The legal reckoning awaiting Donald Trump if he loses the election

[TU Curmudgeon]

he would have to sell all of his assets they are worth billions ... and then their is uproar in Scotland that he wants to open his 3rd golf course in Scotland .... being honest i can't see it being approved

If you have a real property asset that is valued at $1,000,000 and it has a $900,000 mortgage on it, and a forced sale is only likely to bring in 90% (and here I'm being generous) of appraised value, can you tell me how much you could expect to NET from that forced sale?

If all of your assets were in essentially the same condition as the above real property asset, can you tell me how much you could expect to NET from the forced sale of those real property assets?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He cannot be prosecuted for these charges when he is in office, ...

More correctly - "It is the policy of the federal Department of Justice NOT to prosecute the President of the United States of America whilst they are still holding that office ..."

...but come the 21st of January 2021 these charges all become relevant and he will be indicted for his business fraud and tax evasion.

Those assets are all mortgaged and are often underwater. He likely has more debt than assets.

We do deserve to know who is he is beholden to for the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars because that is a security threat and emollient crime. This is why former presidents disinvested themselves when they took office.

Yep

 

[uptower]

Tax avoidance is legal - every business seeks to pay the least amount they have to. That doesn't mean he committed fraud. In fact, his high profile probably makes that less likely - he's got an army of accountants and lawyers to help him toe the line. What they are likely to get into is a mess of unspecific definitions and accounting techniques - along with a rehash of his continuous audits where most of those issues would have been settled.

This is all political, and will fade. Local prosecutors are going to find more productive things to do once the political motivation is gone.

I'm in no position to 'prove' Trump is guilty of tax fraud here, and I'm not interesting in litigating that. But he's being investigated for fraud which suggests they have reason to suspect he went beyond what is legal.

All I'm saying is if Trump loses the election, those DAs are unlikely IMO to drop their investigations just because he's no longer president.

 

[OscarLevant]

Really? What are the crimes?

Based on articles in the news, empirical data, I'd say (I might have the exact name of the crimes not legally correct, this is just ballpark) ..........

“Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” and “Coercion of political activity.” (his treatment of Zelensky, and the Senate didn't get him off the hook on the criminal side of this act).
Fraud ( during his presidency, Trump settled three lawsuits for fraud)
Contempt Of Congress (if this isn't a crime, it should be)
Illegal charity/embezzlement (spent charity funds for personal use, legal bills, etc )
Racketeering (his entire family is involved in many of his schemes, we're in RICO territory, no doubt)
Bank Fraud/finance crimes ( being investigated currently )
Money laundering ( these are being investigated )
Felony campaign finance violations/hush money defrauding the United STates
(named as 'individual-1' in the Cohen indictment )
Witness intimidation (disparaging comments on Vindman, Yovanovich, and others, during hearings--noting that the president has 65 million twitter followers, so a clear cut case of witness intimidation could easily made, per Yovanovich testimony on this)
Obstruction of justice (estimates are at least four counts per Mueller Report )
Perjury ( you don't have to be under oath to commit purjury to an FBI officer, he lied to Mueller, which was confirmed
by deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, under oath. And it's a slam dunk he'll perjure again, if he is deposed, called to testify, etc).
Sexual Assault, Rape ( 25 women have accused him, some are bound to hold up in court )
Tax evasion (currently being investigated )
Ultra Vires ( calling a national emergency when there wasn't one )
Criminal Conspiracy ( handing classified info Russians in the oval office, though this is more of an impeachable offense, as president can declassify )

I'm sure there is more. He's being investigated by SDNY right now. The classic example of a criminal getting away with crimes all his life was Al Capone, who was finally put in jail for tax evasion. This might be Trump's undoing, if all the other stuff doesn't stick. Why? Because his tax firm was a real shady one, not one of the reputable ones in NY, as I understand it. I'm certain SDNY is going after him, and are slowly, carefully, building a case. With a guy like Trump, there's an old saying, when you shoot an arrow at the king, you better not miss. This is why powerful men get away with shit, they are powerful, it's why IRS tends to go after smaller people than bigger people, their run in with Scientology taught them that.

 

[OscarLevant]

That issue is not important. The important question is: "WILL BIDEN PACK THE COURT?!"

