. New York firms are required to “keep correct and complete books and records of account” for the purposes of state regulators and tax authorities, N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 624 (McKinney). Indeed, New York Tax Law allows for tax commissioners “to examine or to cause to have examined…any books, papers, records or memoranda” of a corporation “bearing upon the matters to be required in the return.” N.Y. Tax Law § 1096(b)(1) (McKinney). Thus any book or record kept by a private corporation is subject to public exposure, and New York law requires these books to be accurate.

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

 

[para bellum]

Homework assignment: You do not have to agree with the opinions of the authors, but try and refute any of the facts given.

Um, no. I have no obligation to make your arguments, or wade through a bunch of DNC lawyer rationalizations and refute them one-by-one.

If you can make the arguments, then make them. Cite the relevant laws and definitions. Or don't. I don't really care either way...

 

[mudwhistle]

The people, voters.

Taking that aside, didn't Biden defraud the voters by claiming he was going to unify us?

 

[mudwhistle]

Homework assignment: You do not have to agree with the opinions of the authors, but try and refute any of the facts given.

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

3. Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election

A more likely candidate for the crime that may convert the books and records charge to a felony is N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Under that statute, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Trump appears to have conspired with Cohen (and others) to promote his own election by making the hush money payments. The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law.

Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime). In a 100-year-old opinion, the state appellate court with authority over Manhattan ruled that “unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview

Analyzing DA Bragg's options for felony charges, including campaign finance crimes and conspiracy to prevent an election, and Trump's defenses.

www.justsecurity.org

and...

Detailed Timeline of Trump Hush Money-2016 Election Investigation

A highly detailed chronology of the facts under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney in the case of former President Donald Trump's alleged hush money payments.

www.justsecurity.org

-----------------------------------------------------
You Mr. Pancakes \/ have been dismissed before...

This was laid out in 2023 by some informed legal minds.
As noted by McKinney’s Penal Law §175.05, “there is no Penal Law definition of ‘intent to defraud.’”

If as expected the DA charges former President Donald Trump with falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments as campaign finance or election law violations, that will fit the test, with government authorities being frustrated in their ability to regulate elections. Nor is the harm limited to them.

Falsifying hush money payments as legal services frustrated New York State authorities’ more broadly. New York firms are required to “keep correct and complete books and records of account” for the purposes of state regulators and tax authorities, N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 624 (McKinney). Indeed, New York Tax Law allows for tax commissioners “to examine or to cause to have examined…any books, papers, records or memoranda” of a corporation “bearing upon the matters to be required in the return.” N.Y. Tax Law § 1096(b)(1) (McKinney). Thus any book or record kept by a private corporation is subject to public exposure, and New York law requires these books to be accurate.

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

Now all they have to do is prove it.

And they can't prove it using Michael Cohen's worthless testimony, especially since Cohen did it on his own without any authorization from Trump.
"Fuck it.....I'm doing it anyway" - Michael Cohen

This has already been established in court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Um, no. I have no obligation to make your arguments, or wade through a bunch of DNC lawyer rationalizations and refute them one-by-one.

If you can make the arguments, then make them. Cite the relevant laws and definitions. Or don't. I don't really care either way...

@para bellum But the DA...is arguing the never-used NY Election Law 17-152:

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

The "unlawful means" cannot be falsification of records. Trump was never charged with any FECA violations, and no other "unlawful means" have been offered to make "catch and kill" an illegal conspiracy...

The only thing Trump is guilty of, is overpaying a lawyer for shoddy and unprofessional work...

"DNC lawyer rationalizations?"

You all ignore whatever is inconvenient:

3. Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election

A more likely candidate for the crime that may convert the books and records charge to a felony is N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Under that statute, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Trump appears to have conspired with Cohen (and others) to promote his own election by making the hush money payments. The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law.

Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime). In a 100-year-old opinion, the state appellate court with authority over Manhattan ruled that “unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

You're a loon.

 

[para bellum]

The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law.

Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime). In a 100-year-old opinion, the state appellate court with authority over Manhattan ruled that “unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

You're a loon.

LMAO. Even you source says what I have been saying. There has to be something "unlawful" about the NDA's.

