Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.

[Ebionite]

What ambiguity?

From Black's dictionary of law:

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter ot" fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another. Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 1 60 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 1 70 Okl. 1 1 7, 39 P.2d 150. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty. infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.

 

[We Never Know]

Banks don't want to spend money doing this sort of independent work. There has been a long history of banks trusting the paperwork they are given. Look at the home loans that led to the collapse in 2009. That was due to greed and indifference to regulation.

Banks often look at what they can make and don't use the best judgment. Back in 2005 I got a construction loan from a local bank to buy and renovate a duplex. I made the payments every month and got a mortgage after 15 months, and paid off the loan. The bank made profit. I went back to the bank after this successful transaction to get another loan and they told me the guy I dealt with before had been fired because he gave out lots loans like mine, and many defaulted. I was one of the customers who actually paid back the loan. They said they no longer did investment loans. The guy got a bonus for approving loans and his standards were low and questionable. His actions were indicative of many banks and their policies. These types of low standard loans was a devastating blow to the global economy in 2009.

So if you had an accountant say that your piece of land was worth $100,000 you could likely find a bank willing to accept that at face value, and loan with that as collateral. That is what Trump did, he had accountants create false values and Trump used them to get loans. Remember investment banks have employees who get bonuses for signing loans. If those lons go belly up the brokers still keep their bonus. The banks lose. But banks also write off losses, and/or get bail outs.

Right. I'm willing to bet that if Trump had just minded his own business and not ventured into politics his life would be vastkly less stressful. But entering political life opens the door to massive scrutiny and investigations. Running to be a public servant means there will be many citizens who find corruption unacceptable, and as a result law enforcement will notice the attention.

Even if Trump had not lied about losing the 2020 election, and no Jan 6 riots, and given back all the stolen documents, I suspect he would not be facing 91 charges. If he had paid the $5 million to E. Gene Carroll and not defamed her he wouldn't owe an additional $83.3 million, plus interest. If he had settled with NY he would have a vastly smaller fine than $373 million, plus interest. The guy is just so stupid that it invites more legal consequences.

And this idiot wants to be president again? Does his poor judgment suggest a competent and wise mind in that makeup caked head of his?

They should be worried. Going after Trump and getting a huge fine will set a precedent that can be built upon.

Right. As a strategy smart people know when to fold a bad hand, and Trump just keeps betting on losing cards. Only his followers buy into his bluffing. And do they really? Or are they just as dumb as him?

"So if you had an accountant say that your piece of land was worth $100,000 you could likely find a bank willing to accept that at face value, and loan with that as collateral. That is what Trump did, he had accountants create false values and Trump used them to get loans."

So don't you think the accountants should be charged for fraud, filing false information, fined and lose their license for knowingly creating false values?
I would think if they prepared them, they also had to sign them.

 

[F1fan]

There was evidence of wrongdoing. A wrong at law is not the same as a wrong at equity.

So you don’t agree with the fine amount?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There was no legal criteria because the suit was was in equity, not in law.

So? There are legal criteria in civil cases, and they are adjudicated in civil courts of law. I think that beyond reasonable doubt becomes a preponderance of the evidence. And the legal penalties are different. But it's all legal criteria whether tort law or criminal law.

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter ot" fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

This is the ambiguity to which your referred? That describes Trump's actions pretty clearly to me, and apparently to Judge Engoron as well.

And as others have already pointed out to you, these definitions are not laws themselves.

[I wonder how that typo (ot" for of) got in there? Didn't you just copy and paste this?]

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual you are dishonest - you knew that I have referred to Black's dictionary of law.

And that was explained to you to not be a source of law. Once again, it is a tool but has no legal standing. And I did not mention that error in the post that you just answered but do I have to go over all of your errors in every post?

The LLM at you.com confirmed that your claim that the U.S. changed its approach to the common law in 1956 was not true.

No, you misinterpreted a post and continued to after I explained your error to you. You assumed that because one law was changed in 1956 that was when all laws were changed. That was a rather insane conclusion that was not implied in any way at all. And you were corrected on that too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was evidence of wrongdoing. A wrong at law is not the same as a wrong at equity.

It sounds as if you are quoting legal terms that you do not properly understand again. So, citation needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"So if you had an accountant say that your piece of land was worth $100,000 you could likely find a bank willing to accept that at face value, and loan with that as collateral. That is what Trump did, he had accountants create false values and Trump used them to get loans."

So don't you think the accountants should be charged for fraud, filing false information, fined and lose their license for knowingly creating false values?
I would think if they prepared them, they also had to sign them.

