N.Y. just let corrupt judge screw them (Page 3): By your reasoning, or lack thereof, the banks and insurance companies should also be in court for malfeasance. They all have fiduciary...

pendennis

Triple G wrote:

You are the one who just doesn't get that victims aren't necessary for trumps actions to be tried as financial record fraud.

Effate commented that trump is the worst fraudster ever because banks and insurers were happy with the transaction at the time of the deals. I'll bet they aren't now when they know they've been duped. Even worst fraudsters are the parents who paid many times more to get their kids into their preferred schools. In addition to paying more, they got fines and jail terms. Manipulating financial markets is fraud and illegal and should be prosecuted to the highest penalty possible.

You are just on the wrong track here. A claim of no victims is not going to get traction in an appeal under the 63-12 law. The only chance of appeal comes from whether that law has been properly applied to trumps misstating financial records and/or that the fine was not proportional to the amount of ill-gotten gains.

12. Whenever any person shall engage 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 may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for 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 any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law 3 or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/17/trump-keeps-attacking-this-statute-in-ny-fraud-case-heres-why-his-claims-lack-merit/?sh=5e4e267c7ab8

You are the one who just doesn't get that victims ... (show quote)

By your reasoning, or lack thereof, the banks and insurance companies should also be in court for malfeasance. They all have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and failing to act in their best interests should be a felony by your citation.

Triple G

pendennis wrote:

By your reasoning, or lack thereof, the banks and insurance companies should also be in court for malfeasance. They all have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and failing to act in their best interests should be a felony by your citation.

Not my reasoning -- majority of legal analysts' reasoning as I've posted.

If the bank officials & insurance agents (or accounting/auditors) were in on the mis-statements, then it would be a scam and part of the criminal case. Mazars sure dropped trump like a hot potato when all of this came to light. We'll have to wait for 3/25 criminal case for a determination to see if any of these people "knowingly" supported the transactions without having done their standard due diligence. If they are found to have neglected their fiduciary duty, then yes, they should also be charged. But that is secondary to trumps fraud.

Here's the trump org chart. If you were a loan officer and had a request for a transaction from just one entity on this list with accompanying financial statements signed off by the reputable firm Mazars (even with standard disclaimer language about relying on trump statements) and with personal assurance from a trump officer and pressure from your management to make this whale client as happy as possible, would you have the staff & knowledge wherewith-all to make a 100% accurate assessment of risk? Now multiply that by many requests, many banks, many loan applications, many property insurance applications, etc. over a 10 year period.

The grand jury saw enough evidence to bring the suit forward.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24233987/nyag-v-trump-ags-trump-organization-chart.pdf

https://www.cfodive.com/news/ex-controller-stand-trump-attorneys-fraud-trial-accounting/700506/

pendennis

Triple G wrote:

Not my reasoning -- majority of legal analysts' re... (show quote)

And grand juries indict ham sandwiches. Who runs grand juries????

Triple G

pendennis wrote:

And grand juries indict ham sandwiches. Who runs grand juries????

It's the system we have. Interesting response.

Which American jurist said "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted"?

This is actually an interesting question. It’s usually credited to Sol Wachtler, who was Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals at the time. (Note that this is the highest court in NY State. For some reason, we have a “Supreme Court”, but it’s farther down in the pecking order. Go figure.) He said it in a 1985 interview with Marcia Kramer of the New York Daily News shortly after he’d been appointed Chief Judge and he said it in the context of arguing that the New York state grand jury system needed to be reformed because prosecutors were too good at manipulating the grand juries.

But there’s more: Barry Popik[1] tracked the phrase back farther. Wachtler appears to honestly believe it was original with him, though it’s certainly possible he heard it somewhere and it simply didn’t strongly register.

There’s a story in the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle from September 1979 with this quote:

‘The district attorney could get the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to,' one Rochester defense lawyer said.
And further back, Popik quotes a column by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post in 1982:

"In his Brooklyn domain, he (Thomas Puccio -- ed.) stands guard like St. Peter at the gates of justice. He decrees whom his grand juries shall indict. 'I could,' he boasted in front of witness, 'indict a ham sandwich.'"
Puccio was the head of the Justice Department's Organized Crime Strike Force for the Eastern District; he led the prosecution of the ABSCAM scandal, which many people believed was illegal entrapment.

So it’s fascinating to see the quote used in three contexts: first, a prosecutor boasting of it, then a defense attorney objecting to it, then finally a judge using it to argue for reform. All, perhaps coincidentally, New Yorkers.