They aren't arguing FECA because of the preemption problem- the DA cannot charge Trump with a FECA violation.

We are still waiting to hear what is unlawful about the NDA's.

The notion that anything not expressly authorized by law is "unlawful", is what's loony. That's typical for Eisen. He's a total hack.

Criminal Laws are written to prohibit conduct- they are not written to "authorize" conduct.

I am sure that 100 year old definition of the term as applied to a different law is taken out of context, but if a conviction of Trump relies such a flimsy definition of "unlawful conduct", then NY really is a banana republic.

The proper way to look at it is to look at previous cases where 17-152 was applied. In those cases, you had 2 instances of absentee ballot fraud, and one instance of blocking access to a polling place.

Those behaviors are unlawful because they are prohibited by law, not because they lack specific authorization.

The same standard must be applied in this case.

And the reason it has to be some other illegal behavior to meet the "unlawful means" (and yes- that IS another predicate crime) requirement, is because this is a CONSPIRACY statute. It requires 2 or more people to be engaging is a common plan that at least one of them must act upon.

 

[WorldWatcher]

LMAO. Even you source says what I have been saying. There has to be something "unlawful" about the NDA's.

They aren't arguing FECA because of the preemption problem- the DA cannot charge Trump with a FECA violation.

We are still waiting to hear what is unlawful about the NDA's.

The notion that anything not expressly authorized by law is "unlawful", is what's loony. That's typical for Eisen. He's a total hack.

Criminal Laws are written to prohibit conduct- they are not written to "authorize" conduct.

I am sure that 100 year old definition of the term as applied to a different law is taken out of context, but if a conviction of Trump relies such a flimsy definition of "unlawful conduct", then NY really is a banana republic.

The proper way to look at it is to look at previous cases where 17-152 was applied. In those cases, you had 2 instances of absentee ballot fraud, and one instance of blocking access to a polling place.

Those behaviors are unlawful because they are prohibited by law, not because they lack specific authorization.

The same standard must be applied in this case.

And the reason it has to be some other illegal behavior to meet the "unlawful means" (and yes- that IS another predicate crime) requirement, is because this is a CONSPIRACY statute. It requires 2 or more people to be engaging is a common plan that at least one of them must act upon.

You mean like Cohen, Pecker, And Trump meeting in August conspiring to create the catch and kill scheme which was paid for via illegal means?

Then Pecker violating campaign law for which he agreed to a non-prosecution agreement for his crimes.

And Cohen being charged and convicted of the same type of activity.

That kind of conspiracy and actions.

Oh wait. You will claim they don’t matter.

WW

 

[para bellum]

You mean like Cohen, Pecker, And Trump meeting in August consulting to break the catch and kill scheme.

Then Pecker violating campaign law for which he agreed to a non-prosecution agreement for his crimes.

And Cohen being charged and convicted of the same type of activity.

That kind of conspiracy and actions.

Oh wait. You will claim they don’t matter.

WW

The DA is not arguing FECA violations as the predicate for 17-152. If "catch and kill" was a scheme to violate FECA, he is waiting until the 11th hour to make that revelation...

The charges are against Trump- not Cohen, not Pecker. The August meeting was not about a scheme to violate campaign finance laws- it was about suppressing negative publicity about Trump.

And I have said before- the testimony and the evidence clearly shows that both Pecker and Cohen did not intend to use their own money to buy up stories. That was never part of the understanding.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

LMAO. Even you source says what I have been saying. There has to be something "unlawful" about the NDA's.

They aren't arguing FECA because of the preemption problem- the DA cannot charge Trump with a FECA violation.

We are still waiting to hear what is unlawful about the NDA's.

The notion that anything not expressly authorized by law is "unlawful", is what's loony. That's typical for Eisen. He's a total hack.

Criminal Laws are written to prohibit conduct- they are not written to "authorize" conduct.

I am sure that 100 year old definition of the term as applied to a different law is taken out of context, but if a conviction of Trump relies such a flimsy definition of "unlawful conduct", then NY really is a banana republic.

The proper way to look at it is to look at previous cases where 17-152 was applied. In those cases, you had 2 instances of absentee ballot fraud, and one instance of blocking access to a polling place.

