Trump, adult children sued by New York attorney general for fraud

[bave]

Good God, read the court filing. It is literally spelled out.

What's amazing is that you find it so clear yet no US attorney or agent with the IRS CID has seen it after a decade+ of looking. What is it that you think you know, with all their resources, time, and actual expertise that they don't?

Moreover, again, show me the code that you have repeatedly referenced where it is a crime to state to a financial institution the value of an illiquid real asset that was higher than it later turned out to be. Seriously, show me that code that states that.

 

[bave]

Also, these large commercial loans are not underwritten the way your mortgage is. They are not even in the same universe of lending. So really, you should just stop talking. You are the fifth Trumper to make this same, stupid mistake, just on this board.

I will give you a great example from personal experience that illustrates how common this is.

Six or seven years ago I helped my neighbor negotiate to purchase ~18 acres of commercial land in the Nashville area. He bought the land for ~7MM. We went to the bank (local) and had to convince them that the land was worth $11MM in order for him to secure the financing required to take the deal down. We eventually convinced them that this was the case, however the value the week before was obviously $7MM since that is what he just purchased it for, yet we convinced the bank it had appreciated by more than 60% in a week. A crime occurred? Had he been forced to sell the land quickly, in a down market, or due to financial duress the land may have only fetched $4MM on the market, suddenly the bank has suffered a financial harm of serious magnitude, was it a crime then? How often do you think this happens?

Let me play that one forward 6 years ago. The property was fully developed with ~550 garden style class A apartments on it. This time I helped him refinance the existing loans through agencies. We aggressively presented the value to the two agencies at ~165MM. They disagreed doing their due diligence. Final resolution with Freddie was a value of $106MM. Was that fraud? It gets better!

6 months after refinancing the property he came to an agreement to sell the property for ~190MM who was going to assume the note as well. Just before that he just completed an argument and negotiation with the county to conclude the property tax assessment on the property was ~80MM. That was ~a year ago. The property tax assessment is still at that same number, after the sale. Is that fraud?

Do you think *any* crime was done at any point of that? If so, you let me know because one of the attorneys involved in it was a former US-AA.

 

[Gnosis]

The left, in general, do tend to use falsehoods as fact, base their arguments on that, and then try to continue the argument and dismiss anything that points out that the entire thing is based on a falsehood.

But what's your appraisal of the right?

 

[Gnosis]

It is also incredibly inconsistent with reality. Moreover, how you conclude that there is an agrieved party with damages is even harder to reach.

Again, how is it that a brand new NYAG who ran on a platform of going after Trump, suddenly found all this evidence that the NY department of revenue, along with the IRS, missed for decades? Seems odd, no?

Let's start with "brand new". Letitia James was elected four years ago. That's after Trump's failed presidency began and way before you remember anything. What would you like to talk about next?

 

[Gnosis]

Normally civil cases wait until criminal proceedings have concluded or the investigation determines no charges will be brought. But for the Bad Orange man the Trump hating zealot AG the script has been flipped by rushing the civil case along with the deposition to be used as a stalking horse for criminal prosecution. No wonder Trump cited his Constitutional right to avoid responding.

Typical Leftist response, deny, deny, deny.

Trump is a steaming pile of dog shit. And his supporters are a lot worse than that.

 

[Gnosis]

Ugh. It isn't against the law to try and convince a lender that the collateral is more valuable while at the same time trying to tell a property assessor something different. Show me that law, show me a conviction. It is something that happens effectively non-stop with any commercial real estate investor. Inflating rent rolls? In what way? Did they lie about their T-12? If they defrauded the purchasers and lenders, why are they not suing?

That's the amazing thing here. There is a littany of fraud allegations but no one can seemingly find someone defrauded.

I would bother to answer any of your questions if I thought you were serious, but I've seen your behavior on this site and in this thread. You're not serious, and people who parrot the disastrous mouth diarrhea of Trumpism must not be taken seriously.

Tell me: When did you decide it was more important to hold water for an illiterate, inarticulate, ***** grabbing wannabe mobster than have a drop of integrity? In any other world, Trumpy assholes would (and do) cry foul anytime anyone left of their Nazi enclave takes advantage of legal processes. In the case of Trump, you people mindlessly adore and support it. The idol culture is not for those who can think.

 

[Gnosis]

This post reminds of someone that looks in a mirror and doesn't recognize himself.

Har. Har. Good one. It must hurt to have been beaten into the pavement like a Black man in this thread.

 

[Cardinal]

Ok, and specifically what do you think he did that violates that statute?

Are you suggesting that making a claim that an illiquid, unique, and subjective asset is worth more than it is appraised for is misrepresenting the value? Furthermore, are you suggesting that the bank was culpable, unawares, or took this at face value? This is why financial institutions use third party appraisals. They don't rely on borrower representations of value. The portion of the code related to false representations or promises relates to failure to disclose non-public liens, encumberances, or other material items etc.

