• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Are YOU in favor of or against financial fraud?

I have clearly and repeatedly answered this and also explained why it is not relevant in this matter.

Well, no. No one should be persecuted. But anyone who thinks Trump isn't guilty of many, many crimes is a lying piece of shit. Let him have his time in court and hang himself.

Oh, Trump is arguably one of the worst people in government in a very long time. He just isn't a good person in any aspect of his life. That said, it doesn't change my view of these particular circumstances. If the IRS were to file a charge related to these sorts of issues I would be far more willing to consider them as merit based, or even a US-AA, but when a person seeks office on the basis of a political persecution and then the best they can do is a civil case? That's weak and it smells of politics.

Look, you catch the guy lying about basis, realized gains/losses, misrepresenting tax filings, or falsified docs or something. Great, slam him good, no shits given here. This way though? No bueno.

Because I don't feed the sealions, sorry. The filing contains this information and has been posted. As have the laws mentioned within.

I have perused the filing, I haven't seen anything resembling a concrete case of financial fraud, the entire manner it is being pursued indicates they don't have anything like that. The closest argument I can see for the NYAG's case is the conservation easement, but even that depends on a lot of particular details that aren't mentioned. The rest is absolutely laughable.

You are in a position of saying you don't understand how James could allege Trump broke laws.

Actually, she is saying that by failing to bring a criminal case. Moreover, she is bringing an incredibly weak case as part of a political campaign.

Somehow you think that's everyone else problem

It isn't. Good luck.

When you catch up, come on back.

Again, you have made statements that clearly show how little you actually understanding the law, finance, and high level lending. You have grossly misrepresented the facts, the law, and the burden of proof.
 
I have clearly and repeatedly answered this and also explained why it is not relevant in this matter.
if you're NOT in favor of financial fraud then you should hate the trumps for what they did.

hell, you should already hate the father for being a thief and huckster.
 
I have clearly and repeatedly answered this and also explained why it is not relevant in this matter.



Oh, Trump is arguably one of the worst people in government in a very long time. He just isn't a good person in any aspect of his life. That said, it doesn't change my view of these particular circumstances. If the IRS were to file a charge related to these sorts of issues I would be far more willing to consider them as merit based, or even a US-AA, but when a person seeks office on the basis of a political persecution and then the best they can do is a civil case? That's weak and it smells of politics.

Look, you catch the guy lying about basis, realized gains/losses, misrepresenting tax filings, or falsified docs or something. Great, slam him good, no shits given here. This way though? No bueno.



I have perused the filing, I haven't seen anything resembling a concrete case of financial fraud, the entire manner it is being pursued indicates they don't have anything like that. The closest argument I can see for the NYAG's case is the conservation easement, but even that depends on a lot of particular details that aren't mentioned. The rest is absolutely laughable.



Actually, she is saying that by failing to bring a criminal case. Moreover, she is bringing an incredibly weak case as part of a political campaign.



Again, you have made statements that clearly show how little you actually understanding the law, finance, and high level lending. You have grossly misrepresented the facts, the law, and the burden of proof.
Cute tantrum. I really like how you think you sat and looked at a tree for a while and outsmarted career investigators and prosectutors. Good stuff.
 
Again, this is my wheelhouse. I worked in the PE space for my entire career where loans of this nature were common place. No bank, ever, relies on information provided by the lender. I have never in my life seen a loan skip underwriting and verification.
If you worked in PE then you would know that in order obtain a loan for a buyout the bank receives financials and additional data from the sponsor and conducts Q&A with the sponsor to provide staple financing. The bank also relies on the borrower's QofE report. The closest the bank would come to the Company would be one or two diligence sessions with management where all prospective lenders are present.

I've worked in PE and investment banking (both M&A and LBO underwriting). I've worked on RE deals at that level. I have friends and coworkers that work in RE IB. Banks don't deploy their own resources to independently review the company in depth, even on large deals. I've worked on several multi-billion dollar leveraged loan underwritings at one of the largest banks in the world, and we didn't even do it for those. As part of that I regularly sat in on credit committee meetings and discussed credits with the bank's senior professionals (the committee that approves literally every leveraged loan the firm makes). You're just wrong. Maybe you were working in lower-mid market PE and dealing with some regional banks that do things differently because the deals are so small but at the level we're talking about that's not how it works.
 
Last edited:
If you worked in PE then you would know that in order obtain a loan for a buyout the bank receives financials and additional data from the sponsor and conducts Q&A with the sponsor to provide staple financing. The bank also relies on the borrower's QofE report. The closest the bank would come to the Company would be one or two diligence sessions with management where all prospective lenders are present.

