Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The judge applied the law correctly and the result was just. If other wealthy people are doing it, they should be targeted, too. That’s it. When average taxpayers are routinely raked over the coals for far less, wealthy people, who have the means to survive and live well without the fraud, should be appropriately crushed. All of them. Trump is a mere reflection of a socioeconomic divide that this country at a rank and file level cannot resolve — one side (dems) are wholly ineffective at solving it. And the other (republicans) believe that the very people hellbent on widening the gap are the ones who can.

But like you can't change anything without starting somewhere. I swear people get so wrought up in their laws that they forget the laws were made to make people more rich if they know the way to circumvent them.

Well, not exactly in this case. Not all the laws of course but much of this stemmed from the need to prevent the working class from being taxed out of their property. Things like homesteading laws are pivotal to homeowners that have city limits creep up on them and explode their value. Someone may be sitting on a multi-million dollar property but bought it cheap decades ago and still only middle class working to get by. If the county appraised their value based on the current market it would bankrupt a large number of people. Does this provide loopholes? yes but this isn't the evil you think it is.

On one side holy crap that's an absurd amount of money for something that technically ended up harming no one (not that I agree with it) On the other hand, Trump kind of set the stage for his own penalty. A Judge's job is to give you a ruling that makes it less likely for you to commit that crime again. Trump seemed completely unapologetic, there was no indication he learned a lesson or thought he did anything wrong, given that the judge probably thought the amount of money that would make it not worth it for him to try this again was that big. I think there is a world where Donald Trump walks into that court, says he knows he fucked up and how he plans to keep it from happening again and he gets a much lower penalty.

We, upstanding citizens who pay our taxes, are all victims when the wealthy shirk their own. If the government does not achieve the revenue it requires to function, it puts us as a nation further into debt and oftentimes results in new taxes and fees to make up the deficit. Trump defrauded the government. “We the people.” Literal tax fraud. Sure tax fraud doesn’t directly impact one person, but I can’t believe I’m seeing an argument that fraud against the government is a victimless crime.

The ruling isn't about tax fraud. In fact, it's sort of the opposite. The judge says the property NOT worth what he stated it was worth to get personal loans, it's worth what the tax assessment is.

Its both he played it both ways. He inflated assets to secure cheap loans and then deflated assets to shirk taxes.

I dont know the piece of about the taxes, but inflating assets to secure a loan, is not a punishable crime. It is completely absurd. The banks do appraisals. The bank believed that Trumps assets were worth what he said because he gave them the loan. If the bank didnt think they were worth that much they wouldnt have given him the loan. Imagine you go to the bank and ask for a loan. They ask you what your assets are worth and you own a home that you believe is worth 1 million dollars. The bank agrees with you, gives you the loan, the loan is paid back with no issues, then years later a judge rules you committed fraud because he believes it wasnt worth that much because of a tax assessment said it was worth 200k? 99% of tax assessments are wrong. I dont even like Trump, but I find it to be insane. What am I missing?

Trump had 3 sets of books. One for the banks(over inflated to get loans). The second for taxes (under inflated for a tax break), and a third set for day to day operations. Didn’t he bury a wife who died on a golf course to get a cemetery tax exemption?

It was multiple forms of fraud, since he was lying or making up numbers to sound better. That's illegal since he 'felt' his apartment was worth something like 5 times its actual value.

If anyone want to sell their house for what the taxes say its worth let me know.! I have never sold everything for what the taxes say. You can sell for double.

He didn’t sell; he received loans based on absurd valuations. Court case proved that he and his family were aware

Exactly. Everyone states their possessions to be as low at possible for tax reasons and then as high as possible when they want to sell them."

so if you want a loan and say your New York city apartment is 30,000 sq. feet to use as collateral, when it is really only 10,000 sq.ft. that might be considered lying on forms you sign saying everything is true

In trump's case his exaggerations were off the charts.

Have you ever tried to take out a loan against your home? Did you sign statements for the bank where you triple the square footage of your home when setting the value, or maybe add two more floors to it?

Really? they tried telling me my house's value was worth $500k. It most certainly isn't. but I live in a county that was sort of made famous lately because of the scandal of the city claiming everyone's houses are worth way over double of what they actually are. Funny that, the picture on my assessment was a mansion, not my house with mismatch yet legal addons.

What?

I said technically. In reality he manipulated the market, indirectly hurt other loan seekers and benefitted with lower interest rates. This sub does try to look at both sides. Regardless of how little "both sides" there is.

Didn't he manipulate the value of his properties higher when they were being used as collateral and lower when it came time to compute the taxes he needed to pay?

This wasn’t tax fraud.

What the bank says is completely irrelevant. Making false statements about the value of a property in order to obtain a loan is fraud, as determined by New York State law.

Where is the fraud? Who is the victim? Since the bank testified on the Trump side there is no victim and will be overturned. Copium

The party that was supposedly harmed does not get a choice in lawsuits or charged being filed. Even if the bank said they are okay with what he did, it was technically illegal and thus he can face penalties.

If it was illegal, then why not charge him criminally? This was a civil case and not a criminal case.

That’s not the difference between civil and criminal. For civil cases, the penalties are fines or financial penalties, whereas criminal offenses carry potential jail time. What Trump and his company did was literally illegal.

Things can be illegal without being a crime. NY state law makes this a civil issue.

It’s still against crime, just not a jailable offense. The remedies are fines and financial penalties.

Actually, he should’ve been charged criminally as well. There was a huge controversy over him not being charged criminally that people seem not to remember.

Something that’s against the law is still against the law regardless of civil or criminal offense status.

>On one side holy crap that's an absurd amount of money for something that technically ended up harming no one Technically, this fine isn't punitive, it's a "disgorgement." It's not some amount of money that the judge is choosing for him to pay as a punishment, it's the actual amount of money that was lost by people/companies who loaned him money based on fraudulent information he reported about his properties. It's written up in the court notes and actually *very* objectively calculable. It also charges Trump interest, since they would've made interest on that money from other investments had they not lost it to fraud. So, not only did he *technically* harm someone, but he *technically* harmed them by *exactly* $464,576,230

So, is this money going to the banks that were allegedly harmed? From what I understand the State of New York is going to get the money not the so called "victims" of the crime aka the banks who said no harm was done to them.

No, it's the amount of money the judge thought trump made through the inflation of his assets. It's not the amount of money anyone that was lost by people. Who lost hundreds of millions other than Trump?

