I know of several people that have lied on loan applications and not only were threatened with the same legal action, but in fact we're sued and lost. Bank fraud is not a joke, and it does affect your holders as well as the bank itself. All banks do due diligence, but they do rely on financial statements that are provided by the applicant, and they have to attest that they are truthful to the best of their knowledge. In the case of the trumps, these folks have lied on multiple applications multiple times, and have abused the system to their benefit, and there is no claim from Trump they didn't.
Originally Posted by eyecu2
Fair enough. But did any of those people pay interest and principal in full and on time on all the loans, after lying on the applications? Did the government pursue legal action against the borrowers, without receiving complaints from the lenders?
“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.”
Originally Posted by eyecu2
It kind of sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, before listening to a single witness in his courtroom. Actually we already know that for a fact, because he already issued a partial summary judgement, ruling for the plaintiff. Given that he'll determine "punishment" too, he's judge, jury and executioner.
At the start of the trial, Engoron noted that no parties in the case requested a jury trial and that the law mandated a “bench trial” decided by a judge.....
Trump’s lawyers have pushed back on the notion that they failed to request a jury trial, as some have suggested based on paperwork filed in the case.
“Under 63 (12), which is what this case is, you don’t have a right, an absolute right to a jury,” Trump lawyer Alina Habba said on Fox News previously.
A Trump spokesperson said that the attorney general “filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury.”
“There was never an option to choose a jury trial,” the spokesperson said. “It is unfortunate that a jury won’t be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened.”
Originally Posted by eyecu2
From the same CNN article,
“It’s not entirely clear whether Trump would have been entitled to a jury trial under New York law – that would depend on nuanced legal determinations about the nature of the remedy sought by the attorney general,” said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and New Jersey prosecutor. “But Trump’s legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost.”
From David Schoen, an attorney on Trump's defense team in his second impeachment trial,
...I would have filed a jury demand to litigate the issue, because here there are very severe monetary punishments at issue, potentially,” he added. “And I think there’s a strong argument to be made for the right to a jury trial.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/polit...20jury%20trial.
So,- the next part- (current part) is sentencing. Was the fraud systemic and agreggious or a part of a scheme to defraud tax collectors, bank investors (share-holders) and to gain leverage unlawfully. So far, it's looking like yes on all accounts; despite the language that Mazars or Trump who SIGNED all the applications to being truthful to the best of his knowledge and under penalty of law, were accurate according to GAAP, (Generally accepted accounting principles.)
So in addition to the Fraud, here is what is going to be determined on next, and why the amount of detail etc. on things like who was aware, and who signed what etc.
What's at stake at trial: Trump and his companies could be forced to pay hefty sums in damages for the profits they've allegedly garnered through their fraudulent business practices.
Engoron will consider just how much the Trumps and their businesses will have to pay.
Since Engoron has already ruled on one of the claims — persistent and repeated fraud —he will now decide on the six other claims:
Falsifying business records
Conspiracy to falsify business records
Issuing false financial statements
Conspiracy to falsify false financial statements
Insurance fraud
Conspiracy to commit insurance fraud
Originally Posted by eyecu2
I've looked at probably hundreds of deals or companies where the promoters or owners exaggerated the merits or value of what they were selling. If they fraudulently misrepresented the deal and someone buys it and loses money, then the buyer has recourse through the courts. But how often does a "seller" get sued by the government, for defrauding huge corporations, when the corporations never complained and received 100% of the investment return that the seller said it would deliver? That looks to be what's happening here with the banks and it stinks to high heaven. It's politically motivated.
Now if Trump were submitting false information to, say, lower his property taxes, then that's different. And I have no idea exactly how over or underestimating property values would constitute insurance fraud. But those points don't appear to be a central part of Letitia James' case.
Sorry ALways Trumpers, but your boy is gonna get fucked hard and dry by the NY courts and he will spend the rest of the time wondering if the other AG's want to file a criminal case against him with the testimony that is garnered from this one. Conspiracy charges can be really bad when it comes to actually going to jail. If your business practices are ones that are used to deceive anyone about values, costs, taxes or insurance and yes banking, you're in deep shit.
Do I think they will file criminal charges? Probably not. But in lieu of those, they will absolutely strip him of any ability to do business in the place where Trumps Pap, and he himself have been doing underhanded, shady dealings for years.
Building wealth legally is admirable. Building it falsely or by deceiving others in business is not. Which one is Trump?
Originally Posted by eyecu2
Trump may indeed deserve to get fucked hard and dry, for attempting to steal an election. But not for the issues raised by the State of New York or by the Manhattan D.A. The later is even more ridiculous, claiming that paying off Stormy Daniels was a violation of campaign contribution laws.
I'd make a similar argument that Trump supporters did about Trump's first impeachment, over the perfect phone call with Zelensky. An election was coming up later that year, so let the voters decide. They did, and Trump lost. Similarly, if the banks and insurance companies want to sue Trump, then let them have at it. The state of New York shouldn't be trying to put Trump out of business and fine him $250 million for fraud, when none of the allegedly defrauded parties are complaining.