Those behaviors are unlawful because they are prohibited by law, not because they lack specific authorization.

The same standard must be applied in this case.

And the reason it has to be some other illegal behavior to meet the "unlawful means" (and yes- that IS another predicate crime) requirement, is because this is a CONSPIRACY statute. It requires 2 or more people to be engaging is a common plan that at least one of them must act upon.

Nope. Too bad Trump's lawyers aren't arguing your shit. Maybe you should contact Il Douche himself, and suggest he fire everyone and hire you?

Why would the DA want to charge Trump with a FECA violation? You want to keep building up straw men?

have at it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The DA is not arguing FECA violations as the predicate for 17-152. If "catch and kill" was a scheme to violate FECA, he is waiting until the 11th hour to make that revelation...

The charges are against Trump- not Cohen, not Pecker. The August meeting was not about a scheme to violate campaign finance laws- it was about suppressing negative publicity about Trump.

And I have said before- the testimony and the evidence clearly shows that both Pecker and Cohen did not intend to use their own money to buy up stories. That was never part of the understanding.

WorldWatcher welcome to the USMB straw man contest with the host para-delirium

 

[para bellum]

Nope. Too bad Trump's lawyers aren't arguing your shit. Maybe you should contact Il Douche himself, and suggest he fire everyone and hire you?

Why would the DA want to charge Trump with a FECA violation? You want to keep building up straw men?

have at it

Again, you have no substantive rebuttal, so you spew more garbage.

Your own link said why they don't pursue FECA:

"The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law."

Because FECA is a federal law, it would trigger the preemption argument. So you need some other act to satisfy the "unlawful means" in 17-152.

Eisen knows this is a problem, so he tries to erase it by pretending "unlawful" doesn't really mean "illegal", it just means "not authorized":

"Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime)."

See what he does?

Eisen cites the 100 year-old case that supposedly says "unlawful" means "not authorized".

“unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

Dumb argument, for the reasons I stated. And out of context.

The case Eisen was citing was against someone advocating violent overthrow of the government.

The statute said:
-------------------------------------
"§ 161. Advocacy of criminal anarchy.
Any person who:
1. By word of mouth or writing advocates, advises or teaches the duty, necessity or propriety of overthrowing or overturning organized government by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means; or,
2. Prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any book, paper, document, or written or printed matter in any form, containing or advocating, advising or teaching the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence or any unlawful means; or,
3. Openly, wilfully and deliberately justifies by word of mouth or writing the assassination or unlawful killing or assaulting of any executive or other officer of the United States or of any State or of any civilized nation having an organized government because of his official character, or any other crime, with intent to teach, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal anarchy; or,
4. Organizes or helps to organize or becomes a member of or voluntarily assembles with any society, group or assembly of persons formed to teach or advocate such doctrine,

Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both."
------------------------------------------------
The statute uses the language "or any unlawful means" because it cannot specify every possible way to overthrow a government. The crime is the advocacy to overthrow the government.

The judge said in his decision:

"The words "unlawful means" as used in the statute need not be construed as limiting the provisions thereof to the advocacy of the overthrow of government by the commission of a crime, and may be held to have been used in the sense of unauthorized by law, in which sense those words are sometimes used in criminal statutes."
<...>
"In so far, therefore, as it is competent for the Legislature to enact laws to prevent the overthrow of government by unauthorized means, I am of opinion that the initial and every other act knowingly committed for the accomplishment of that purpose may be forbidden and declared to be a crime.
People v. Gitlow, 195 A.D. 773, 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)"

Applying that logic to the words "unlawful means" in 17-152 is renders the words meaningless. Some actual illegal behavior has to be planned before you can claim a criminal conspiracy has happened.

If you take out "unlawful means", the statute makes all electioneering activity illegal. It's absurd.

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[Care4all]

Taking that aside, didn't Biden defraud the voters by claiming he was going to unify us?

What New York State business records did Biden falsify?

 

[Care4all]

And exactly how did he do that?

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

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Hey I asked you over 24 hours ago to list the ways Trump had been a terrible president other than he hurt your feelings. You've had plenty of time to answer and yet nothing. Just admit he hurt your feelings, huh?