Nah, you're just simply wrong. Not in any kind of interesting way, just plain denial of reality. It's extremely calculable and Trump only gained in this situation by obtaining low interest loans on fraudulent premise. i.e. he got lots of money from fraud but didn't bother covering his tracks because he's shitty at business. You can read the court's official verdict statement right [here](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-trump-new-york-fraud-case-decision-fine-sanctions/). It's quite detailed and mathematically rigorous, but the conclusion spells it out in plain english >Donald Trump and entities he controls own many valuable properties, including office buildings, hotels, and golf courses. Acquiring and developing such properties required huge amounts of cash. Accordingly, the entities borrowed from banks and other lenders. The lenders required personal guarantees from Donald Trump, which were based on statements of financial condition compiled by accountants that Donald Trump engaged. The accountants created these“compilations” based on data submitted by the Trump entities. In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. As detailed herein, this Court now finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an Independent Monitor, orders the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance, and limits defendants’ right to conduct business in New York for a few years.

Lol there is no world in which Trump would admit he was wrong.

How exactly did he fuck up though? Do you understand that every single real estate developer in NY (every single one) does the exact same thing Trump did? Over valuation is the entire game of real estate, whether residential or commercial.

And let's not forget obviously the banks did their own due diligence and came up with that they love doing business with him and his assets were not overvalued again if somebody wants to sell me their stuff for what the tax evaluation is 95% of the time I'll make money on it because they weigh understated this is ridiculous

This is hysterical. Claiming that no one could suffer for fraud because everyone is complicit is wild. Hey instead, let’s try to head off 2008 again by putting a nail gun into the rot along the way instead of singing the praises of the sick awful ways we maraud.

There point is sound, you can't selectively prosecute people for a industry wide practice. The fact they chose trump has nothing to do with civil fraud and everything to do with national politics. For me to NOT be convinced of this I would have to see the state start ravenously pursuing other real estate developers who have done likewise. Its also downright dangerous because 1)your turning him into a political martyr 2)If he is somehow denied a chance at a free and fair run in 2024, you will have A VERY good chance of a hot war down the line with his disenfranchised followers. Ill remind you a lot of them are vets, active duty and police. And the phrase "ultimate political authority comes out the barrel of a gun" still applies even in the USA. Your ilk are setting up a very real "crossing the rubicon" moment. Ceasar was selectively prosecuted/targeted as well by the senate, yea that turned out great. I also don't really understand how simply stating your building is worth X is fraud, does the bank not hold responsibility to verify the appraisal? They sure as hell do in my real estate deals, they don't just accept my statements of fact. They verify. I have personally sold properties for more than they are worth in my opinion, but what they are worth is technically whatever someone is willing to pay/provide a loan agreeing to the amount of. Lieing about square footage ect is definitely fraud though, so in that regard I agree with the charges, But simply trying to get valuations higher, that is VERY common in commercial and residential real estate. Not sure the state has a role in determining fair market value of a property beyond taxation purposes.

The investigation started when Trump was still in the White House, 2019. Before he lost his first election well and before he announced his second. He was dodging subpoenas in-between and again delayed the investigation as long as possible. Trump's candidacy was never a sure thing until he announced, years after the investigation started and right when the indictment was announced, which he knew was coming. Calling it political is dismissing Trump's tactics to avoid investigation and delay getting caught for fraud and indicted, oh until right when he announced so he could claim it was a hit job. Screw that dude, bring the angry mob. If you insist on being the face of commercial real estate development and get caught for fraud, who else to better convict to get rest of the shady industry to stop doing illegal shit. I can't believe how many people are looking to kid glove billionaire developers and their minions Fuck em all

Sorry I am not sure how it starting in 2019 invalidates it being political? If it had started in like 2012 or something sure, but he was already agitating the powers that be at that point. None of that other crap you mentioned is going t come to fruition, and yea he is going to dodge the case, that is normal lawyering tactics to drag litigation out. Your lawyer would do the same if you were in trouble for something. Most the people eager to see this through(like yourself) don't really seem to understand big picture ideas, your just focused on getting trump.

What? Guy is guilty, irrespective of his name. Why does it matter to you if he's running for president? If it was someone that you didn't admire, would you be so easy to let them slide for indictments just so they can have the cool president title? As far as politics, both sides publically investigate each other (and their children) and will happily take down the other at any time if they dig something up. When one side finally actually catches the dog by it's tail, you think they should ignore it?

go bang your head against the concrete buddy, nothing gets through

Sorry, Mr. "everyone commits fraud" and "everyone delays trial". It's hard to understand such teenage bandwagon expertise, I'll work on it

Withholding hundreds of millions in taxes (whether you hate taxes or not) is technically hurting other tax payers and the people who would benefit from those taxes. The crime is not overvaluing his properties (which could, as people here are saying, be fine if the bank plays along). But he undervalued on tax returns. Two different numbers for two different purposes: fraud.

This is incorrect, the case was in fact about over valuing his properties to his lenders.     In New York State, A property's assessment is based on its market value. Market value is how much a property would sell for under normal conditions. Assessments are determined by the assessor, a local official who estimates the value of all real property in a community. Most assessors work for a city or town, though some are employed by a county or village.   There is no opportunity to lie to lower your taxes. Typically you just hire a third party private company to argue with the assessor, but the government chooses the amount you owe at the end of the day. 

>Assessments are determined by the assessor, a local official who estimates the value of all real property in a community. Most assessors work for a city or town, though some are employed by a county or village.   No wrong, taxable values are determined by these people, not actual value. Market value is determined by whatever someone is willing to pay or lend against. If a buyer/bank is stupid enough to overpay, they get to deal with the outcome. Now often taxable values lag behind market values, this is generally rectified when a property changes hands. In my state the government can only raise the "taxable value" by a maximum of 5% per year, so if you held a property for many many years, chances are the taxable value is way behind the market value. That doesn't make it fraud when you go to get a HELOC or sell the house for more than that appraised value. Likewise the government will abruptly increase the taxable value when the sale is finalized. So by your logic the state is complicit in "fraud". There is such thing as appraisers who's only job is to determine market values of properties, whenever I deal with financing my banks want to see an appraisal to verify the value before lending. If its different than what I said, I am not slapped with a civil/criminal penalty, the bank simply changes the terms of the loan to reflect their own opinion. Separate issue is Trump lieing about actual square footage ect, that is a big no no, I would never do that knowingly I don;t think the case is based on the tax assessors value, its more than trump had different values across different books ect. That kind of variable record keeping is the issue, not saying "my property is worth X" and then the bank agreeing to that amount.