Personally, I think 9 judges is too few, anyway. WE can argue 'retribution' all day long, but that wouldn't be my motivation, my motivation
would an even tempered court, and enough of this one side makes all the decisions, crap. That's not serving America very well.

I think the could would be improved with 20 additional judges. That way, if someone dies, it's not a critical deal getting a replacement,
and there would be an incentive to put in moderates. Right now, all it takes is a judge to get four of his buddies to go one way, and if affects
all of america, for the next 40 years. Is that just?. Just like we have a large body of persons in congress, which tempers radical law from ever getting enacted, a bigger supreme court would be more even tempered. We could make it a law that one side can only have the advantage by one judge. In other words, if your side has picked 15 judges, the other side picks the rest, until it's 15/14 The only way the other side gets the one judge advantage if vacancies open up during his or her term, but no more packing the court.

IN my view' packing the court' one side picks way more than half of the judges on the courty. I hear all the yadda that 'judges aren't political' which is a horseshit argument. I know they are calling stacking the court with more judges, packing' but I'd like to see the definition changed.

 

[dcsports]

I'm in no position to 'prove' Trump is guilty of tax fraud here, and I'm not interesting in litigating that. But he's being investigated for fraud which suggests they have reason to suspect he went beyond what is legal.

All I'm saying is if Trump loses the election, those DAs are unlikely IMO to drop their investigations just because he's no longer president.

'those DA's' = a new york DA. And it indicates that he has a political axe to grind.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'm in no position to 'prove' Trump is guilty of tax fraud here, and I'm not interesting in litigating that. But he's being investigated for fraud which suggests they have reason to suspect he went beyond what is legal.

All I'm saying is if Trump loses the election, those DAs are unlikely IMO to drop their investigations just because he's no longer president.

Yep

 

[dcsports]

Based on articles in the news, empirical data, I'd say (I might have the exact name of the crimes not legally correct, this is just ballpark) ..........

“Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” and “Coercion of political activity.” (his treatment of Zelensky, and the Senate didn't get him off the hook on the criminal side of this act).
Fraud ( during his presidency, Trump settled three lawsuits for fraud)
Contempt Of Congress (if this isn't a crime, it should be)
Illegal charity/embezzlement (spent charity funds for personal use, legal bills, etc )
Racketeering (his entire family is involved in many of his schemes, we're in RICO territory, no doubt)
Bank Fraud/finance crimes ( being investigated currently )
Money laundering ( these are being investigated )
Felony campaign finance violations/hush money defrauding the United STates
(named as 'individual-1' in the Cohen indictment )
Witness intimidation (disparaging comments on Vindman, Yovanovich, and others, during hearings--noting that the president has 65 million twitter followers, so a clear cut case of witness intimidation could easily made, per Yovanovich testimony on this)
Obstruction of justice (estimates are at least four counts per Mueller Report )
Perjury ( you don't have to be under oath to commit purjury to an FBI officer, he lied to Mueller, which was confirmed
by deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, under oath. And it's a slam dunk he'll perjure again, if he is deposed, called to testify, etc).
Sexual Assault, Rape ( 25 women have accused him, some are bound to hold up in court )
Tax evasion (currently being investigated )
Ultra Vires ( calling a national emergency when there wasn't one )
Criminal Conspiracy ( handing classified info Russians in the oval office, though this is more of an impeachable offense, as president can declassify )

I'm sure there is more. He's being investigated by SDNY right now. The classic example of a criminal getting away with crimes all his life was Al Capone, who was finally put in jail for tax evasion. This might be Trump's undoing, if all the other stuff doesn't stick. Why? Because his tax firm was a real shady one, not one of the reputable ones in NY, as I understand it. I'm certain SDNY is going after him, and are slowly, carefully, building a case. With a guy like Trump, there's an old saying, when you shoot an arrow at the king, you better not miss. This is why powerful men get away with shit, they are powerful, it's why IRS tends to go after smaller people than bigger people, their run in with Scientology taught them that.

First, kudos for coming up with a list - a few even have some specifics.

