Judge rules Trump committed fraud in building real estate empire

[roamer_1]

With loans, more assets as collateral, gets you lower rates because the risk is lower. So even if you pay back the loan you still benefitted from the fake asset values (if they are fake). They are ill gotten gains. So there is material gain from doing this. But, normally it is the lenders responsibility to determine what assets are worth. On the other hand, if you hide debt/liabilities from the lender that is a crime.

But still, if the contract was conducted accordingly, and with honor, then there has been no harm... Or all lawyers and used car dealers would be at the bottom of the ocean... and while that might be a favorable outcome in most cases (present company excepted all around), lawyers and used car salesmen remain.

[mystery-ak]

 Trump could lose control of famed properties under New York fraud ruling
by Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee - 09/27/23 3:06 PM ET

A major loss Tuesday in former President Trump’s New York civil fraud case raises the potential for him to lose control of some of his famed properties and ability to do business in the state.

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that state Attorney General Letitia James (D) proved core elements of her far-reaching case, narrowing the scope of the trial that is set to begin as soon as Monday.

The decision finds Trump, two of his adult children — Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — and their businesses liable for fraud after James’s office sued them last September. They have denied any wrongdoing and vowed to appeal.

Here are five things to know about Trump’s big loss:

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4226139-trump-could-lose-control-of-famed-properties-under-new-york-fraud-ruling/

[roamer_1]

That's because the policy behind Executive Law §63(12) is to police people who are persistently engaged in conduct that could give rise to fraud.  It's not an odd distinction, it's similar to setting a speed limit on the highway and ticketing or arresting people who violate that speed limit, whether or not they actually caused any harm through their speeding.

It's also similar to laws that make it illegal to engage in false advertising - those statutes typically apply regardless of whether or not anyone was actually harmed by an instance of false advertising.

Thank you. Your analogy sufficed... So now then, is this a sticky wicket, or is it likely to be overturned? And how is the appeal likely to be laid (grounds)?

[240B]

I’ll second that

At first glance, this seems like a political witchhunt. But when it’s explained by @Kamaji, it becomes more in focus

Apparently this Judge valuated Mara Lago at $18 million, which is apparently what HE would pay for it. Independent valuations are over $300 million. It seems that this Judge is deciding 'fraud' based on his own personal opinion, not based on a free and fair marketplace.

It is on appeal.

[Kamaji]

Thank you. Your analogy sufficed... So now then, is this a sticky wicket, or is it likely to be overturned? And how is the appeal likely to be laid (grounds)?

Since it was a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the first tack will be to demonstrate that there is a disputed matter of fact that must be tried to a fact-finder.  One could also try to argue that the judge misapplied the law as it exists (unlikely), or that the controlling precedents are wrong and that something more than just a persistent course of conduct of issuing “imaginative” statements of financial condition is required for a person’s conduct to come within the statute.

[Kamaji]

Apparently this Judge valuated Mara Lago at $18 million, which is apparently what HE would pay for it. Independent valuations are over $300 million. It seems that this Judge is deciding 'fraud' based on his own personal opinion, not based on a free and fair marketplace.

It is on appeal.

The judge didn’t pull a valuation out of thin air or base it on his own subjective sense of value.  That would have been a value drawn from the documentary evidence adduced by the attorney general and already admitted into court.

[roamer_1]

Since it was a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the first tack will be to demonstrate that there is a disputed matter of fact that must be tried to a fact-finder.  One could also try to argue that the judge misapplied the law as it exists (unlikely), or that the controlling precedents are wrong and that something more than just a persistent course of conduct of issuing “imaginative” statements of financial condition is required for a person’s conduct to come within the statute.

So factual disputation is the likely forward play - Thanks... 

[240B]

The judge didn’t pull a valuation out of thin air or base it on his own subjective sense of value.  That would have been a value drawn from the documentary evidence adduced by the attorney general and already admitted into court.

Whether the Judge or some paid third party, somebody did pull valuations out of thin air, and grossly undervalued.

[Hoodat]

A New York judge on Tuesday found former President Trump liable for fraud, handing a major legal victory to New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in her sprawling civil case over Trump’s businesses.

They must have uncovered more dirt on Biden yesterday.

[Kamaji]

Whether the Judge or some paid third party, somebody did pull valuations out of thin air, and grossly undervalued.

Hardly.  Read the opinion and find out where the valuation came from.

[Hoodat]

It seems that this Judge is deciding 'fraud' based on his own personal opinion, not based on a free and fair marketplace.