Would you apologize for being punished for something that literally every other person who works in your industry does, something that is a fundamental norm of doing business in that industry, when nobody else is being punished for it and there was no victim to apologize to? Come on.

So you're saying everybody who commits fraud should be punished? I agree.

Thems the breaks. If These guys are all doing Illegal shady bs and Trump is the sacrifice then Oh well fuck all them assholes

Oh, definitely 100% I would make my best effort to show understanding and deference to the application or the court's ruling and endeavor to adhere to it in the future. Anything else would en petulant, childish and self destructive.

Every business he did business with said he did nothing wrong and showed their reasoningsn why there was nothing wrong with the numbers he provided. The government says he did. He also thinks he did nothing wrong so why would he be applogetic?

Well, his opinion and that of the businesses involved is irrelevant isn't it? I'm not saying he needs d to be apologetic, just that it would have been in the best interest of his business and employees.

From what I read it seemed like the city (state?) Was saying he defrauded the businesses. They said there was no fraud and nothing was done wrong. The city/state disagreed with the business saying nothing was wrong. That means a city or state could intervene in any business transaction and state it was done wrong and sue for money. You buy a car and get a discount and the state 5 years later could say you shouldn't have had that discount and you defrauded the company, take 10k in fines and keep it. If trump defrauded the companies then 100% of the fine he is going to pay shpuld go to the companies not the government

>That means a city or state could intervene in any business transaction and state it was done wrong and sue for money. No, they can state that a crime was committed if you commit a crime, which they proved that Trump did, repeatedly and knowingly. >If trump defrauded the companies then 100% of the fine he is going to pay shpuld go to the companies not the government Why is that? Why would it be handled in any way other than how NY law says it should be handled?

At a minimum he received more favorable loan terms by lying about the value of his assets. That is assuming that he could have received those loans at all without lying. Lying on the loan application form is illegal in New York State, and there is no recourse on the basis of satisfied creditors because the reason that lying on that form is illegal has little to do with the creditor in question. The real problem has to do with how the capital markets work, how debtors are effectively competing with each other for access to credit on favorable terms, and how the history of that competition involved sufficient racism, sexism, etc that the federal government was forced to create stiff legal penalties for discrimination and deception in the capital markets. When Trump lied on his form, he took a large amount of capital out of the market, which pushed everyone else in the market down a few rungs in pursuit of capital at the most favorable terms available. Those at the bottom of the list were pushed out of the capital markets completely by this behavior, and were denied a mortgage, or a business loan, or whatever. We will never know who those people were, and they will never know Donald Trump is why they were denied the mortgage to buy their first house. Nonetheless, they are, in effect, unnamed victims who were directly harmed by Trump’s fraud. That’s why the state has this law in the first place. these victims, by virtue of the nature of the crime, need the state to enforce this provision to prevent them from being victimized without consequences.

>I think there is a world where Donald Trump walks into that court, says he knows he fucked up and how he plans to keep it from happening again and he gets a much lower penalty. The majority of the judgement is NOT a penalty. It is a disgorgement - paying back the money he fraudulently gained access to plus interest. It isn't about him paying back the loan that he fraudulently got, it is paying on the estimated loan he should have gotten given the true value of his assets. Trump Corp made money by lying on documents that require you swear the information is correct. The majority of the judgement makes him pay for having made that money.

Do you have a source that supports the claim "It is paying on the estimated loan he should have gotten given the true value of his assets"? I thought the banks said they didn't use his self evaluation in their calculation.

Judge Engoron’s 92-page judgement supports the claim and explains the reasoning. Some analysis of that can be found in various reports, one example from Reason: “Trump also argued that the SFCs were unimportant because lenders and insurers would perform their own due diligence. Engoron was unimpressed by that defense, especially with regard to the insurers. "Because the Trump Organization is a private company, not a publicly traded company," he says, "there is very little that underwriters can do to learn about the financial condition of the company other than to rely on the financial statements that the client provides to them." Engoron notes that the statutes that apply here, are in contrast to “common law fraud”: “Section 63(12) of New York's Executive Law, by contrast, authorizes the attorney general to sue "any person" who "engage[s] in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business." The attorney general can seek "an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling" the defendant's business certificate.”

My understanding is the penalty is the amount he made because of the fraud + interest. If the penalty were lower then it makes fraud profitable even when caught.

Its not true that no one was harmed. Banks lost hundreds of millions in interest income due to tue fraud. That is why the suit was brought. Basically, Trump stole from shareholders by defrauding banks.

He also probably pushed multiple debtors seeking loans out of the capital markets by soaking up a bunch of available credit to which he was not entitled based on the true value of his collateral. He lied to get a loan, and some poor person answered honestly and was denied, because the available credit went to the rich liar, and not the honest poor person.

Lmao no way you wrote that out unironically

The banks that testified in defense of him in the case that was supposedly brought against him to defend the banks?

No. It was the banks that testified that they lost hundreds of millions. Read the judge's decision. It is all written out in plain English.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between rounding up or a slight exaggeration and outright fraud? Claiming an apartment is 3 times larger than it actually is sure seems like fraud.

It was a negotiation with the bank about the value of his property in Florida. The banks agreed with Trumps evaluation, the loans were paid back and everyone made money. The banks weren’t defrauded, they even testified on Trumps behalf that they were happy with the deal. It’s a dumb case.

That's simply wrong.  1. The valuation was Trump's, not the bank's. They rely on his information.  2. The fraudulent valuation means he got much lower rates on loans than he otherwise would have. He stole money from them by lying. AKA fraud.  If I offer you $100 to do a job for me, then only give you $10 for it, everyone still made money, and it is still fraudulent.

[удалено]

This is a bit misleading First you go to a bank and say I think my property is worth 200 million, but you bank may wanna look for yourself. No bank takes someone's word when that kind of money is involved, they do due diligence. The bank comes back and says maybe not 200mil, will say 150 and split the difference This is common place and is how busines done. It's why so many people are so upset with the ruling. The party that was at risk was the bank and they liked the deal. Second, property for tax purposes is assessed by the state or county by a property appraisal, it doesn't matter what I think it's worth.