I'm not going to nitpick through this list, because there's not much there in the way of crimes. For the most part, this is a collection of items from talking points. Items that have investigated to death, there is no evidence, or aren't really crimes. Most come back to financial allegations, which have been discussed to death. (I always laugh when money laundering is thrown in, because it normally shows a lack of understanding of what money laundering is.)

 

[Lisa]

You don't deserve to know.

We do deserve to know because that is a security threat. This is why former presidents disinvested themselves when they took office.

'those DA's' = a new york DA. And it indicates that he has a political axe to grind.

It's the federal prosecutor of the southern district of NY.

“I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney,” Berman said in a written statement that also was posted by his office’s Twitter account.

“I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,” he said. “I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate.”

“Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption. I cherish every day that I work with the men and women of this Office to pursue justice without fear or favor – and intend to ensure that this Office’s important cases continue unimpeded.”

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Berman refuses to leave after Trump says SEC chief Jay Clayton will replace him

President Donald Trump said he will replace Geoffrey Berman as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan with SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. Berman refuses to quit.

www.cnbc.com

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm in no position to 'prove' Trump is guilty of tax fraud here, and I'm not interesting in litigating that. But he's being investigated for fraud which suggests they have reason to suspect he went beyond what is legal.

All I'm saying is if Trump loses the election, those DAs are unlikely IMO to drop their investigations just because he's no longer president.

Tactically it would be MOST unwise to "drop the investigations". To do so would only provide fodder for the cattle who are insisting the the investigations are being undertaken SOLELY for "political motives".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Based on articles in the news, empirical data, I'd say (I might have the exact name of the crimes not legally correct, this is just ballpark) ..........

“Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” and “Coercion of political activity.” (his treatment of Zelensky, and the Senate didn't get him off the hook on the criminal side of this act).
Fraud ( during his presidency, Trump settled three lawsuits for fraud)
Contempt Of Congress (if this isn't a crime, it should be)
Illegal charity/embezzlement (spent charity funds for personal use, legal bills, etc )
Racketeering (his entire family is involved in many of his schemes, we're in RICO territory, no doubt)
Bank Fraud/finance crimes ( being investigated currently )
Money laundering ( these are being investigated )
Felony campaign finance violations/hush money defrauding the United STates
(named as 'individual-1' in the Cohen indictment )
Witness intimidation (disparaging comments on Vindman, Yovanovich, and others, during hearings--noting that the president has 65 million twitter followers, so a clear cut case of witness intimidation could easily made, per Yovanovich testimony on this)
Obstruction of justice (estimates are at least four counts per Mueller Report )
Perjury ( you don't have to be under oath to commit purjury to an FBI officer, he lied to Mueller, which was confirmed
by deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, under oath. And it's a slam dunk he'll perjure again, if he is deposed, called to testify, etc).
Sexual Assault, Rape ( 25 women have accused him, some are bound to hold up in court )
Tax evasion (currently being investigated )
Ultra Vires ( calling a national emergency when there wasn't one )
Criminal Conspiracy ( handing classified info Russians in the oval office, though this is more of an impeachable offense, as president can declassify )

I'm sure there is more. He's being investigated by SDNY right now. The classic example of a criminal getting away with crimes all his life was Al Capone, who was finally put in jail for tax evasion. This might be Trump's undoing, if all the other stuff doesn't stick. Why? Because his tax firm was a real shady one, not one of the reputable ones in NY, as I understand it. I'm certain SDNY is going after him, and are slowly, carefully, building a case. With a guy like Trump, there's an old saying, when you shoot an arrow at the king, you better not miss. This is why powerful men get away with shit, they are powerful, it's why IRS tends to go after smaller people than bigger people, their run in with Scientology taught them that.

With respect to Mr. Trump's "tax firm" only - should Mr. Trump go down as a result of the investigations, you can bet your lunch money that the other clients of the same firm will come under VERY close scrutiny VERY rapidly. Even if they don't, you can bet your lunch money that they will suffer a serious outflow of clients.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Personally, I think 9 judges is too few, anyway. WE can argue 'retribution' all day long, but that wouldn't be my motivation, my motivation
would an even tempered court, and enough of this one side makes all the decisions, crap. That's not serving America very well.