It also seems that this judge is deciding 'fraud' without there being any victim of fraud.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/MariaBartiromo/status/1706852895126098138

[DefiantMassRINO]

How many other real estate developers play the same game?

Trump can't be the only one in New York.

[Hoodat]

https://twitter.com/ChayaRaichik10/status/1706946752782467319

[libertybele]

How many other real estate developers play the same game?

Trump can't be the only one in New York.

Probably not, but the only one that they are interested in holding responsible is Trump.

[corbe]

   "I'm a successful Businessman, worth $10B; I will not be beholden to Special Interests in Washington DC, I will Self-Finance my campaign."   

[Smokin Joe]

John LeFevre
@JohnLeFevre
The New York judge says Mar-a-Lago is worth between "$18 and $27.6 million."
A nearby vacant lot (2.3 acres) is for sale on Zillow for $200 million.
Mar-a-Lago sits on 17 acres, with waterfront on both sides.

Is the judge licensed to evaluate real estate? Is the judge a broker?

[Kamaji]

How many other real estate developers play the same game?

Trump can't be the only one in New York.

Most real estate developers don't consider "truthful hyperbole" to be the mainstay of their business practices; Trump did and still does.  A more honest word for "truthful hyperbole" is lying.

[Kamaji]

It also seems that this judge is deciding 'fraud' without there being any victim of fraud.

No, he's not.  Reading the opinion itself would prove quite edifying.  The statute under which the Attorney General has sued Trump does not require that there be a "victim of fraud", it requires only that the defendant have persistently engaged in conduct that "has the capacity or tendency to decieve, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud.  People v. Gen. Elec. Co."  See page 18 of the opinion under the heading "Materiality".

[Kamaji]

Is the judge licensed to evaluate real estate? Is the judge a broker?

Three words:

Read.

The.

Opinion.


The judge derived that valuation from the evidence submitted by the NY attorney general, specifically, the Palm Beach County Assessor's valuation for property tax purposes.  See page 26 of the opinion; to wit: "From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million.  NYSCEF Doc. No. 905."

In the absence of other credible valuation reports, and in the absence of any reason to believe that the property assessor is valuing on some other basis other than a good-faith fair market value basis, the valuations provided by a local property tax assessor are generally admissible as evidence of value.

Furthermore, the evidence that Trump put into the case regarding how he and his team had valued Mar-a-Lago were conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation.  Accordingly, not worth the paper written on.

Once again, Trump has done this to himself, repeatedly, and he has nobody but himself to blame.

[massadvj]

   I was aware of that @Kamaji BUT he probably got loans of those 6 failed businesses; Water, Steaks, Airline, Casino and University?  My impression is that he was always a mediocre Businessman at best.

Like any businessman, Trump has had winners and losers. I don't think he necessarily lost money on the water, steaks and university. These were cases in which he probably lent his name for a fee. He definitely lost money and left a lot of people holding the bag in the casino business, and I think the same might be true of the airlines.

Trump's modus operandi has always been to leave a lot of fecal matter in his wake. He did that as a businessman, and he does that as a politician. I sometimes wonder how it is at all possible for him to continue to be viable with all the enemies he has made. Even I have to admire his resilience and unmitigated gall.  I won't vote for him in the primary, but I can't help but see what he is up against, and admire how he refuses to capitulate.

My biggest fear is that he is more interested in the regency of the office, and less interested in doing the hard things that need to be done. Other than punishing his enemies -- which I have no doubt he will do -- I don't think he has the inclination or the capability to reverse the bullying by the federal government. I think he wants that power for himself.

 

[Hoodat]

Apparently this Judge valuated Mara Lago at $18 million

Sounds like the judge is the one here committing fraud.

[Hoodat]

Three words:

Read.

The.

Opinion.

Did the opinion happen to mention the name of the party that was defrauded and the amount of their losses?

[LMAO]

My biggest fear is that he is more interested in the regency of the office, and less interested in doing the hard things that need to be done. Other than punishing his enemies -- which I have no doubt he will do -- I don't think he has the inclination or the capability to reverse the bullying by the federal government. I think he wants that power for himself.

Truth

[Kamaji]

Did the opinion happen to mention the name of the party that was defrauded and the amount of their losses?

The statute in question does not require that.  Read.  The.  Opinion.

This is not some fly-by-night, "creative" interpretation of a statute that has never been used against anyone else.  This statute has seen a fair bit of use against the likes of General Electric and Dominos Pizza, and it does not require that anyone have been defrauded.  It is like a speed limit or the laws against deceptive advertising - the violation happens if one speeds or engages in deceptive advertising, whether or not anyone was injured by one's speeding, or by one's deceptive advertising.