There could be further repercussions down the road. Accountants do generally trust their clients. I do not think that they are required to do forensic audits of them. Since the lies all came from Trump's company in response to his demands of higher valuations the accountants are probably not on the hook. But I will admit that I could be wrong on this.

 

[Ebionite]

So you don’t agree with the fine amount?

Mostly I don't agree with Trump's misrepresentation of securities as being fraud. According to Trump's son even lawyers who dislike Trump think that the amount was excessive. Working out what actual risk the banks were exposed to is difficult because Trump's ability to repay debt is dependant on his brand, which is subject to his own self-aggrandizement and well as to political attacks from the the Democrats.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From Black's dictionary of law:

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter ot" fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another. Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 1 60 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 1 70 Okl. 1 1 7, 39 P.2d 150. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty. infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.

Once again, Black's Law dictionary is not the law. It is just a dictionary that is a guide. It has no legal standing. You will not find it written anywhere that lawmakers have to follow Black's Law dictionary. Using that as a basis of an argument is so weak that this two word phrase refutes your argument:

So what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You don't know what you are talking about. There was no legal criteria because the suit was was in equity, not in law.

Did you ever get around to reading the judgement? The LAW is set out in great detail.

But, no -- you just don't want to know that, do you? Upsets you too much to see your hero get his just comeuppance.

 

[Ebionite]

It sounds as if you are quoting legal terms that you do not properly understand again. So, citation needed.

I believe you may have confused me with someone who cares about what you think you need.

 

[F1fan]

You don't know what you are talking about. There was no legal criteria because the suit was was in equity, not in law.

So why didn’t Trump’s lawyers figure this out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mostly I don't agree with Trump's misrepresentation of securities as being fraud. According to Trump's son even lawyers who dislike Trump think that the amount was excessive. Working out what actual risk the banks were exposed to is difficult because Trump's ability to repay debt is dependant on his brand, which is subject to his own self-aggrandizement and well as to political attacks from the the Democrats.

When making such claims you should be quoting and linking them. Claims without such can be refuted with a "Citation needed".

Have you not noticed that others are quoting and linking experts in the field or valid news sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you may have confused me with someone who cares about what you think you need.

It is not what I need. It is what you need. If you cannot supply citations when needed you refute yourself.

 

[F1fan]

"So if you had an accountant say that your piece of land was worth $100,000 you could likely find a bank willing to accept that at face value, and loan with that as collateral. That is what Trump did, he had accountants create false values and Trump used them to get loans."

So don't you think the accountants should be charged for fraud, filing false information, fined and lose their license for knowingly creating false values?
I would think if they prepared them, they also had to sign them.

That’s why Weisselberg got got convicted as chief financial officer.

Of course appraisers can be punished if they create and submit deliberate falsehoods. In my scenario I proposed two options, one that is currently valid and another that is plausible given other circumstances. If those appraisals get used for fraud that would not implicate the appraiser.

Since the housing collapse of 2008 there has been a great deal of scrutiny on appraisals and those doing them.

 

[Ebionite]

Did you ever get around to reading the judgement? The LAW is set out in great detail.

Rubbish. Equity and law are not the same thing.

But, no -- you just don't want to know that, do you? Upsets you too much to see your hero get his just comeuppance.

Like they say, to err is human. Pretty much sums you up. Trump has good intent, but he's a bit of a tool.

 

[Ebionite]

It is not what I need. It is what you need.

I'd express my contempt for you, but I'd probably get a ban.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd express my contempt for you, but I'd probably get a ban.

Do not get mad just because you are wrong. And refusing to support claims that need support is no different from admitting that you are wrong. Haven't you ever heard of "Hitchens' Razor"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You don't know what you are talking about. There was no legal criteria because the suit was was in equity, not in law.

This is from the judgement by Judge Engoron, and it tells you what the law is in NY:

Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City. See Senate Bill Jacket, February 21, 1956. State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.” Id.

In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net. INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2024 2 of 92 Page 3 of 92 452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. “The general grant of power to the Attorney General under section 63(12) has traditionally been his most potent.” 3 Fordham Urb. L. J. 491, 502 (1975).

Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows:

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rubbish. Equity and law are not the same thing.

Then why even bring up "equity"? You also seem to have the mistaken idea that this is some sort of fine or punishment. That is not what is going on here.

Like they say, to err is human. Pretty much sums you up. Trump has good intent, but he's a bit of a tool.

What Trump did goes far past errors. He clearly lied and ordered his workers to lie for him. That is largely why his organization was the target of this lawsuit.