Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[ThisIsMe]

Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument

One judge asked the state about “mission creep” and wondered if the broad civil law used against Trump had morphed into something it’s not designed to do.

www.msnbc.com

Possibly the charges were too broad?

Part of the issue boils down to how broadly James used a state law to go after Trump and his civil co-defendants for fraud in financial dealings, given that it wasn’t a case where victims were conned and then complained to the government about it. Put differently, the question is how broadly that law, Executive Law 63(12), can reach.

to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners, where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence; where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim, through written disclaimers, to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions; where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses; and where the victim never complained about any fraud.”

The question of harm is being raised, which is one that has been asked by people from the start.

Thoughts?

 

[IM2]

Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument

One judge asked the state about “mission creep” and wondered if the broad civil law used against Trump had morphed into something it’s not designed to do.

www.msnbc.com

Possibly the charges were too broad?





The question of harm is being raised, which is one that has been asked by people from the start.

Thoughts?

You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.

Well, the article is saying they are questioning if any harm was done, and to whom.

 

[IM2]

Well, the article is saying they are questioning if any harm was done, and to whom.

So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.

I have no idea..read the article. I’m just bringing it into the forums for discussion.

They are suggesting that there was no harm done or even potential harm done, to any person.

If you shoot at me, it’s attempted murder and if you hit me, it would cause harm. They appear to be suggesting that there were no potentially harmed people, if I read it correctly.

 

[wamose]

NYC justice is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. Our legal system is degraded when a huge city like NY starts making up laws to prosecute people they don't like. MAGA

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.

Not even close to parallel for the supposed crime, No one lost money, no harm was done to anyone , all parties were happy with the transaction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not even close to parallel for the supposed crime, No one lost money, no harm was done to anyone , all parties were happy with the transaction.

It's called opportunity costs.

If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.

The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.

WW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's called opportunity costs.

If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.

The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.

WW

the appellate court doesn't appear to agree with your make believe.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's called opportunity costs.

If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.

The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.

WW

That 2% was based on the stated value the collateral. The lender is free to make their own assessment of that collateral or have an independent entity do it. They chose not to. If they were harmed it was self inflicted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the appellate court doesn't appear to agree with your make believe.

The trial court did. Hence Trump losing.

I listened to the appellate hearing were tough questions ask? Yes. But tough questions were asked to both sides.

We don't know what the 1st Appellate Division of New York is going to do with their decision. Just be patient we'll know in a few months.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

That 2% was based on the stated value the collateral. The lender is free to make their own assessment of that collateral or have an independent entity do it. They chose not to. If they were harmed it was self inflicted.

That does not absolve the business from being truthful in it's required filings of legal documents.

You are correct in that the lender is free to make their own assessment, however we are talking a home loan here. We are talking high finance with the "collateral" being spread across the country and even internationally.

WW

 

[SeaMajor7]

It's called opportunity costs.

If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.

The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.

WW

 

[Man With A Plan]

I watched the hearing. Judging from the questions asked by the judges Letitia James is about to lose on appeal. The questions all along have been who was the "victim" and was this selective prosecution? The so called fraud that supposedly occurred didn't take place between a sophisticated party and a party that wasn't sophisticated...it was a private business deal between two sophisticated parties relying on their own appraisals of value. That's the first reason for an overturn. The second is that the charges brought against Trump had never been brought against someone else for the same so called fraud. Nobody has ever been charged with fraud when the so called victim was not only paid in full but ahead of time and stated they would do business with the defendant again. The examples that the prosecutor used in their claim that that HAD been accepted by the trial judge were questioned extensively by the appeals court!

 

[Couchpotato]

That does not absolve the business from being truthful in it's required filings of legal documents.

You are correct in that the lender is free to make their own assessment, however we are talking a home loan here. We are talking high finance with the "collateral" being spread across the country and even internationally.

WW

That doesnt absolve the lender from doing it's due diligence when making the loan. Im betting they did found the collateral sufficient given the low risk of default and made the loan. The bottom line here is this prosecution is only happening because Trump is running for President. Were he not a political candidate this case is never brought. That's really the biggest issue.