I will give you a great example. Art. It is extremely common that art collections are pledging as collateral for loans for extremely high net worth individuals. When a client owns a Pollock and tells the bank it is worth $100MM, is that fraud? How do you determine that? He only paid $50MM for it 2 years ago, so it must be fraud, right? Well, wait, another Pollock just sold at Sotheby's for $125MM, maybe it is worth that much? More? Less? Is it a more desirable piece? What about the fact that since that last Pollock sold the overall market has declined markedly? Oh no, we just hit a recession, is it still worth $100MM?

That's the problem when you have unique items of high value. You don't have good comparables. So people who own them universally overstate their value for insurance and lending purposes. Maybe because they are psychologically trying to fool themselves, maybe they actually believe it is worth that much, maybe it is part of a financial strategy.

To call that fraud though? A tough reach, this is precisely why you don't see the actual financial institution making these allegations, nor the IRS, nor the state department of revenue for the last decade.

Just though of another great example. Ken Griffin recently-ish bought a copy of the US Constitution for $43.2MM. That is part of a pledged asset portfolio securing a series of loans held with Citi. How in the world do you determine the collateral value of something like that? Moreover, how do you call him a criminal if he says it is $80MM? You might disagree, but he can certainly believe it is worth that much.

The premise of your argument is that bank fraud is unprovable.

 

[Athanasius68]

Actually, it was Micheal Cohen’s testimony that got the ball rolling on the investigations into trump’s business.

That's right-- a federal investigation.
They noted irregulariries --- and closed up shop.

That's when the city and state stepped in
And after a few years-- they kick the same stuff back to the feds.

And then you guys get all agog that this is something new.

 

[Athanasius68]

The premise of your argument is that bank fraud is unprovable.

The premise is that it is very hard to prove because it's not clearcut-- people can have different opinions about the value of property and how that value might change.

Meanwhile-- the guy either shot somebody on 5th Ave or he didn't.

 

[Athanasius68]

You're defending Trump. Trump lied. No matter what actually happened, Trump stated his properties where worth more than they are. That is fraud.

Are banks the final, legal arbiter, of value now?

 

[Anthony60]

There were no bogus investigations.

Thanks, have a day.

Here's some Biden for you...


What an embarrassment.

 

[bave]

The premise of your argument is that bank fraud is unprovable.

No, not at all and it is rather routinely charged and convicted on.

The most common instances of bank fraud are where the circumstances are much more objective. The best example is when you state you earn $100,000 in W-2 income and are currently employed with ABC Inc. If that statement is demonstrably false when the application is signed, that is something that is objectively false and construes bank fraud as it was a material misrepresentation which would have likely caused the bank to reach a different decision when making a loan. Another example is if you fail to mention that you have $50,000 in credit card debt, etc.

It is a lot different than applying for a HELOC and going in and telling the loan officer that your home is worth $500M when it appraises for $350M a week later in an appraisal the bank orders. This is precisely why banks do appraisals and have to be comfortable with *all* the opinions and claims made. They are going to base their analysis and creditworthiness of the loan based on the objective third party, arm's length, conclusions.

 

[Athanasius68]

I'm well aware of that. There were no underlying crimes though. And yes, committing perjury was an unforced error and it's bad, but what Republicans were initially investigating the Clintons for was itself the purest example of a fishing expedition.


No. And it's not like the results of that investigation really support you anyway.



I understand that the Benghazi investigation (all of them) wrapped up without finding anything wrong. Now, it did result in finding Clinton's email server, which yielded multiple investigations of their own that went nowhere.

But it all goes to show that they were always fishing expeditions.

1. It's kind of funny how a process crime doesn't really matter when it's one of 'your guys' doing it.
Meanwhile president Clinton did in fact commit perjury.

2. The Benghazi investigation did indeed reveal the existence of the server.

The investigations into server that of course revealed a few things:

A. Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified and government information.

B. The Democratic party political base was for the most part untroubled by it.

C. The (Democrat controlled) DOJ wasn't particularly bothered by such allegations against a major Democratic member either.

and of course D, that relates to C AND B:

D. The (Democratic controlled) DOJ scorches the earth because allegedly mishandling classified and government information is the great crime-- when the target is a political opponent.
The Democratic base also finds mishandling government information unacceptable-- when the person doing the mishandling is a Republican.

 

[Anthony60]

Link the post

Sorry, not my job.

 

[bave]

I would bother to answer any of your questions if I thought you were serious, but I've seen your behavior on this site and in this thread. You're not serious, and people who parrot the disastrous mouth diarrhea of Trumpism must not be taken seriously.