I've worked in PE and investment banking (both M&A and LBO underwriting). I've worked on RE deals at that level. I have friends and coworkers that work in RE IB. Banks don't deploy their own resources to independently review the company in depth, even on large deals. I've worked on several multi-billion dollar leveraged loan underwritings at one of the largest banks in the world, and we didn't even do it for those. As part of that I regularly sat in on credit committee meetings and discussed credits with the bank's senior professionals (the committee that approves literally every leveraged loan the firm makes). You're just wrong. Maybe you were working in lower-mid market PE and dealing with some regional banks that do things differently because the deals are so small but at the level we're talking about that's not how it works.

Of course the bank is going to recieve full financials and disclosures. I have never seen a nine figure or higher deal where the sole material underwriting was based on was provided by one of the involved parties, have you? My career in PE was related to healthcare LBO and M&A, which has a lot of overlap with real estate for obvious reasons.

The idea that you worked for a money center institution that worked entirely off unvalidated involved party supplied information is comical. What shop was that? Where was it? Des Moines?
 
Of course the bank is going to recieve full financials and disclosures. I have never seen a nine figure or higher deal where the sole material underwriting was based on was provided by one of the involved parties, have you? My career in PE was related to healthcare LBO and M&A, which has a lot of overlap with real estate for obvious reasons.

The idea that you worked for a money center institution that worked entirely off unvalidated involved party supplied information is comical. What shop was that? Where was it? Des Moines?
To say that banks would not have independent appraisals when lending tens/hundreds of millions of dollars or insurers when insuring tens/hundreds of millions or tax assessors when valuing tens/hundreds of million dollar properties is absurd.

This civil lawsuit is an absurd campaign stunt and this hack should be voted out in a few weeks.
 
Of course the bank is going to recieve full financials and disclosures. I have never seen a nine figure or higher deal where the sole material underwriting was based on was provided by one of the involved parties, have you? My career in PE was related to healthcare LBO and M&A, which has a lot of overlap with real estate for obvious reasons.

The idea that you worked for a money center institution that worked entirely off unvalidated involved party supplied information is comical. What shop was that? Where was it? Des Moines?
Full financials and disclosures that are provided by the borrowing party. QofE report paid for by the borrowing party. This is standard practice on any levfin desk at any large institutional bank. Who, like I said, I worked for.

The sponsor contacts you, provides you with information that they have received that's relevant to the deal, which usually includes audited financial statements, their lender model, their QofE report and any other diligence reports that they have paid for. It would also include supplementary information, of course.

The bank doesn't pay for their own QofE. The bank doesn't dig into the accounting systems of the target to validate the financials. The attestations in the financials and the QofE, and who they are performed by, are what they rely upon. The sponsor will facilitate diligence with lenders and manage the lender education process. Management typically only gets involved for a small number of meetings with all prospective lenders to facilitate additional diligence.

The bank will then create their own internal model based on different downside scenarios to determine the appropriate quantum and terms.
 
Last edited:
Full financials and disclosures that are provided by the borrowing party. QofE report paid for by the borrowing party. This is standard practice on any levfin desk at any large institutional bank. Who, like I said, I worked for.

The sponsor contacts you, provides you with information that they have received that's relevant to the deal, which usually includes audited financial statements, their lender model, their QofE report and any other diligence reports that they have paid for. It would also include supplementary information, of course.

The bank doesn't pay for their own QofE. The bank doesn't dig into the accounting systems of the target to validate the financials. The attestations in the financials and the QofE, and who they are performed by, are what they rely upon. The sponsor will facilitate diligence with lenders and manage the lender education process. Management typically only gets involved for a small number of meetings with all prospective lenders to facilitate additional diligence.

We are in the realm of semantics now.

My point is that when you have a lending situation of this size, the borrower doesn't just get to *claim* a valuation, they have to *substantiate* a valuation. That includes precisely what you have listed above. In those would be audited financials, proformas, projections, appraisals, etc. That's been my point all along, the bank is going to look at a stack of information from third parties, not take the borrower's word. You don't just get to go up and claim your collateral is worth $100MM, you have to be able to back that up with third parties. In smaller lending deals those are ordered by the banks, in larger deals they are provided by the involved parties, but subject to review and approval by the other parties. So, when this deal got done Trump likely provided a stack of third party resources to DB who reviewed and and found them credible enough to proceed. Now, if those documents are falsified, that is another matter entirely. However, if you had falsified documents in there this would be a slam dunk criminal prosecution as well, not a civil matter. Moreover we would have heard about it long before this from the IRS, NY Dept of Rev, a US-AA, or DB. The fact that we are now, many moons later, hearing about it via a civil action doesn't make sense.
 
We are in the realm of semantics now.

