Letitia loses, 500 mil judgement tossed in court

People who say things like this really don’t get it. Lying on your financial documents to fool the other party is fraud. It doesn’t matter if anyone was hurt or not. This is the kind of greedy unethical behavior that led to the mortgage crisis in 2008 and created a worldwide recession.

It’s not “Good Business”. It’s morally reprehensible and thinking that it’s OK just means you have the ethics of a used car salesman.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Except the other party did their own research and was fine with the deal. Nobody was “fooled”. A business deal that both sides are fine with is fraudulent to nobody and the government has no business being involved at all, let alone trying to prosecute either side of a mutually agreed upon contract. Good luck building so much as a doghouse when Uncle Sam starts inserting himself between the contractors and financiers for no reason other than to try’n sway voters.

Except the other party did their own research and was fine with the deal. Nobody was “fooled”. A business deal that both sides are fine with is fraudulent to nobody and the government has no business being involved at all, let alone trying to prosecute either side of a mutually agreed upon contract. Good luck building so much as a doghouse when Uncle Sam starts inserting himself between the contractors and financiers for no reason other than to try’n sway voters. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

There are no less than 10 other threads on HOW, Who and What was the defrauded parties in the case. In addition, at least one person here who is a lawyer, pointed out that crimes against the state don't always have to have a victim, but rather it's about the criminal behavior that could result in a victim. IE drunk driving- doesnt' always result in a death, but it could, but the infraction is still a crime. Same thing with fraud, or attempt to defraud, or presenting inaccurate financial statements in order to create a false impression or get more favorable rates, etc. Banks are in business to make money- they look at loans and equate the default rate based on those documents submitted at a loan application and rely on them to be factual.

Does it mean that you won't get a loan if the applications are accurate and mediocre- vs. false -fabulous and favorable? No- but you will certainly pay more juice / interest on the loan. If you're a shareholder of that bank- you want your interest of ownership to be protected by the laws that ensure that loans are done according to the LAW. The banks deserve to get the interest on loans as the application would warrant. You as a shareholder deserve to reap the benefits of a business that is paid fairly based on the loans that they administer. Not a discount loan based on lies.

The law that he was charged with has specific reasons for being in place: Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.

AND not a get out of jail free card- (Not just some say-so bullshit) that Trump decided to put on a disclaimer.

So in that case specifically, Trump likely created a false impression where either the equity, the collateral, or the down payment, or the terms relating to interest were affected. Any loss of income offset by those lies- was the damage. Not all loans default because of lower interest or higher interest, so it's not a 100% loss, but lets say it's a 100k in loss of interest revenue to the bank..it's still a loss of income or closing costs etc.

You guys would turn a blind eye if an attempted murder happened but the guy missed his target- because there wasn't a murder that resulted. Same thing- sometimes the criminal actions are against society and laws, and norms. If you let everyone do that shit, what would the be the reason for having things like disclaimers on an application saying that the information is true to the best of your knowledge? When it's been proven- that TRUMP and his family knew that it wasn't true, those were flagrant violations of banking laws and many ppl have got to jail for lying on them. Bad enough in-fact, that Trumps' accountants dropped his ass since he wasn't following GAAP principles on valuations specifically!

If you need more details that that- you're only looking to obfuscate the result cause you're a bline supporter of a criminal organization who has made a living of defrauding ppl and walking the thinnest of lines of the law- breaking laws almost at every single thing they do.

That's DJT in a nutshell.

Defrauder in chief, engorger in charge, and violator of all laws that no-one will hold him accountable for; Emoluments violations, Kleptocracy, bribery recipient- and on and on and on.

That's djt in a nutshell.

Defrauder in chief, engorger in charge, and violator of all laws that no-one will hold him accountable for; Emoluments violations, Kleptocracy, bribery recipient- and on and on and on. Originally Posted by eyecu2

It's truly pathetic what these asshole MAGAs are not only letting him get away with, but celebrating, when he breaks yet another law.

The Constitution is no longer worth the parchment it was written on. All to appease a traitor to the country. Safe to say the founders never saw this coming.

MAGA will be the absolute death of democracy, if allowed to go unchecked for the next 3½ years.

*bunch of tripe* Originally Posted by eyecu2

Except it was THE BANK that evaluated the loans. If investors want to be pissed because the bank could have made more money, their problem is with the lending practices of THE BANK, not the guy who got the loan. They knew exactly the values they were lending against, or do you think they don’t check and just take your word for it? Seriously, WTF? Are you like 6 and have no idea how a secured loan works? Go try’n finance 100k on a base model Sonata, or get a mil mortgage on an East Liberty shithole and see what happens.

Except it was THE BANK that evaluated the loans. If investors want to be pissed because the bank could have made more money, their problem is with the lending practices of THE BANK, not the guy who got the loan. They knew exactly the values they were lending against, or do you think they don’t check and just take your word for it? Seriously, WTF? Are you like 6 and have no idea how a secured loan works? Go try’n finance 100k on a base model Sonata, or get a mil mortgage on an East Liberty shithole and see what happens. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

The amount of mortgage fraud that occurred during the mortgage meltdown in 2008 is staggering proof that no they don’t check and yes people lie on their paperwork and affidavits.

It’s still fraud and it’s still illegal.

Why not charge the lender?

Didn't they have an obligation to do their due diligence before lending out their customers money?

The amount of mortgage fraud that occurred during the mortgage meltdown in 2008 is staggering proof that no they don’t check and yes people lie on their paperwork and affidavits.

It’s still fraud and it’s still illegal. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Apples to oranges. Banks (mostly small, private mortgage brokers actually) were taking people’s word for income, not appraisals. The lenders didn’t care because they were selling off the mortgages immediately to banks who rolled them into worthless securities. 100% agree that this should’ve been illegal, but it’s no comparison to the Trump case.

Didn't they have an obligation to do their due diligence before lending out their customers money?

They did, and determined that the loan was fine and would be profitable so they made it.

The entire matter is nothing more than an attempted political gotcha, which obviously backfired.

Apples to oranges. Banks (mostly small, private mortgage brokers actually) were taking people’s word for income, not appraisals. The lenders didn’t care because they were selling off the mortgages immediately to banks who rolled them into worthless securities. 100% agree that this should’ve been illegal, but it’s no comparison to the Trump case. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Actually it’s the same damned thing. Trump lied in print and in word. He’s been found guilty of repeatedly lying about his assets.

But that’s considered OK by all those used car salesmen who lie for a living.