I think the could would be improved with 20 additional judges. That way, if someone dies, it's not a critical deal getting a replacement,
and there would be an incentive to put in moderates. Right now, all it takes is a judge to get four of his buddies to go one way, and if affects
all of america, for the next 40 years. Is that just?. Just like we have a large body of persons in congress, which tempers radical law from ever getting enacted, a bigger supreme court would be more even tempered. We could make it a law that one side can only have the advantage by one judge. In other words, if your side has picked 15 judges, the other side picks the rest, until it's 15/14 The only way the other side gets the one judge advantage if vacancies open up during his or her term, but no more packing the court.

IN my view' packing the court' one side picks way more than half of the judges on the courty. I hear all the yadda that 'judges aren't political' which is a horseshit argument. I know they are calling stacking the court with more judges, packing' but I'd like to see the definition changed.

There are 12 federal circuits in the US court system, so it would appear that 12 would be a reasonable number of Supreme Court Justices. Then tack on 1 for the Chief Justice and you have 13 (which is generally considered to be a "bad" number). However, some provision should also be made for the possibility that one or more judge might have to recuse themselves (the Supreme Court Justice assigned to a circuit would/should do that routinely if a case is referred to an en banc hearing) so that would mean that adding two (in order to ensure that there is no 6 - 6 tie) and that would bring the number of judges to 15 and that would seem to be a reasonable increase.

However, it would probably help with the Supreme Court maintaining its reputation if future judges were:

1. appointed from the members of the judiciary in the circuit they are to "oversee" who have been members of the judiciary in that circuit for at least five years;
   
   
2. vetted and approved for shortlisting by the state bar associations in the circuit they are to "oversee";
   
   
3. "elevated" to "Judge Emeritus" (which would give them "national" standing) when they reached the age of 75;
   
   
   and if
   
   
4. the President were limited in the number of times that they could reject ALL of the judges on the short list that had been prepared.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I think the people really in jeopardy are Trump's kids and his son-in-law.

They currently don't have immunity and can't run the clock out.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We do deserve to know ...

Mr. Trump doesn't think so and because he is The President, that means that you don't deserve to know.

...because that is a security threat.

Mr. Trump doesn't think so and because he is The President (with sole authority to decide what is and what is not a security threat), that means that it isn't.

This is why former presidents disinvested themselves when they took office.

No where in the American Constitution does it say that The President has to divest themselves of their private holdings and because it doesn't say that they have to that means that it is "constitutional" NOT to do so and Mr. Trump is only exercising his "constitutional rights".

It's the federal prosecutor of the southern district of NY.

A political hack.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Berman refuses to leave after Trump says SEC chief Jay Clayton will replace him

President Donald Trump said he will replace Geoffrey Berman as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan with SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. Berman refuses to quit.

www.cnbc.com

Mr. Trump is only exercising his constitutionally granted power.

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]

 

[Ikari]

The legal reckoning awaiting Donald Trump if he loses the election

If things don't go Donald Trump's way on Election Day, the President may face more serious matters than how to pack up the West Wing.

edition.cnn.com

No wonder he said he'd leave the country if he loses. He'll have to go somewhere that won't extradite. Hope he likes the weather in Moscow.

If Trump loses, I doubt there will be any legal ramifications to him.

 

[OscarLevant]

First, kudos for coming up with a list - a few even have some specifics.

I'm not going to nitpick through this list, because there's not much there in the way of crimes. For the most part, this is a collection of items from talking points. Items that have investigated to death, there is no evidence, or aren't really crimes. Most come back to financial allegations, which have been discussed to death. (I always laugh when money laundering is thrown in, because it normally shows a lack of understanding of what money laundering is.)

Most are crimes. A number are under investigation by SDNY as noted.
Discussing something in abundance has no bearing on the SDNY investigations.

My purpose wasn't to establish 'evidence' just that many are not unreasonable estimates of potential crimes Trump has committed, based
on current reportage, in response to the poster who wrote 'what crimes?'

Money laundering is a crime, which is the act which makes money legally accountable, covering up the fact that it originally was not.