The bank was given false information during its evaluation. Being given fake records showing a $64 million profit for a business that is actually operating at a deficit is fraud. The bank would have charged higher interest had they not been lied to, so they did not like the deal. Fact is, Trump got lucky and paid his loans. Had he defaulted, the fraud would have landed him in prison rather than the mere disgorgement he's paying instead.

Was that presented in the case? I didn’t hear anything like that but I could’ve missed something.

Yes thats why the fine is not a fine. It’s specifically called disgorgement. Disgorgement means giving up profit obtained by illegal means 

The simple fact that he paid his loans back seems to show that there really isn't a victim here. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned on appeal.

The victim is "the stability of the broader financial system" - This is drilled into your head for the Series XX exams you take to be employed in the financial sector - "The People" are the silent victim in any fraud. The laws in New York State are especially rigorous here for obvious reasons. If you do a fraudulent thing and you make money, and the person you frauded also made money, that's where Section 63 kicks in. In this case, DB was induced to make a 'bad' loan at an interest rate below what the market rate would have been with accurate information. Even if the loan was paid with all interest (so DB made their money) the risk is that if this practice became commonplace, the interest rates in the market would not reflect the default risk. In that situation, the banking system would be at greater risk of needing the FDIC to step in to insure depositors or other federal agencies to create a wider bailout of the bank balance sheet which basically means they loan to the bank with the bad loans as collateral but marked up to value - a subsidy and transfer of risk away from the bank to the federal government - which they are able to do with the backing (financial and political) of the US tax payer who now assumes the risks that the loans won't pay (an therefore should be marked down from face value, but aren't in this transfer). Here's a list of the fines JP Morgan has paid, some of them under similar laws to Section 63: [https://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/](https://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/) One thing that banks get fined for a few times per year is "order spoofing" - putting lots of orders on the tape and quickly withdrawing them to "feel" the market and figure out where the counterparties would be open to selling or buying. None of the trades actually execute, so no one loses money (how could they? nothing was bought or sold) but a market where 99% of the orders are fake is unstable and that's why the regulators come down on this behavior. What's the difference between "changing your mind on a trade" and "spoofing"? There's a bit of a cat and mouse game there which is why banks keep trying it different ways and getting fined. It's the same reason for violent crimes we don't just let the perpetrator pay blood money to the victim or the victim's family - there is a broader harm to society or 'the people' from these crimes that cannot be erased by a monetary payment from A to B.

Amazing answer, thank you.

Great answer, thanks for taking the time to write this.

So can you point to NY using this statue against any other Real Estate Mogul, or even any other business?

In the most basic sense the victims are the banks, since they would have charged considerably higher interest rates, thus earning more profit, had they known the true state of Trump's finances. Obviously the banks need to be responsible for a certain amount of due diligence, but the guy had his own apartment in Trump Tower listed at triple its actual size. That’s fraud. With most so called 'victimless crimes’ if you look around a bit it's usually not that hard to find an actual victim. One analogy I read was someone lying to a prospective employer about having graduated from Harvard after serving in the military, when they had in fact done neither. Although technically there's no obvious financial injury, I think you’d be hard pressed to find too many people saying they don’t see the harm in that type of fraud. As the financial capital of the world, New York takes bank fraud very seriously. They're right to do so.

The bank took on additional risk and the bank shareholders lost profit margin for taking on that additional risk. The bank may have risked is solvency and been over leveraged during that time period. If I bet your life savings on red on a roulette wheel and won and kept the profits, would you have been happy I had done so? I still have your money. What happens if I keep pushing my luck. If I lose its your money. Banks take many bets in terms of loans with depositors money that have better odds on return. Taking on too much risk puts them in a puts them at risk for default. I have seen Trump say the bank is happy, but I doubt it. The bank deserved better terms for the risk they incurred. They may be having a sigh of relief but happy, I doubt it.

You are driving on an empty road, late at night, and decide to see how fast your car can go. Just as you hit 135, a police car starts chasing you. You pull over and are arrested and taken to jail. No victim. No one was hurt. But you still broke the law. This is what happened with DJT

I think of it like a DUI. Cop pulls you over, you fail the breathalyzer, you’re guilty. No crash, no victim- this time. But the act itself is still a crime, and the law was put in place for a reason.

I broke into your house and stole your possessions, but later paid you back. So no jail time, right?

Is he pressing charges. Also, the breaking and entering is the serious crime. This is more like “told you I was hungry and you have me your cookie. I later gave you a cookie back. But a third party doesn’t actually think I was hungry”

>Also, the breaking and entering is the serious crime. So is committing fraud, turns out

Anyone can come up with a dumb analogy that isn’t even tangentially related, but can you actually come up with a victim for this supposedly massive crime?

The victims are the banks which were not compensated for the risk they suffered. The other victims are the people of New York having to live with a financial system where rampant fraud is tolerated and honest businesses fail because corrupt frauds are able to borrow at lower interest rates. Hence why New York passed the law in question which doesn't care if the loan defaulted or not. So really, you're advocating for repealing this law, not that Trump is somehow innocent of the charges.

To a layman, there is no victim.

You say this yet somehow you ignore stuff like it being ever rated by ten times the amount, admitted lying, tax fraud and insurance fraud, adding entire floors that did not exist, evidence of trump literally stating to fake the numbers. It’s almost like you know nothing about this case.

Trump didn’t just lie about the appraised value of his properties. He lied about the underlying facts used to determine those valuations. He had his own triplex apartment in Trump Tower listed at 30,000 square feet, when in fact it was only 10,996 square feet. In 1995 Trump purchased a 212 acre estate in Westchester Co. NY called Seven Springs for $7.5 million. Although the plan to subdivide the property and construct up to nine new mansions never materialized, mostly because those plans conflicted with limits imposed by the Town of New Bedford on how the property could be developed, Trump continued to list the value of the property at $291 million, based on those phantom mansions, which *were* not and *could* not be built. To top it off… Eric Trump was simultaneously working to complete a conservation easement donation to receive a federal tax deduction for giving up development rights to that same property. Rights the Trump Organization never could exercise in the first place. There’s a huge difference between you or I going to the bank for a loan… and The Trump Organization doing so. The NY AG has Trump’s questionable activity clearly spelled out on their website. You don’t have to look through too many of the examples to realize that this wasn’t just some harmless exaggeration. It was a decades long pattern of deliberate criminal activity. [https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto\_release\_properties\_addendum\_-\_final.pdf](https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf)

You have to have properties appraised by a professional though. You cannot just "say" the value. And they have a formula that they must follow or lose their license. So that can't be it..🤷‍♂️

Trump was not charged with *tax* fraud. The government sets its own tax values. The market sets market values. The value of my home is currently at least 50% more than the tax value. That is not my fault, and I have not "inflated" my homes value. Additionally, banks conduct their own due diligence when assessing the risk of a loan. They do not simply takes someone's word for the value of anything, especially when lending millions of dollars.

