- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/6/23 at 6:32 pm to Jtomka
quote:
So, are you saying that Trump should pay $250 million in fines because the bank's underwriters didn't do their jobs???
Putting the appraisers name on a document without consent could get Trump Org in trouble
Posted on 11/6/23 at 6:35 pm to Vacherie Saint
Only if MJ used phony values to obtain a loan.
Posted on 11/6/23 at 10:10 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I guarantee every person with any sort of assets in America has done exactly what Trump did.
Ohhh, the old “everybody’s doing it” defense. I tried that a few time in High school with my parents, didn’t work well.
Posted on 11/6/23 at 10:22 pm to RedStickFox
You may be new here, in case you haven’t noticed around here sometimes FACTS bounce off of FEELINGS and creates some noise in this echo chamber.
Posted on 11/6/23 at 10:24 pm to BBONDS25
I love how people are acting like this case is legitimate in any way
Posted on 11/6/23 at 11:48 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I was a banker for one of the largest private banks on earth for a decade. there is nothing illegal or fraudulent about estimates made on a financial statement.
The problem with this is you are referencing general common law fraud as codified in slightly different iterations across all American jurisdictions. What you either have not read or do not understand is the NY Executive law and the supporting case law. I think it is fair to call it unique.
It allows incredibly wide latitude in what is considered fraud:
"The terms "fraud" and "fraudulent" are "given a wide meaning so as to embrace all deceitful practices
contrary to the plain rules of common honesty, including all acts, even though not originating in any actual evil design to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others, which do tend to deceive or mislead." Cuomo v Greenberg
This law is much broader than any interaction of common law fraud that I am aware of. The big difference is that it doesn't require proof that a second party actually relied on the misrepresentation. The Executive Law is an extraordinarily powerful statute, arguably too powerful or at least too broad.
A good reference is an old law journal article which outlines Executive Law Section 63(12)
Deceptive Practices in the Marketplace: Consumer Protection by New York Government Agencies".
Fordham Urban Law Journal. 3 (3): 491.
I am not arguing the case should have been brought or who should prevail just that almost all the discussion I see is predicated on this being a case based on the local jurisdiction's interpretation of common law fraud and that argument is a non sequiter.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:44 am to RoosterCogburn585
A tds judge has an inflated sense of self worth.. the hell you say?
Posted on 11/7/23 at 4:07 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
. I fully expect that if Trump loses this civil case, criminal charges will follow.
Holy shite. You are ignorant and delusional. I’ll let you figure out why. 
Posted on 11/7/23 at 4:16 am to RoosterCogburn585
No, he is saying the prosecutors have made their case when they say that Trump lied when swearing to tell the truth to bankers when taking out loans.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 4:18 am to Eurocat
Posters pretending this is anything but lawfare are so dumb. Just admit you are just fine with persecuting your political enemies. Posted on 11/7/23 at 4:22 am to BBONDS25
Eurotrash's brain is incapable of grasping that concept.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 5:47 am to Obtuse1
quote:
It allows incredibly wide latitude in what is considered fraud:
"The terms "fraud" and "fraudulent" are "given a wide meaning so as to embrace all deceitful practices
contrary to the plain rules of common honesty, including all acts, even though not originating in any actual evil design to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others, which do tend to deceive or mislead." Cuomo v Greenberg
Who was defruaded and injured agian?
SO far, the only thing injured is this judges feelings.
This post was edited on 11/7/23 at 5:48 am
Posted on 11/7/23 at 6:19 am to RedStickFox
quote:
So you are saying it's perfectly legal for me to tell a bank my house has been appraised for 5 million dollars when in reality it's been appraised for 300K?
What is about banks having to independently verify that people find so hard to understand?
Posted on 11/7/23 at 7:19 am to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Who was defruaded and injured agian?
Did you really just quote something you could not have possibly read and add emphasis without also putting emphasis on the salient part?
quote:
"The terms "fraud" and "fraudulent" are "given a wide meaning so as to embrace all deceitful practices
contrary to the plain rules of common honesty, including all acts, even though not originating in any actual evil design to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others, which do tend to deceive or mislead."
