Sfdebris.net

Someone help me here. What exactly is Trump and family being charged with? Best I got is outside people appraising his properties and then Trump raising that appraisal somehow for better loans. So increasing the value of his properties more than what they are worth for favorable loans.

Is this correct? Am I missing something. Seems like the reporting on this is pretty light.

McAvoy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 5:30 am Someone help me here. What exactly is Trump and family being charged with? Best I got is outside people appraising his properties and then Trump raising that appraisal somehow for better loans. So increasing the value of his properties more than what they are worth for favorable loans.

Is this correct? Am I missing something. Seems like the reporting on this is pretty light.

The Trump crime family fraudulently represented the value of their assets (primarily real estate) by a magnitude of several hundred million dollars, including saying Marilago was about 500,000,000 in value when it's actually closer to 27,000,000. Trump also exaggerated the size of his apartment by about 10,000 feet of New York real estate and other massive fraud to secure loans. It should be noted that this is so egregious in its misrepresentation that he's already had a summary judgement against him on one of the trials.

Which is to say he's already lost one of the four counts of civil fraud.'

It should be noted that Trump and company aren't disputing that the company lied and lied repeatedly about its assets values. Instead, their defenses are:

1. Our accountants did this, not us (which is ridiculous)

2. Our documents said that this is what they're "believed" to be valuable and other ambiguous language.

The thing is that Trump's massive debts to banks, many of which were paid off by questionable sources and once were almost 1,000,000,000 in amount (which would hilariously make him the worst businessman of all time) were often to pay off other debts. These debts were all on the premise that if Trump defaulted, his property could be used to pay off these debts.

Except he never had anywhere near the money value from them to do so.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 6:21 am

McAvoy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 5:30 am Someone help me here. What exactly is Trump and family being charged with? Best I got is outside people appraising his properties and then Trump raising that appraisal somehow for better loans. So increasing the value of his properties more than what they are worth for favorable loans.

Is this correct? Am I missing something. Seems like the reporting on this is pretty light.

The Trump crime family fraudulently represented the value of their assets (primarily real estate) by a magnitude of several hundred million dollars, including saying Marilago was about 500,000,000 in value when it's actually closer to 27,000,000. Trump also exaggerated the size of his apartment by about 10,000 feet of New York real estate and other massive fraud to secure loans. It should be noted that this is so egregious in its misrepresentation that he's already had a summary judgement against him on one of the trials.

Which is to say he's already lost one of the four counts of civil fraud.'

It should be noted that Trump and company aren't disputing that the company lied and lied repeatedly about its assets values. Instead, their defenses are:

1. Our accountants did this, not us (which is ridiculous)

2. Our documents said that this is what they're "believed" to be valuable and other ambiguous language.

The thing is that Trump's massive debts to banks, many of which were paid off by questionable sources and once were almost 1,000,000,000 in amount (which would hilariously make him the worst businessman of all time) were often to pay off other debts. These debts were all on the premise that if Trump defaulted, his property could be used to pay off these debts.

Except he never had anywhere near the money value from them to do so.

OK. The counter argument I hear about this is that should be a victimless crime. As in the banks that make the loans should have done their own appraisals and would have known the true worth of the buildings and other assets Trump has. No matter what Trump says it's worth. I heard the figure Margo A Largo was raised by 3200% for example. A good bank would have seen that as suspect if they even did some homework.

So I am missing something here.

I just hope if you hurt the idiot bank account, that he'll be unable to get power until he face judgement day.

McAvoy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 4:43 pm
OK. The counter argument I hear about this is that should be a victimless crime. As in the banks that make the loans should have done their own appraisals and would have known the true worth of the buildings and other assets Trump has. No matter what Trump says it's worth. I heard the figure Margo A Largo was raised by 3200% for example. A good bank would have seen that as suspect if they even did some homework.

So I am missing something here.

No, it's more that calling it a victimless crime requires you to believe that bank fraud is legal. Which is not me insulting your opinion but pointing out that it seems more likely that you're treating the banks differently than you would an individual.

If Dave asked me for 100,000 dollars and offered me his copy of Action Comics #1 as collateral (he'd still have it but I'd get the copy if he defaulted) versus repayment, only to reveal that it was a reprint, I'd still be cheated.

Especially if he provided a bunch of fraudulent bank statements that stated it was the real thing.

After all, I'm out 100,000 since Dave has already spent it.

Dave might be making some of the repayments but I never would have lent him the money if I'd known the truth and he suckered me into losing a huge chunk of my savings.

Or TLDR:

"It's not a victimless crime when there is, in fact, a victim."

Plus we don't really know how the fraud was done. Everyone just assumes that it's a "This house is worth $500,000,000,000,000, swearzies and pinki-promise!", when in reality it's quite more likely along the lines of "We paid $500,000,000,000,000 for this house. Here's the receipt."

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 6:29 pm

McAvoy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 4:43 pm
OK. The counter argument I hear about this is that should be a victimless crime. As in the banks that make the loans should have done their own appraisals and would have known the true worth of the buildings and other assets Trump has. No matter what Trump says it's worth. I heard the figure Margo A Largo was raised by 3200% for example. A good bank would have seen that as suspect if they even did some homework.

So I am missing something here.

No, it's more that calling it a victimless crime requires you to believe that bank fraud is legal. Which is not me insulting your opinion but pointing out that it seems more likely that you're treating the banks differently than you would an individual.

If Dave asked me for 100,000 dollars and offered me his copy of Action Comics #1 as collateral (he'd still have it but I'd get the copy if he defaulted) versus repayment, only to reveal that it was a reprint, I'd still be cheated.

Especially if he provided a bunch of fraudulent bank statements that stated it was the real thing.

After all, I'm out 100,000 since Dave has already spent it.

Dave might be making some of the repayments but I never would have lent him the money if I'd known the truth and he suckered me into losing a huge chunk of my savings.

Or TLDR:

"It's not a victimless crime when there is, in fact, a victim."

It wasn't my opinion. It's the opinion of people who don't know why Trump is in a trial for all of this. Not even sure if they are all Trump supporters or not.

Sorry, I was addressing the complaint not you specifically.

Or "you" as the arguer.

My bad.

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 9:16 pm Plus we don't really know how the fraud was done. Everyone just assumes that it's a "This house is worth $500,000,000,000,000, swearzies and pinki-promise!", when in reality it's quite more likely along the lines of "We paid $500,000,000,000,000 for this house. Here's the receipt."

Well considering no house costs that much I think it's a pretty open and shut case.