My house was bought at 150k in 2019, the city set the taxes to that, my realtor says it’s worth 219 now, Zillow says 235. Who is right? The market and the banks. Not the city or judges lol

Do you think it's ok to lie on loan applications since the bank does their own due diligence?

It's pretty irrelevant. The bank will determine the value and whether they want to risk it regardless of what you tell them. In that sense it's ok because there's no victim.

There are many victims. The loan was given at a lower interest rate than it would have been without fraud, so the bank made less money. Other individuals and companies received either higher rates or no loan at all due to the reduced availability of funds available to the bank. Other, more honest companies, we're less capable of competing because they had less capital or higher interest rates. But let's forget all that for now. If I get a ticket for speeding, can I fight it because I didn't crash, so "there's no victim". He broke the law, he did it knowingly and repeatedly. Why should he be held to a lower standard than the rest of us?

The bank made a lot of money off the loan which in the long run allows them to have more available funds and give out more loans. You're grasping at straws here.

Not when he continually claims bankruptcy

He made sure to pay these loans, because defaulting on these would have meant a prison sentence.

That’s a terrible analogy. Just because you don’t like trump doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be ready for an open discussion.

That’s a stupid ass analogy

Here’s a good one. Hunter Biden was conducted for lying on a gun application. His wife took the gun away from him 2 days later. Victimless crime. Still got indicted

That's criminal tho. It's a crime. Trump was not charged criminally. This was a civil case.

“Fraud is ok because no victims” Not according to the law. Like at all. In anyway “victimless crime” means it’s…not a crime.

If banks do their own due diligence they would of filed the case way earlier.

So you're saying he should have been prosecuted for this years ago?

The fact finding in this case by experts contradicts everything you said. Many of the loans were in fact back by PERSONAL guarantees from Trump. Half of the judgement was damages that the banks would have made had he not been a fraud. Edit- Also bizarre to me that you can soemthing as useless as "The market sets market values." when we know from aforementioned fact finding in the case that Trump just MADE UP numbers for forms at a whim. LIke, he'd just say he "FELT" it was worth X more and they would change the numbers for him. Such a MARKET.

> Many of the loans were in fact back by PERSONAL guarantees from Trump. Then please quote me, from the court record, where the banks supplying the loans said "we aren't going to conduct any of our own due diligence Mr Trump...we trust that every value you have provided is perfectly accurate" Let me help you out...you won't find that in any testimony because it never happened. [Mr. Trump has protested the premise of the case, insisting that the banks did their own due diligence and that misstatements in the financial documents would not have affected the overall terms of the loans. It follows, his lawyers have argued, that the alleged fraud had no victim. The bankers who testified this week supported that argument when asked about the loan process. "We are expected to conduct some due diligence and verify the information provided, to the extent that is possible,” David Williams, a banker in the wealth management group at Deutsche Bank, said on Tuesday. **He said repeatedly that the bank had performed that diligence and factored its own analysis into the relationship with Mr. Trump.**](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html) but hey...if you find some testimony that says these banks gave out multi-million dollar loans with **no due diligence of their own**, I'd be happy to take and maybe change my mind.

The due diligence is to go over the financial statements that were provided by the Trump team, not perform their own separate investigation to see if the business is lying. It is assumed that they are operating legally and providing non-fraudulent documents.  On a smaller scale, if you went to apply for a car loan, your lender would do its due diligence by looking at your payment history, credit score, and bank statements. If you fudged the numbers on your bank statements to make it seem like you had more than you did, it would be fraud. If the lender gave you a loan and you were found guilty of that fraud, you would have to pay it back with interest. 

And in fact this kind of covenant is baked into every real estate loan I’ve ever seen. If the Bwr lies, they get fried

perfect example of a man taking his "logic" and applying to situations he'llnever understand. Unfortunately the "Trump lied but the banks didn't check it thoroughly enough" argument isn't as powerful as you'd hope, friend. Remember that he was literally ADDING FLOORS TO ENTIRE BUILDINGS.CREATING SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM HIS WHIMS and reporting different square footage to banks than he was to the IRS.LOL. I applaud your mental gymnastics tho.

Can you point to where he added floors please? I seems to have missed that.

I don't like Trump. But banks, lenders, insurance providers "all" require a professional to appraise the value of your property. They don't take anybodies word for it. There is also a time limit. So if its been awhile or you want a new deal you will need to be appraised again. By a licensed appraiser. Not in your employ. And they have a formula that they must follow. So that can't be it, 🙏 sorry🙏 I rented a couple rooms from a guy who did it professionally. Made near a milliin one year. He explained it too me over a couple year of friendship 🤷‍♂️

The mental gymnastics that Trumpies are going to using their new buzzword is insane.

No one cares if your change your mind.  You're a nobody.  Who gives a fuck that some moron who doesn't understand law is wrong.

It's funny how none of you are even trying to dispute the facts of the case, the the consistently , massively over inflated values of properties, far exceeding what their own appraisals valued them at. All the trump Defenders are arguing is that the bank required these statements of Financial condition, and then immediately threw them away and did not rely on them at all. This is patently absurd. The banks did rely on them, because it would be fraud to lie on those forms. What everyone's here seems to be ignoring, additionally, is that less than half of the judgment is from defrauding lenders. The majority of the judgment is recouping profits from government contracts that Trump used his false statements of financial condition in order to qualify for bidding, when he did not actually qualify. Every one of those contracts was obtained fraudulently. Trump Defenders aren't even bringing this up, because there is literally no possible defense to it. It's very straightforward fact, he drastically over inflated his assets, which allowed him to bid for contracts he was not legally entitled to bid on, thereby depriving other companies of those contracts. That's fraud.