Tell me: When did you decide it was more important to hold water for an illiterate, inarticulate, ***** grabbing wannabe mobster than have a drop of integrity? In any other world, Trumpy assholes would (and do) cry foul anytime anyone left of their Nazi enclave takes advantage of legal processes. In the case of Trump, you people mindlessly adore and support it. The idol culture is not for those who can think.

What I find amusing is that whenever someone disagrees with a political hatchet job, that means you are a "trumpist". If you are so familiar with my posting history, you would see that I have never espoused and love for Trump and have been consistently negative in my opinion of him, both before he was elected, during his term, and after his term. The difference is that my distaste for him, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't mean that I think they should receive unfair treatment under the law of the land while you seem to.

Look at what some of the people on your side of the fence have said in this very thread. We have had a number of people state they "don't care what happened", they just want some Trumpian ass. That's insanity and you seem to be perfectly ok with mob rule.

 

[Anthony60]

But what's your appraisal of the right?

The same, but less so. Without the Marxist angle.

 

[bave]

Let's start with "brand new". Letitia James was elected four years ago. That's after Trump's failed presidency began and way before you remember anything. What would you like to talk about next?

Ok fair enough, I thought she was elected to that post in the last general. My bad for not following the details of state wide offices that I don't live in. It doesn't change the fact that she is pushing bad cases for political purposes, the same way she did with the NRA. She is also currently on the campaign trail and to think this all isn't part of it is pretty funny. She is pandering the mob. If she actually had a case for the allegations then it would have been taken up long ago, or at least brought to a crimical court. None of that happened, it is a bag of hackery.

 

[Cardinal]

1. It's kind of funny how a process crime doesn't really matter when it's one of 'your guys' doing it.
Meanwhile president Clinton did in fact commit perjury.

The difference is that I don't defend him for that, nor do I minimize the crime by calling it a "process crime," nor do I go into full victim mode by saying "He had to commit perjury to protect himself from the Democrat-hating right." He committed a crime and that's that.

But Republicans only got to that perjury by doing a fishing expedition first. What got him to perjury was that they found something embarrassing, not criminal.

2. The Benghazi investigation did indeed reveal the existence of the server.

You're admitting that the investigation into Benghazi itself...the underlying reason for the investigation...was pointless.

The investigations into server that of course revealed a few things:

A. Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified and government information.

Not worthy of making a big deal out of, as no fewer than three Republican-led investigations found.

B. The Democratic party political base was for the most part untroubled by it.

Because it was a non-issue. And we know Republicans weren't really concerned either because now Trump has committed a thousand times the thing Clinton was accused of, and they don't care.

C. The (Democrat controlled) DOJ wasn't particularly bothered by such allegations against a major Democratic member either.

Now you're just filibustering to hide the fact that you have nothing.

and of course D, that relates to C AND B:

D. The (Democratic controlled) DOJ scorches the earth because allegedly mishandling classified and government information is the great crime-- when the target is a political opponent.

Projection.

The Democratic base also finds mishandling government information unacceptable-- when the person doing the mishandling is a Republican.

Projection.

 

[Cardinal]

The premise is that it is very hard to prove because it's not clearcut-- people can have different opinions about the value of property and how that value might change.

Meanwhile-- the guy either shot somebody on 5th Ave or he didn't.

So commit bank fraud then. You clearly have figured out how to thwart any investigation: "Sorry, but it was just my opinion."

 

[Khayembii Communique]

No, not at all and it is rather routinely charged and convicted on.

The most common instances of bank fraud are where the circumstances are much more objective. The best example is when you state you earn $100,000 in W-2 income and are currently employed with ABC Inc. If that statement is demonstrably false when the application is signed, that is something that is objectively false and construes bank fraud as it was a material misrepresentation which would have likely caused the bank to reach a different decision when making a loan. Another example is if you fail to mention that you have $50,000 in credit card debt, etc.

It is a lot different than applying for a HELOC and going in and telling the loan officer that your home is worth $500M when it appraises for $350M a week later in an appraisal the bank orders. This is precisely why banks do appraisals and have to be comfortable with *all* the opinions and claims made. They are going to base their analysis and creditworthiness of the loan based on the objective third party, arm's length, conclusions.

A great example of bank fraud is fraudulently stating that your financials are GAAP compliant when they're not and using those financials to obtain loans.

Also, again, you clearly don't understand how these types of loans are made. Repeating myself again for you, real estate investment banks typically rely on information provided by the borrower.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Q: What's the easiest way to get Republicans to support crime?

 

[Deuce]

Sorry, not my job.

Thought so

 

[ClaraD]

That is 100% inaccurate and shows how big of a bubble you live in.

It's not inaccurate at all. It shows you either do not know the law or you are ignoring it

 

[Parrish]

The kids will turn on one another and their daddy.