Trump Must Pay Half a Billion Dollars Before He Can Appeal New York Decision

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

That's the thing. Fraud is different to defrauding.

The value he gained by his deception?

Anyways I have said my piece so I will await his appeal, with interest.

I know that your questions are genuine.

We have had our little spats but I would never question your integrity.

And the bank DID NOT RELY ON HIS FRAUDULANT CLAIM. So WHERE WAS THE FRAUD? Then bank NEVER believes a possible customers claims. its done with ALL loans. Even the banks said they did not feel as if fraud was done to them.

a reply to: Vermilion

How exactly would they go after an international bank?

Just curious cause if they go after them they would probably just close the physical branch and tell them to pound sand.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Not for the charge to be made out, just deception.

He got the loans, ie a gain, by deception.

As I say, I'm no expert in NY law, but the principle seems to be the same.

Similarly, over here there is an offence under the Theft Act 1968 of "obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception".

Doesn't need a "victim" either. A third party, yes. And deception.

I am not a lawyer and dont pretend to play one on the interwebs...

but since the bank said they did an evaluation and based their loan off their own opinion of the value, who did he defraud?

I am honestly try to see the why of this particular case beyond political reasons.
(the above is what I got from a soft scan of publicly available information)

I am struggling to see who was defrauded, Trumps valuation was based off his attempt to better his negotiating position, as just about every real estate investor does. (to the best of my knowledge of reading on the interwebs so truck load of salt there)

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Vermilion

How exactly would they go after an international bank?

Just curious cause if they go after them they would probably just close the physical branch and tell them to pound sand.

I don’t know either.
The powers that be in NY will find a way, find a law if you cross them.
They’ve already made a law to get Trump for the e Carrol case.
I’m sure it would be easy enough to stop them doing business in NYC, besides any ludicrous fines and asset forfeiture they seem to favor.
The sky is the limit with those people in power.

a reply to: Irishhaf

There is a difference between fraud and defrauding. As I have posted above.

Attempting to better your negotiating position is fine, unless as found in this case, there is deception.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

once they get Trump, they won't use something this drastic ever again. I mean sure it worked, it accomplished the goal so far, but don't worry a bit, things like this just don't happen in Amerika.

They had no choice! Even if it took a miniscule law with little to no relationship, they had to get him for our protection! In case you hadnt heard, he was attacking our democracy and if he were somehow elected, I hear he is making transgenderism illegal and he will work toward making same sex couples punishable by death! He is even racist, having the nerve to call assylees "illegal" and suggesting that milk is not racist and being punctual or hard working is NOT a huge racist dig. I bet he is so evil, he is probably not even vaccinated!

This case has effectively said there is no negotiating contracts.

originally posted by: matafuchs
This case has effectively said there is no negotiating contracts.

Truly.
Be very careful next time you estimate the value of anything.

Estimate
verb
/ˈestəˌmāt/
roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of
noun
/ˈestəmət/
an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something.

This word is exactly why regular business gets done around the world.
Both sides negotiate based on their own estimates and meet somewhere in the middle.

a reply to: matafuchs

The Ruling has brought up the Possibility that Mr. Trump's 8th Amendment Rights were Violated with such an Excessive Amount Ruling . His Lawyer thinks there is a Appeal there .

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But its not deception since the bank still did its due diligence and mad their offer based off that?

If it purely said oh trump is an honest guy ill take his word for it, sure Id agree easily.

But they didnt, and testified on behalf of trump, thats what has me confused.

AP did an analysis of the law used in the case, and it seems like Trumps case is being handled differently than previous cases.

AP

They arent exactly big fans of trump.

a reply to: Irishhaf

You're confused because the criminality was assumed. That being there was not a trial or due process.


From there, it was simply a matter of some really funny math (not from Trumps perspective however).



When you think fraud, think criminal. When you think defrauded, think civil.


If that helps.

double trouble

a reply to: Klassified
They make a financial marter out of him , that could be in his advantage winning the elections even more ?

It's a $#it load of money but he will get that back when he becomes president.

And probably ruin those who didi that to him , but if wise he should only point them out for doing this ...

a reply to: JinMI

Ah , Suppose Trump decides to Not Pay ? Then What ?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

That's because it's called "fraud" and not "defrauding."

It's always been the same over here. It's all about deception and thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage


No need for a "victim".

Since when do we have a victimless crime being Constitutional? How can we have a victimless crime?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

ok , lets agree there was some deception .. the amount is insane attempt to ruin a man in the state he holds the most assets.

trump was caught drunk driving and instead he was charged capital murder found guilty and sentenced to 50-life.

this is clear weaponization of the legal system to ruin the outsiders ...

they are also doing it with musk

judge says musk doesnt deserve the money he earned

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: matafuchs

Trump did material misstatements.

Like he claimed his triplex apartment in Trump Tower in Manhattan was 30,000 square feet when it’s actually 11,000 square feet.

It`s considered fraud .

Not according to legal experts and other Real Estate businesses. Are you on the peoples side or the Commies? I think you know it isn't the people.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: JinMI

Now your just not making sense.
Are you flustered?

I am asking you why do you think you make any sense. The number of likes per comment suggest you have issues with reality and finding people who are shilling with you doesn't it?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Who is the victim and where is the money going? I will continue to say it because you have no real answer. There is not one.

These fools will not stop their foolishness. All it is doing, and they don't even realize it, is giving their #1 enemy some ideas on where the stupid parts are exactly. Easy to deal with stupid when they are also deliberately ignoring truth unless their party is in full Totalitarian power of the nation. We see this mentality is the tool of the "Rules for Radicals". Constantly pretending they don't see reality reveals their need to be liars or they FAIL to maintain control of their "marks". Criminals work this way.