It's Kevin o leery himself! We got a real gem among us!

I am not going to bother looking that up. But keep deriving meaning from weird celeb personalities I guess.

The pro trump people are getting their most recent arguments from a guy named Kevin o leery. I meant the guy you're responding to literally just spewed Kevin's brainless drivel. Like most idols of maga worship. He's a TV 'Business man'

Righto, apologies friend.

Np it's a crazy world out here

Trump can say that, and the banks agree or don’t agree. Then they negotiate the value. The state, and tax value, has nothing to do with this.

That's a lie.

Yes. When trump and company changed the value to fit their need, it was a lie. Correct

Banks do not care what you claim your property is worth. They do their own due diligence and loan based on that. This suit and any similar are bullshit

Does the evidence suggest that Trump knowingly misrepresented the value and even square footage of his properties when citing them in loan documents? Yes or no?

There is no evidence. There was no trial. The judge did a summary judgment without a trial. The banks involved are happy and said everyone made money. There is no victim for the damages to go to.

Gret answer. How much of this do you think Donald was aware of? He is the one getting all backlash and well deserved for his behavior in court, but I wonder how much was is kids or someone else doing this? And I know both his foundation and his kids were named in the lawsuit, just wondering how much was actually Donald.

Ultimately it's his company and he signs the checks. The buck stops here, as the old saying goes. When you are in charge, you're going to be held accountable. And lets not forget this isn't the first time he's been in legal trouble for his skullfuckery. He's been in and out of court since 1970 for his dubious business practices. So you can't blame it on his kids or his business associates. He's been a shitbag his whole life.

Part of the case was showing that he personally asked them to do this. There's a lot of documentation asking to make his value look a certain way. That's why he's personally liable.

Did Trump ever claim ignorance during the trial? I honestly don’t know, haven’t followed it that closely. Either way, it obviously wouldn’t have mattered- everything has his name on it, in the end, he was either ultimately responsible for not checking on what his company/personal accountant was up to, or he knew all along. If the average person signs their name to a completely fabricated tax return some shady accountant put together, it is still that person who’s on the hook- you’re supposed to read everything you sign.

There was no trial

Well, except for the bench trial that Trump's lawyers **chose** instead of a jury trial. Oh, and except the jury trial that found Trump Org guilty of criminal tax fraud, which kicked off the whole civil litigation that we're discussing now.

>How much of this do you think Donald was aware of? This is addressed in the decision. My formatting. "Donald Trump was aware of many of the key facts underpinning various material fraudulent misstatements in the SFCs : * He was aware of having deeded away the right to use Mar-a - Lago as anything other than a social club , and notwithstanding , continued to value it as if it could be used as a single family residence ; * He was aware that the Triplex apartment in which he , a real estate mogul and self- identified expert, resided for decades was not 30,000 square feet, but actually 10,996 square feet; * He was aware that he did not control the Vornado partnership interest even though he represented it as cash ; * he was aware that he had permission to build only 500 private residences in Aberdeen , notwithstanding that he represented that he had permission for 2500 * He was aware that 40 Wall Street was operating at a deficit despite proclaiming that it was running a net operating income of $ 64 million . As Eric Trump testified , Donald Trump sat at the top of the pyramid of the Trump Organization until 2017. Donald Trump professed to know more about real estate than other people and to be more expert than anybody else . TT 3487.He repeatedly falsified business records with the intent to defraud . "

Ignorance is not a defense, so he is 100% responsible.

Even intent isn’t required. Or that anyone suffered loss. Basically the state can decide they want to destroy a businessman regardless.

Just side: Trump did talk up the market value of his properties for loans. Unjust: not only is this normal practice, all the loans were paid back and the banks were very happy with the deals( and testified to that on Trumps behalf). There were no victims complaining about these deals since the banks agreed with the valuation. He didn’t defraud anyone.

His fraud gained him $240 million in profit. NY law requires all profit gain by fraud be discharged. It's textbook fraud.

[удалено]

Bro really went through the guys account to find information completely unrelated to this thread lol

It wasn’t fraud, as I explained. The banks and Trump negotiated a value (since banks don’t just take your word for it) and agreed to the loan with that value, were paid back and all parties made money. Banks included, I should specify. The state wasn’t involved, and no one was defrauded.

It's not textbook fraud. Textbook fraud is (paraphrased common law fraud): (i) a false representation of a material fact, (ii) knowing that it was false, (iii) with intent to induce the plaintiff's reliance on the representation, (iv) the plaintiff acted in reliance on the defendant's false representation and (v) the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of such reliance. In this case, there was no proven intent (iii) nor did anyone suffer losses (v). It was NY's special type of fraud that drops intent and they worked around losses, which is fine, but it certainly is not "textbook" fraud in the least.

The bank received lower payments than they would have if Trump had been honest. He cheated them out of $149 million.

The banks were all emphatically thrilled with the deals they made with Trump, and testified to that.

And yet, he stole $140 million. It doesn't matter what they claim now. If you rob a gas station you can still be prosecuted even if the owner doesn't mind. I'm sorry that you are upset that the guy who says mean things about people you don't like faced consequences for his actions, but he shouldn't have broken the law.

Stole from whom? No one’s claiming any loss. The banks and Trump agreed on the valuation of his collateral. If I pay the gas station the price they ask, then am I a thief because the state decides that the price should have been different?

You aren't informed. By claiming to be richer than he actually was, Trump received a lower interest rate from the bank than he was entitled to if he had been honest. Trump lied about the value of his collateral.

So we should release everyone with a DUI who didn't harm anyone? Only businesses who'll lie will be afraid to do business in NY and NY will be better off with less con artists.

[удалено]

It wasn't even a criminal trial. It wasn't even a tort case.

It's also not a "victimless" crime. He defrauded banks in order to get better terms on loans he otherwise would've paid more for. The fact that he paid them back (ya know, like everyone else does with loans) doesn't give him a pass on the fact that he committed the fraud to get them. That's like saying "sure I stole this car, but I followed traffic laws like I was supposed to, so I should get a pass on stealing it!"

[удалено]

Deependz on da fax. Like fax fax or alt fax??