The act does not require anyone to be injured or defrauded in the typical sense. If you read the voluminous case law associated with the Executive Act it allows for some really nebulous interpretation. I think it is bad law but reasonably well drafted and has been upheld by the higher courts. It is a Swiss Army knife for use against big business in the event the NY version of common law fraud is difficult to prove. It doesn't require reliance so the law is triggered when the false statements are presented to the third party and the harm doesn't have to be within the typical damages definitions. Beyond that, it has really big teeth that allows for stripping an entity of the rights to conduct business in the jurisdiction.
I am pointing this out because there is so much talk about the third parties not relying on the statements of financial condition but that simply isn't a requirement of the code here. Further trying to pigeonhole the damages using typical fraud elements (fingers) are also not required. It is a nasty bit of law that could likely be used against 90% of the large RE companies operating in NYC. The fact that it hasn't been used more often makes it clear that the motivations are less than honorable.
I can think of a few novel defenses but this is going to be bouncing around the court system for a while because the outcome of the trial court is not going to be to Trump's liking because, in essence, he has already lost. I would not be surprised if this case isn't remanded for trial de novo.
Free888
quote:
What is about banks having to independently verify that people find so hard to understand?
The Executive Act section 63 (12) does not require reliance. The fact the banks did or did not verify the Statements of Financial Condition is not required for a cause of action under the Act. As long as you continue to view it as a common law fraud case requiring all the usual elements of that sort of action you will never be able to understand the theory of the case. Trump his children and Habba are doing a very "fixer" (and smart) thing by framing it as a simple fraud case which would be impossible to prove here but the case isn't based on simple fraud statutes.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 7:25 am to Obtuse1
quote:
The act does not require anyone to be injured or defrauded in the typical sense.
So, who would the penalty be paid to?
Posted on 11/7/23 at 7:32 am to Free888
quote:
What is about banks having to independently verify that people find so hard to understand?
The financial statements also include a clear disclaimer telling the banks that it is an estimate and the bank needs to do its own due diligence.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 8:30 am to TDTOM
quote:
So, who would the penalty be paid to?
"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." N.Y. Exec. Law § 63
In short N.Y. State Finance Law section 4 (11) states any proceeds must be deposited in the state treasury or fund under its management within 30 days of receipt. There are a lot of other stipulations that likely do not apply. In the end it goes to the state of New York.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 8:36 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Posters pretending this is anything but lawfare are so dumb
I never denied that and have in fact said the same FOUR fricking times now.
Which is exactly why I expect criminal charges to follow. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention to what's happening.
You Louisiana moron.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 9:18 am to BBONDS25
quote:
The financial statements also include a clear disclaimer telling the banks that it is an estimate and the bank needs to do its own due diligence.
This is irrelevant in so far as it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from surviving summary judgment. If they can show there was repeated fraudulent conduct [as broadly defined by section 63 (12)] even if the misrepresentations are only 1 penny then they have satisfied the Act in order to avoid summary judgment and that question would go to the trier of fact. The trier of fact could consider the disclaimer in deliberations insofar as the act allows. The trier of fact will have to weigh all the evidence being presented currently to determine the damages and only that since liability has already been ruled on but will certainly be appealed even if the damages are nominal due to the headshot the Act allows in terms of preventing continuing to conduct business in the jurisdiction.
The NY Executive Act is the sort of law that keeps corporate law firms and cognizant company C-suite denizens awake at night. Far too many people are shrugging its scope off. It was drafted to ensure the state is sailing downwind in this sort of action.
While the choice to bring the case is absolutely political in nature the Act is crafted in such a way unless the defendant draws a sympathetic jury the state can get a verdict and shut down most any large company doing business in N.Y. if the state scrutinizes them thoroughly. IMO this is bad law at least without much more definitive language and for whatever reason the higher courts have been unwilling to reign it in. I imagine we will find out what the N.Y. Court of Appeals (for those unaware this is their highest court like what most states call their supreme court) has to say on this issue. It is noteworthy the court now has a fairly conservative bloc of 4 in DiFiore, Cannataro, Garcia, and Singas who have basically controlled the 7 judge panel for the last couple of years. I suppose it is also worth noting all of them have been appointed by Democrat governors and I am not tuned into the court well enough to separate conservative legal leanings from political leanings so it may not be as rosy for Trump et al as it may seem to me.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News