just one question: did the banks do their own assessments of the value of the properties before accepting them as collateral for the loans? The banks testified that they were pleased with the transactions and were paid in full including interest and were paid early.When you are judging if a realty company commits fraud. How they valuate property will be a big part of that judgement.
So why don't we see what he said about that.
-The Trump company stated in their financial statement that properties had value as if they were renovated without it being the case. This is not something subjective.
-They stated that properties were 3 times bigger than they were in reality. Not subjective
-They stated that they had the rights to developed twice the number of units of a property than they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective.
-They stated that they had the right to develop 5 times the number of another property that they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective
-In order to get tax relief they stated that they weren't allowed to develop Mar O Lago at all. Yet valuated it as if they were. Not subjective
-They routinely overstated the value of properties assessors THEY hired by several orders of magnitude. Times twenty in one case.
-They sourced some of their assessments of properties to an assessor that didn't do the valuations.
-Oh yes, and their CFO plead guilty to fifteen counts of the falsifying business records and tax evasion. A CFO who to this day has a severance package conditioned specifically on the premise that he can't voluntarily work with the prosecution.
I repeat Weisselberg's financial future is dependent on keeping silent.
As for your article. Let's just say that for a website reporting the "news" finding several spelling errors doesn't bode well. Neither does the use of loaded language and some question begging.
But the arguments are simply bad. They're complaining that the judgements against him hurt him financially like that's proof of something. Financial penalties are supposed to hurt. They complain the financial monitor is not capable of supervising the business. They fail to mention that this person was the only one both sides agreed on. And they aren't expanding her power as a further punishment. failing to mention they're expanding her power because TRUMP violated the terms of the monitoring which stated that every transfer over 5 million needed to be reported. Something he didn't do when he transferred over 40 million without notifying her when she requested information as per her last report. They were literally hiding assets when under court monitoring. They claim his constitutional rights are being violated. HOW?
Neither are the fines excessive. The fines are the difference between the interest rates of commercial loans versus the interest rates he got on those loans because his personal guarantee based on the purported wealth in the financial statements. Something that speaks to the size of the loans and the liability of the banks and the long time of the Trump organization committing fraud.