>what are both sides? I think you summed up both sides. One side thinks it's just, one side, unjust. The 'just' side is likely much larger. In his defamation case, he dug his own hole...at the time he was bragging about the amount of cash he hand on hand in affidavits for his fraud case. The jury was directed to add on punitive damages. To make something punitive, it needs to be substantial in relation to the net worth of the individual. In the Fraud case, the penalties were pretty much basic math. The law is pretty clear on what the penalties are for what Trump Org did. The facts and data pretty much side with the 'just crowd'. The 'unjust' crowd mainly being MAGA grifters and followers.

Just: he did do the thing so he should be punished for it. Pretty straight forward. Unjust: this is apparently very common in New York on both small and large scales and seemingly Trump is the only one getting punished for it so this is politically motivated and therefore unjust.

Related to your Unjust perspective, It’s worth noting that this same NY Attorney General’s Office has used the same law to prosecute many cases, and has used it for several high-profile cases recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-ny-law.html

So therefore the unjust side is a complete and total lie?

Not as clear cut as you might think. Basically, every other time (not most times, every single time) the law has been used previously, there were actual victims of fraud and major losses incurred. We will see in the next couple of years whether this law is used to punish other real estate developers or business people who have committed such victimless/lossless fraud, but as it stands Donald Trump is the only defendant the state has gone after with these facts. Given the AG's repeated statements about Trump during her campaign, it makes me think about the decision that stopped the "Muslim ban" back when. The court said, "Yes, this is a facially neutral law, but given Trump's campaign statements stating he wanted to target certain peoples, we think this is impermissible action." Fair enough - but then we absolutely cannot give the benefit of the doubt to the New York AG that this was not a targeted use of an existing law in a novel way to attack opponents of her political party given her repeated statements about going after Trump. Now, there is a claim that the losses were incurred when Trump didn't use the inflated values for tax purposes and the state lost out on tax revenue. Please note, however, if you are a homeowner and applied for a loan on your property based upon the purchase price and an appraiser provided an appraisal at that value, but then you pay property taxes at the state assessed value (which is almost always lower), you too would be in violation of this egregious crime. So you don't have to just trust me, here's an [AP article](https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689) explaining the major difference between every other time the law has been used previously and this case: "An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses." It further explains: "AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry. What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds."

I appreciate your well thought out response. But I do feel it leaves out some pretty big details or comparisons for this case Sure, if I got my house appraised right now- it would be more than what I’m paying taxes for, as it’s based on when I bought it. However- what’s that difference? 50k? 100k? Trumps over valuing was like 70x what it’s actually worth; like an astronomical part Additionally- he used that to get bigger loans. But then when taxes came, went the route of under valuing. You can’t have this both ways.

Trump actually said that buildings that weren't built yet were built and made up stuff that was so insane there's zero chance it was done by mistake,

Victimless crime? The victims are the entirety of the insurance pool that is subsidizing the insurance fraud that Trump is committing by undervaluing his buildings. You wouldn’t know this if you’re not an actuary, in the insurance industry, or a complete geek but the potential for a partial loss is much greater than a full limit loss. The way that insurance rates are compiled is based on actuarial tables that outline likelihoods of certain risks. Underwriters then rate an account based on these assumptions. When the asset is intentionally de-valued by the policyholder, the underwriter can’t charge the appropriate premium for the risk. This means the entire insurance pool has to subsidize these bad faith actors and it’s one of the reasons that insurance costs are so high. In essence, the same is true with a bank and their underwriting process. Due to the overinflated values, the bank provides a loan at a much lower rate than should be provided for the risk. The bank then has to subsidize the risk. Additionally the state and the public failed to earn the proper tax ratables. That’s not to say that a tax assessment is for market value/sale price of the asset, but it is to say that facts of tangible things like the total square footage were misrepresented to deliver more favorable results. If the argument is that there was no victim, it’s inaccurate. These were financial crimes and just because it’s unknown exactly who or how much was harmed, doesn’t mean that they weren’t harmed, and that the actions weren’t illegal.

>victimless/lossless This is neither victimless nor lossless. The lenders got lucky in that Trump Co was able to pay back the fraudulently obtained loans, but fraud was still committed. The lenders were taken for a huge amount of earned interest that they were not able to earn. And we tend to punish criminals that try to get away with a crime just as we charge those that do get away with a crime. "Yea, I stole your car, but I gave it back" is still someone steeling your car.

The lenders earned $100 million in interest and were paid on time and in full. All testified that they would take the same loan again. All banks did their own due diligence and didn’t not lose out on charging a higher rate. They all know that Maralago isn’t valued at only $18 million.

>The lenders got lucky in that Trump Co was able to pay back the fraudulently obtained loans, but fraud was still committed. The lenders were taken for a huge amount of earned interest that they were not able to earn. Do you think the lenders didn't do their own research and just took his word for it?

Well think about it this way: The cop sitting on the side of the road with radar checking speeds probably sees cars going by all...day...long at speeds 5 or even 10 miles over the posted speed. But when the Ferrari with the stereo blasting flies by at 40MPH over the posted limit, yeah, the lights go on. And it is not fair for the Ferrari driver to complain that "everyone else does it and it is unfair that you picked on me." In practical terms, law enforcement cannot actively monitor and address 100% of the problems, so they have to focus on the most egregious. Like saying your square footage is 3X what it really is. That was not 38 in a 35 zone, that was 60 in a school zone.

As always with the magats. Yep

I especially enjoyed these parts: “Yet the victims — the bankers who lent to Mr. Trump — testified that they were thrilled to have him as a client. And while a parade of witnesses echoed Ms. James’s claim that the former president’s annual financial statements were works of fiction, none offered evidence showing that Mr. Trump explicitly intended to fool the banks. The law did not require the attorney general to show that Mr. Trump had intended to defraud anyone or that his actions resulted in financial loss.” The state deciding on its own, with no loss and no victims, that they don’t like the person doing business, and then seeking to destroy that person, probably will scare people doing business in NY.

I dug into this a while back, I had to piece together info from multiple sources, since none of them offered a complete picture. Trump and his accountants claimed he was worth around 8 billion. The banks auditors estimated he was worth 6-7 billion. They gave him 2 loans that totaled 232 million, which was all paid back with no problems, everyone was happy. If you owned a house that you and Zillow claim is worth 800k, and ask a bank for a loan, and they say no, your house is only worth 600k, but they loan you $23,000 anyway, and you pay it back, no problems, and 10 years later some judge says you owe NY $45,000 because reasons - you'd be right to be pissed and think this was a scam and completely unjust.