For example, a russian oligarch, who has to deposit funds in a bank (outside of Deutsche Bank, who will take their money ), who won't take his business unless he can show his funds were obtained legally,
will present sales documents of condos he or she purchased from Trump, and thus sold (usually rather quickly, even at a loss, it doesn't matter, the purpose is to clean the funds), thus hiding the original source of those funds. On large deposits, banks have to comply with anti-money laundering laws

FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts - Miscellaneous Statutes and Regulations

scroll to § 1020.210

If Trump were aware of such schemes, noting that it's almost impossible for any reasonable person to believe he wasn't, then he is aiding and abetting in money laundering. A multipage exposé of precisely this type of activity was researched, and documented, by Buzzfeed, a few years back, and I think they even got an award for it. Tax evasion and bank/fraud schemes were reported on in an exposé that NYTimes did on Trump family, for which they did get a pulitzer, which was based largely on documents supplied to NYT from Mary Trump. Documents, not 'innuendo'.

I'm not making this stuff up, noting your attempt to trivialize my post.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If Trump loses, I doubt there will be any legal ramifications to him.

Taking "I doubt there will be any legal ramifications to him." to mean "Regardless of whether or not Mr. Trump wins, the potential criminal cases will proceed as if he were a private citizen (except where Mr. Trump can order the people in charge of prosecuting them not to do so).", I think that you are correct.

If Mr. Trump is re-elected, and if one assumes that concrete evidence of tax fraud by Mr. Trump occurred between 01 FEB 17 and 03 NOV 20 the odds are that impeachment proceedings would be instituted (if only to place the Republican Senators in the enviable(?) position of having to vote to acquit someone who cheats on their income tax AND then having to explain to their constituents why they think that cheating on your income tax is a "Good Thing").

 

[dcsports]

We do deserve to know because that is a security threat. This is why former presidents disinvested themselves when they took office.

It's the federal prosecutor of the southern district of NY.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Berman refuses to leave after Trump says SEC chief Jay Clayton will replace him

President Donald Trump said he will replace Geoffrey Berman as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan with SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. Berman refuses to quit.

www.cnbc.com

Your article is from June 19. On June 20
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/politics/trump-fires-berman-barr-says/index.html

Most are crimes. A number are under investigation by SDNY as noted.
Discussing something in abundance has no bearing on the SDNY investigations.

My purpose wasn't to establish 'evidence' just that many are not unreasonable estimates of potential crimes Trump has committed, based
on current reportage, in response to the poster who wrote 'what crimes?'

Money laundering is a crime, which is the act which makes money legally accountable, covering up the fact that it originally was not.

For example, a russian oligarch, who has to deposit funds in a bank (outside of Deutsche Bank, who will take their money ), who won't take his business unless he can show his funds were obtained legally,
will present sales documents of condos he or she purchased from Trump, and thus sold (usually rather quickly, even at a loss, it doesn't matter, the purpose is to clean the funds), thus hiding the original source of those funds. On large deposits, banks have to comply with anti-money laundering laws

FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts - Miscellaneous Statutes and Regulations

scroll to § 1020.210

If Trump were aware of such schemes, noting that it's almost impossible for any reasonable person to believe he wasn't, then he is aiding and abetting in money laundering. A multipage exposé of precisely this type of activity was researched, and documented, by Buzzfeed, a few years back, and I think they even got an award for it. Tax evasion and bank/fraud schemes were reported on in an exposé that NYTimes did on Trump family, for which they did get a pulitzer, which was based largely on documents supplied to NYT from Mary Trump. Documents, not 'innuendo'.

I'm not making this stuff up, noting your attempt to trivialize my post.

Thank you for supporting my point. You created your own scenario - and it's still not money laundering. Plus there's no support that Trump did that.

I get that Russia is the current bogeyman of the left, and "Russian Oligarch" is spit out routinely, but it really just means a "Russian Rich Guy". They can buy stuff the same as a "New York Rich Guy" can.

 

[Geoist]

Jon Schwarz of The Intercept makes an interesting point of the potential of Trump being impeached again, even if he loses in November:


And, oddly, there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says presidents can’t be impeached after leaving office. This would not be a pointless exercise in revenge with Trump but a wise prophylactic precaution. The punishment prescribed by the Constitution for impeachment and conviction includes “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” In other words, an impeached and convicted Trump could never run for president again.