My point is that when you have a lending situation of this size, the borrower doesn't just get to *claim* a valuation, they have to *substantiate* a valuation. That includes precisely what you have listed above. In those would be audited financials, proformas, projections, appraisals, etc. That's been my point all along, the bank is going to look at a stack of information from third parties, not take the borrower's word. You don't just get to go up and claim your collateral is worth $100MM, you have to be able to back that up with third parties. In smaller lending deals those are ordered by the banks, in larger deals they are provided by the involved parties, but subject to review and approval by the other parties.
The point I have been consistently making is that the bank doesn't do their own independent appraisals. Thank you for agreeing with me.

So, when this deal got done Trump likely provided a stack of third party resources to DB who reviewed and and found them credible enough to proceed. Now, if those documents are falsified, that is another matter entirely. However, if you had falsified documents in there this would be a slam dunk criminal prosecution as well, not a civil matter. Moreover we would have heard about it long before this from the IRS, NY Dept of Rev, a US-AA, or DB. The fact that we are now, many moons later, hearing about it via a civil action doesn't make sense.

I mean listen man it's pretty ****ing easy to show that the financials aren't GAAP, that they were certified by The Trump Organization to be GAAP, that they acknowledged their responsibility for preparing them in accordance with GAAP, and that they provided them to lenders with the claim that they were GAAP for the purposes of obtaining a loan. If you can look at the evidence provided which shows this is a completely obvious case of fraud on that basis alone and come back with the response of "well they weren't indicted criminally for it so how can it be fraud" then you're just simping for Trump at this point.
 
The point I have been consistently making is that the bank doesn't do their own independent appraisals. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I never said the banks do their own independent appraisals. I said they *require* independent appraisals. Who orders them isn't particularly relevant.

I mean listen man it's pretty ****ing easy to show that the financials aren't GAAP, that they were certified by The Trump Organization to be GAAP, that they acknowledged their responsibility for preparing them in accordance with GAAP, and that they provided them to lenders with the claim that they were GAAP for the purposes of obtaining a loan. If you can look at the evidence provided which shows this is a completely obvious case of fraud on that basis alone and come back with the response of "well they weren't indicted criminally for it so how can it be fraud" then you're just simping for Trump at this point.

Looking, if they certified the financials and there was a material, intentional misrepresentation then you are 100% correct that's an issue. I have never disagreed with that. What I don't understand is how, if that is the case, it took this long for it to come to light and it is coming to light in this manner. Further, let's assume this is true for a moment, what are the damages in a civil case related to this?
 
I never said the banks do their own independent appraisals. I said they *require* independent appraisals. Who orders them isn't particularly relevant.
Ok, people here seem to think that the bank hires third parties themselves to conduct these things which is what I have been saying is wrong this whole time. If that's not what you meant then we were never in disagreement but everyone else here that's saying that is wrong.

Looking, if they certified the financials and there was a material, intentional misrepresentation then you are 100% correct that's an issue. I have never disagreed with that. What I don't understand is how, if that is the case, it took this long for it to come to light and it is coming to light in this manner. Further, let's assume this is true for a moment, what are the damages in a civil case related to this?

Money damages in a civil fraud case brought by the State are sized based on the disgorgement of the amount of benefit received due to the fraud.
 
Ok, people here seem to think that the bank hires third parties themselves to conduct these things which is what I have been saying is wrong this whole time. If that's not what you meant then we were never in disagreement but everyone else here that's saying that is wrong.

Yup, agreed, been swimming up river on that same issue. I tried dumbing it down to the local banker mortgage analogy and that still didnt get traction but that is likely where our miscommunication arose, all good.

Money damages in a civil fraud case brought by the State are sized based on the disgorgement of the amount of benefit received due to the fraud.

I haven't read through the filings, just perused quickly, but in this case doesn't that seem awfully hard to show? If the argument is that as a result of this fraud he received a larger loan than he otherwise would have, thus a larger interest expense and tax reduction accordingly, but that's still a tough nut to crack especially with DB not making that argument it seems. I suppose it would really depend on the extent of any intentional mistatement or misrep, if it isn't huge DB can just say "that wouldn't have necessarily impacted our decision" or some such. I just don't think they want anything to do with this and without that it might get hard I would think.

Now, if the financials they submitted grossly misrepresented financials, it might be easier, but could anyone really be *that* stupid as to submit grossly falsified financial statements, claim they are third party audited, and then double down through the process? Would take a set of brass balls and tiny brains.
 
From the article you linked

"We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did he,” said one person familiar with the matter, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of persistent political sensitivities connected to the 2016 election. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

Clinton investigation, forget about it. Trump investigation, he's guilty now find a charge.
 