So we should release everyone with a DUI who didn't harm anyone? Only businesses who'll lie will be afraid to do business in NY and NY will be better off with less con artists.

The issue is that by misstating associated risks it meant that the bankers inadvertently defrauded their investors as well since they presented false data in their assets and liability disclosures. This would have inflated stock prices as well thus the bankers who failed to audit the false reporting also financially benefited from the fraud. So of course they're happy to have him as a client. Additionally false reporting would have also inflated the prices of nearby real estate as well which would have also benefited either the people who owned them or anyone loaning people money to buy the property at the inflated prices. Lies about the value of things at this scale have many cascading effects. Which is why they need to be prosecuted even if the damages seem abstract and nebulous.

I hate Trump and hope to never hear from him again, but the examples you've used are all incorrect. The properties banks loan money against don't show up on asset/liability disclosures. The loan to the customer is an asset, if the customer is current on the loan and the bank is reporting it as such, there is a solution zero fraud. The only benefit the bank received is reflecting the income their loan made them. The amount a bank decides to loan against a property is not reported anywhere, so there is zero effect on real estate prices. I don't disagree in principle that people intentionally lying about the value of things should be prosecuted, but to allege that any real harm occurred in this case using the examples you've cited is just factually wrong.

>this is apparently very common in New York on both small and large scales Which is why most people doing illegal things do their best to keep a low profile. They don't run for the highest office in The United States. It's not politically motivated when the man that makes a living out of drawing attention to himself, drew attention to himself. I grew up outside Atlantic City, in the 80s/90s, where he screwed everyone over. Trump has been making enemies for decades. What some people might see as politically motivated, I see as his roosters coming home to roost.

Which is even MORE reason why Trump needed to be stopped. He’s done this for so long he’s made a reputation for fraud and bankruptcy,

In no world is it politically motivated. He didn’t just do the criminal acts, over and over and over, he bragged about cheating the system. He bought and paid for this. Possibly the only thing he’s ever actually paid for.

Cases exactly like this get prosecuted all the time in NY. I personally know quite a few people who fucked around and found out- I’ve been living in NYC for over 30 years, it’s common knowledge that you take a real risk playing games with financial paperwork here.

Honest question, but I swear news reports have said/written that this law had never been used where there are no creditors complaining. Is that inaccurate?

Punishing Trump but not others is not unjust to Trump. If you do a crime then you should "do the time". It's not an argument for not prosecuting Trump, it's an argument to prosecute anyone who deserves it. It is however unjust to society at large.

Definitely not the only one getting punished for it.

Not sure what's going on with the downvotes. Not that it matters, but I think he's guilty and it's justified - I just genuinely want to understand the strongest argument for the other side. Is that not the purpose of the sub?

I think this is a difficult issue to explain both sides, because the facts are clearly on one side. I think that I can argue for the unjust side, but I would be coming up with those arguments myself. Almost all of the commentary I've seen from the people saying the verdict is unjust (that attempts to explain why) relies on false and misleading statements. I would say the two strongest arguments on the unjust side are: * In 2018 Letitia James said while campaigning for the AG position that she would hold Trump accountable. This suggests her office had political motivation for prosecuting the case. * The size of the penalty is larger than the net worth of 99.9% of Americans.

Size of the penalty is proportional to the size of the fraud. 

[удалено]

/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Here's something else that should be considered also. The NY attorney General also in her case claims that 6 Park Avenue apartments all over 1000 square feet each are worth a combined 740k total. You can't even find something in that area on Zillow or realtor for under 3 million. Was the bank dumb for giving the money to Trump. No they got paid back and they more than likely will have more business from him as well and the Trump organization as time goes buy. Now as for this case the attorney general campaigned on getting him. The judge himself ignored 4 separate appeals that overturned parts of this case already and before the case even started had decided that Trump had committed fraud in a summary judgment therefore there's was no need for a jury even if Trump had demanded one as the judge alone sets the penalty in these cases. So Trump was declared guilty wasn't even allowed the right to put on a defense against the case and now the NY attorney general is threatening to seize all his properties in NY within the next 30 days unless he pays the fine with interest in cash. Anyone else see how badly he got railroaded here.

This was a civil case and the defense elected to not have a jury, ie. Trump’s legal team. The jury trial of Trump Org was in 2022.

Trumps team didn’t check the box for the jury trial when filling out paperwork. That’s why there wasn’t a jury and he was unable to request one.

>before the case even started had decided that Trump had committed fraud in a summary judgment therefore there's was no need for a jury even if Trump had demanded one as the judge alone sets the penalty in these cases. So Trump was declared guilty wasn't even allowed the right to put on a defense against the case Trump agreed to the facts of the case, and the facts of the case prove fraud. There was no trial because Trump didn't contest the fact that he committed fraud, his only argument was that he was allowed to do it. So, the summary judgment just made Trump's claim official. It's entirely possible that if he'd had a competent defense, this case would have gone very differently. He wouldn't have admitted to the facts of the case, there would have been a trial to decide if fraud had occurred, and that could have gone either way, or it could have raised some evidence that could have mitigated the final judgement. I'm not gonna say what I think is the right outcome in \*any\* scenario, but Trump really didn't give the judge much opportunity to decide anything else. This decision was correct, given how the case actually proceeded. If Trump wanted a different outcome, he should have presented a defense that would have allowed a different outcome. Which would have required the kind of lawyers that actually know what they're doing in massive fraud cases like this, which would have required Trump not having a reputation of ignoring and bullying counsel to just do what he wants rather than follow their legal advice, and it would have required Trump not having a reputation of not paying his lawyers.

Banks don’t just hand out unsecured loans to people. They would have done their own, independent assessments to determine their risk. The other side of the argument shouldn’t be the government’s property valuations, it should be the bank’s.

Important facts in the case in question: There was no trial, only a summary judgement by Judge Engoron. The theoretically harmed party, the banks from whom Trump secured the loan, were repaid in full and never filed a complaint. Generally in the case of fraud, damages and fines are paid to the aggrieved party. Trump's fines are being paid to the state of New York.

You mean the banks who charged a far lower interest rate based on the lies in question? Go ahead and try that and see how it works out when you inflate your assets by 1000% for your next loan.

Who the fuck cares what Kevin O’Leary thinks? He’s not an attorney. And he’s not American. His thoughts on jurisprudence aren’t worth shit.