It’s right up there with “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” on the list of things that lead people to completely misunderstand how the law works.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

pendennis wrote:

”You just don't get it! There were no victims!”

Which makes what Trumpf and the banks/lenders did another “victimless crime”.(*)

A criminal act nonetheless.

The presence or absence of victims plays no part in determination of criminal activity. So what Trumpf and the banks did WAS against the law — (as detailed easily by previous quotations of New York State LAW.)

And there is some indication there WERE other individuals who may have been harmed: those individuals who were unable to get loans at all (due to the monies being diverted to Trumpf), or those that were disallowed a favorable interest-rate and ended up paying much higher rate-penalties.

I would expect the banks/lenders may be very concerned as to THEIR legal liabilities in this regard.

(*) A "victimless crime" is an illegal criminal act that only involves participants who consent to the activity. Drug use and drug possession, prostitution, and illegal gambling are some examples of victimless crimes. The fact that no one was harmed against their will is not generally a legal defense.”Dec 14, 2023
https://www.lawinfo.com › resources (Emphasis added)

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

scooter1 wrote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/businessmen-say-they-will-no-longer-invest-in-new-york-after-justice-engorons-trump-ruling-5590942?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-02-20-2024&src_cmp=gv-02-20-2024&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbOsgcAED2sSZtJMAu3FDDqZ1hUABKhxh3PHXv4m%2BwBvWwBQROtg%3D

The Trump's cooked the books. That's illegal and now MAGA has to 'pay up' $5000 mil.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Texcaster wrote:

The Trump's cooked the books. That's illegal and now MAGA has to 'pay up' $5000 mil.

With Trumpf begging the “faithful” to pony-up funds to pay off the fine.

AND they are gullible enough to do so. . . .

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Wyantry wrote:

With Trumpf begging the “faithful” to pony-up funds to pay off the fine.

AND they are gullible enough to do so. . . .

“A fool and his money are soon departed”

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Effate wrote:

“A fool and his money are soon departed”

“The people and their Politicians should be departed”

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

pendennis wrote:

b u You just don't get it! There were no victims... (show quote)

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

To flathead27ford:
In reply to “no victims” by Pendennis

There WERE other ‘victims’ who may have been harmed:
Those individuals who were unable to get loans at all (due to monies being diverted to Trumpf), or those that were disallowed a favorable interest-rate and ended up paying much higher rate-penalties.

So Trumpf gets a loan at 1.5% yet anyone else pays 11 to 14%? And others are Denied loans.

Those denied or forced to pay more definitely qualify as VICTIMS.

Yet people do not consider this a fraudulent action on Trumpf’s part?

Where is the sense of moral outrage that should get even a die-hard My-Ass-Got-Arrested (MAGA) sycophant upset with the ‘orange-one’ and his shenanigans?

pendennis

Wyantry wrote:

To flathead27ford: br In reply to “no victims” by... (show quote)

If those individuals believe they were denied loans because Trump got more favorable terms, then they should come forward and have their cases heard by the courts. There's always discrimination when it comes to financial transactions. What you're proposing is Socialism.

You keep grasping at straws. The world of finance is not a zero-sum game.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

pendennis wrote:

If those individuals believe they were denied loans because Trump got more favorable terms, then they should come forward and have their cases heard by the courts. There's always discrimination when it comes to financial transactions. What you're proposing is Socialism.

You keep grasping at straws. The world of finance is not a zero-sum game.

Exactly right. Was there any evidence that anyone was denied a loan due to any Trump transaction because absent that in court that would be speculative and inadmissible.

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

Effate wrote:

Exactly right. Was there any evidence that anyone was denied a loan due to any Trump transaction because absent that in court that would be speculative and inadmissible.

👍🏻👍🏻

Triple G

pendennis wrote:

If those individuals believe they were denied loans because Trump got more favorable terms, then they should come forward and have their cases heard by the courts. There's always discrimination when it comes to financial transactions. What you're proposing is Socialism.

You keep grasping at straws. The world of finance is not a zero-sum game.

That's not the crime that trump is guilty of, but keep grasping at straws to divert the attention away from Trump and his crimes of misstating his financial records year after year after year. The NY 63(12) will be his Waterloo.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-pause-fraud-trial-and-block-ruling-on-his-real-estate-empire

There may be other crimes yet to be litigated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organization-used-borrow-major-banks-now-look-lending-money-rcna22068