I haven't read through the filings, just perused quickly, but in this case doesn't that seem awfully hard to show? If the argument is that as a result of this fraud he received a larger loan than he otherwise would have, thus a larger interest expense and tax reduction accordingly, but that's still a tough nut to crack especially with DB not making that argument it seems. I suppose it would really depend on the extent of any intentional mistatement or misrep, if it isn't huge DB can just say "that wouldn't have necessarily impacted our decision" or some such. I just don't think they want anything to do with this and without that it might get hard I would think.
The purported fraud had multiple different pieces so the $250m figure is likely a sum of the parts. Some of it is easy to size (for example fraudulently obtaining a multimillion dollar tax benefit) whereas other aspects will be more of a gray area. In any case that's one of the primary issues that will be argued in court.

In any case though DB doesn't have to make any argument. The suit is being filed by the State.

Now, if the financials they submitted grossly misrepresented financials, it might be easier, but could anyone really be *that* stupid as to submit grossly falsified financial statements, claim they are third party audited, and then double down through the process? Would take a set of brass balls and tiny brains.

Not sure if you read the filing in full but the statements were clearly and grossly misrepresented.
 
From the article you linked

"We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did he,” said one person familiar with the matter, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of persistent political sensitivities connected to the 2016 election. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

"We didn't expect much of it."

"A lot of people just forgot about it."

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing you'd expect to hear when an investigation turns up lots of wrongdoing.

Clinton investigation, forget about it. Trump investigation, he's guilty now find a charge.

Clinton was investigated, and now Trump will be. Not sure what more there is to say about it.
 
The point I have been consistently making is that the bank doesn't do their own independent appraisals. Thank you for agreeing with me.



I mean listen man it's pretty ****ing easy to show that the financials aren't GAAP, that they were certified by The Trump Organization to be GAAP, that they acknowledged their responsibility for preparing them in accordance with GAAP, and that they provided them to lenders with the claim that they were GAAP for the purposes of obtaining a loan. If you can look at the evidence provided which shows this is a completely obvious case of fraud on that basis alone and come back with the response of "well they weren't indicted criminally for it so how can it be fraud" then you're just simping for Trump at this point.
Specifically what in the Trump statements submitted to DB violate GAAP standards?

Please keep in mind private companies aren't required to be GAAP compliant.
 
Please keep in mind private companies aren't required to be GAAP compliant.

They are if they are represented or required as such and you/auditor sign off on them as being such.

Depending on what is wrong on those statements it could be a headshot sorta problem.
 
"We didn't expect much of it."

"A lot of people just forgot about it."

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing you'd expect to hear when an investigation turns up lots of wrongdoing.



Clinton was investigated, and now Trump will be. Not sure what more there is to say about it.
It's what you'd hear when it's a sham excuse for an investigation not a real probe.

Comparing the Hillary investigations conducted with a predetermined nothing to see here outcome with the barrageooii I 6⁶yojoll
Feel free to read the filing. It's linked here along with a summary specifically referring to that question.
Feel free to answer the question presented. Unless of course you simply can't.
 
It's what you'd hear when it's a sham excuse for an investigation not a real probe.

It sounds like you're doing a lot of digging to hear what you want to hear when the investigation bellyflops.

Comparing the Hillary investigations conducted with a predetermined nothing to see here outcome with the barrageooii I 6⁶yojoll

Remeber: it's every Republican-led investigation that bellyflopped. The one time a crime was uncovered was literally the textbook definition of a "process crime," as athanius made clear.

Feel free to answer the question presented. Unless of course you simply can't.
 
It sounds like you're doing a lot of digging to hear what you want to hear when the investigation bellyflops.



Remeber: it's every Republican-led investigation that bellyflopped. The one time a crime was uncovered was literally the textbook definition of a "process crime," as athanius made clear.
Sounds like you are deep into denial about the Clintons. Hillary was given a pass on her illegal server conspiracy when despite Obama's DOJ doing everything to cripple it short of shutting it down the investigation produced a mountain of evidence she had engaged in criminal activity. Comey's definition of intent wouldn't get anyone out of a traffic ticket but it was an excuse to let the Clintons flaunt the rule of law.
 
They are if they are represented or required as such and you/auditor sign off on them as being such.

Depending on what is wrong on those statements it could be a headshot sorta problem.
Why do you support a thief who stole top secret stuff from you and I?
 
Sounds like you are deep into denial about the Clintons. Hillary was given a pass on her illegal server conspiracy

By every Republican-led investigation? That seems odd, don't you think?

when despite Obama's DOJ doing everything to cripple it short of shutting it down the investigation produced a mountain of evidence she had engaged in criminal activity. Comey's definition of intent wouldn't get anyone out of a traffic ticket but it was an excuse to let the Clintons flaunt the rule of law.

Don't forget the State Department and DOJ under Trump. They also dropped their investigations without finding any wrongdoing.
 
Back
Top Bottom