Losing Could Expose Trump to Prosecution for Any Number of Crimes

Former presidents normally don’t go to jail, but few have committed so many obvious crimes unrelated to their duties in office.

theintercept.com

 

[Aberro]

The legal reckoning awaiting Donald Trump if he loses the election

If things don't go Donald Trump's way on Election Day, the President may face more serious matters than how to pack up the West Wing.

edition.cnn.com

No wonder he said he'd leave the country if he loses. He'll have to go somewhere that won't extradite. Hope he likes the weather in Moscow.

LOL, Hillary is not in jail, even though she should be, same will happen , two teried justice, just the way democrats want it.

 

[Aberro]

At the very least...The USA. $750.00 in Fed Taxes. The man has raped, robbed and pillaged

So have you, you still walking free?

 

[OscarLevant]

Your article is from June 19. On June 20
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/politics/trump-fires-berman-barr-says/index.html


Thank you for supporting my point. You created your own scenario - and it's still not money laundering. Plus there's no support that Trump did that.

I get that Russia is the current bogeyman of the left, and "Russian Oligarch" is spit out routinely, but it really just means a "Russian Rich Guy". They can buy stuff the same as a "New York Rich Guy" can.

There are only handful of Russian Oligarchs, who get their power from Putin. Russia is a kleptocracy, it is totally corrupt.

You don't know that it is not any more than I know it is, but owing to the scores of quick flips form oligarchs who bank at deutschebank, a known bank favored by money launderers, that many of his condo sales have all the markers of money laundering, there is predication for an investigation.

That much you can't take away. Read the article:

SECRET MONEY: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers

A BuzzFeed News review of every sale of a Trump-branded condominium in the United States provides the first comprehensive look at how many went to unidentified buyers who paid cash, an indication of possible money laundering.

www.buzzfeednews.com

 

[dcsports]

There are only handful of Russian Oligarchs, who get their power from Putin. Russia is a kleptocracy, it is totally corrupt.

You don't know that it is not any more than I know it is, but owing to the scores of quick flips form oligarchs who bank at deutschebank, a known bank favored by money launderers, that many of his condo sales have all the markers of money laundering, there is predication for an investigation.

That much you can't take away. Read the article:

SECRET MONEY: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers

A BuzzFeed News review of every sale of a Trump-branded condominium in the United States provides the first comprehensive look at how many went to unidentified buyers who paid cash, an indication of possible money laundering.

www.buzzfeednews.com

There is a LOT wrong with this post...

Again, 'Russian Oligarch' means a Russian with wealth and influence. I understand that some people on the left like to use it as they would 'mafia boss' or 'bogeyman', but that doesn't match reality.

Deutsche Bank is a real bank, based in Germany (not Russia). It's used by people all over the world. Think the European version of Citybank. If investors have money in Deutsche Bank they don't need to launder it - it's already in a bank. The source is the bank.

As far as the story, it's tinfoil hat territory. When it says that condos were purchased in "cash" - that doesn't mean dollar bills in a briefcase. It means without a mortgage - using funds from a bank or wire transfer. This is very common with investment properties, which is what we're talking about. The fact that corporations own them isn't in itself a red flag of anything - you'll find the same thing at pretty much any high end condominium project. Investors create an LLC strictly to own property, then pay the property manager to lease them out.

And again - not money laundering.

 

[TrumpVirus 2020]

So have you, you still walking free?

WUT?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

WUT?

There is a LOT wrong with this post...

Again, 'Russian Oligarch' means a Russian with wealth and influence. I understand that some people on the left like to use it as they would 'mafia boss' or 'bogeyman', but that doesn't match reality.

Deutsche Bank is a real bank, based in Germany (not Russia). It's used by people all over the world. Think the European version of Citybank. If investors have money in Deutsche Bank they don't need to launder it - it's already in a bank. The source is the bank.

As far as the story, it's tinfoil hat territory. When it says that condos were purchased in "cash" - that doesn't mean dollar bills in a briefcase. It means without a mortgage - using funds from a bank or wire transfer. This is very common with investment properties, which is what we're talking about. The fact that corporations own them isn't in itself a red flag of anything - you'll find the same thing at pretty much any high end condominium project. Investors create an LLC strictly to own property, then pay the property manager to lease them out.

And again - not money laundering.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a "real bank" too.