I haven't read the Order and you are correct I should. I'm sure I'll poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. It's what I do. But the point being, the banks ain't complaining. Valuation is always subjective.

Valuation may be subjective . . . or as the Judge says a mix of art and science. Lying, however, not so much. We all have an interest in preserving the integrity of the financial system. Securing loans on the basis of fraudulent financial statements undermines a system we all depend on. I wouldn’t do that. You wouldn’t do that. Why should the Trump crime family be able to do that?

quote:

You wouldn’t do that

"You wouldn’t do that"

Or maybe he would.....

What goes around comes around. Just wait.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
What goes around comes around. Just wait.

Could you be a bit clearer?

Are you threatening to find a Democrat who has spent their life scamming contractors, bankrupting casinos (a literal license to print money), hanging out with a known pedophile, bragging about sexually assaulting women and being found liable for it in court, stealing a truckload of sensitive National Security documents and lying about having them, attempted to overturn an election they lost, badly, got indicted on 90-odd criminal charges and impeached twice, lying about how much they and their properties are worth, in fact, lying every time they open their mouth and sucking up to dictators as a bonus and prosecute them in revenge?

Have at it, we don't want that kind of scum.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Valuation may be subjective . . . or as the Judge says a mix of art and science. Lying, however, not so much. We all have an interest in preserving the integrity of the financial system. Securing loans on the basis of fraudulent financial statements undermines a system we all depend on. I wouldn’t do that. You wouldn’t do that. Why should the Trump crime family be able to do that?

Where is the proof the finnancial statements were fraudulent. The evidence was really weak.

And NO one was defrauded.

Once you get past those…it strictly becomes a political hit job. And that we should all be very afraid of.

Not to mention the aspect of precedence as Joshua likes to bring up. This is the one and only case ever tried under this older statute. Reminds me of using the Logan Act back in 2016.

Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

The only "businesses" with reason for concern are those, like Trump, keeping three sets of books, one for banks, one for the IRS and a real one. The ones for whom fraud is part of their operating procedures.

Like Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

There was no punitive award, the award was disgorgement of the unjust benefit Trump derived from the fraud. If you had read the order you would understand that. But not having a factual understanding of what you are commenting on has never stopped you before, why would I think it would this time.

If we have become a country where novel laws are used to prosecute political opponents, Lord help us. We start to look a lot like Russia. But that seems to be the path the Dims have chosen. I suspect there will be retribution.

Novel? Law was passed in 1956.

quote:

Trump’s claim that statute 63(12) has “never been used before” is false, with the New York AG using the law to bring lawsuits against such parties as a leasing company, e-cigarette company JUUL Labs and a predatory lender company. The Trump Organization case isn’t even the first time 63(12) has been used against Trump and his businesses, as former AG Eric Schneiderman previously sued Trump University under the statute, which resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2018.

Link

They just gotta run with the talking points no matter how untrue.

"Retribution" for enforcing the Law? From the Law and Order Party?

I am literally stunned that seemingly intelligent people will try to defend Trump and rationalize his behavior. It is absolutely astonishing. Unexplainable. Cult-like is all I can come up with.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am literally stunned that seemingly intelligent people will try to defend Trump and rationalize his behavior. It is absolutely astonishing. Unexplainable. Cult-like is all I can come up with.

To some he is simply above the Law, whether it's stealing classified documents or sexually assaulting women.

Now they've been caught trying to impeach Biden as part of a Russian intelligence operation.

Fucking traitors.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

There was no punitive award, the award was disgorgement of the unjust benefit Trump derived from the fraud. If you had read the order you would understand that. But not having a factual understanding of what you are commenting on has never stopped you before, why would I think it would this time.

I understand it fine. And while the Judge/State may try to disguise this fine as disgorgement…the extraordinary enormity to it made it punitive in nature.

Further, while the law may have been on the books since 1956…it is novel in use. The analogy of use of the Logan Act again comes to mind.

How any capitalist could cheer on the State seizure of profits deemed illegally begotten on subjective evidence amazes me. No one was harmed by Trump’s business. Everyone profited, including the State of New York. The State threw a bucket of ice water on its business sector just to punish (not disgorge) a man a Political Party (not the citizenry of NY) dislikes.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

There was no punitive award, the award was disgorgement of the unjust benefit Trump derived from the fraud. If you had read the order you would understand that. But not having a factual understanding of what you are commenting on has never stopped you before, why would I think it would this time.

I understand it fine. And while the Judge/State may try to disguise this fine as disgorgement…the extraordinary enormity to it made it punitive in nature.

Further, while the law may have been on the books since 1956…it is novel in use. The analogy of use of the Logan Act again comes to mind.

How any capitalist could cheer on the State seizure of profits deemed illegally begotten on subjective evidence amazes me. No one was harmed by Trump’s business. Everyone profited, including the State of New York. The State threw a bucket of ice water on its business sector just to punish (not disgorge) a man a Political Party (not the citizenry of NY) dislikes.

How can it be "novel in use" when Trump University was sued under the exact same statute. as have been other crooks?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
How can it be "novel in use" when Trump University was sued under the exact same statute. as have been other crooks?

Easy, because some nit wit like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram or Sean Hannity told Lane it was "novel".

. . . discussing something with Lane is like talking to a stump.

Let's use one example from the order to illustrate the fraud perpetuated by the Trump crime family for those too lazy to read the order.

Trump's condominium in New York is referred to as the Triplex. The Triplex is 10,996 square feet. For purposes of Trump's financial statements, however, the Triplex was listed as 30,000 square feet. This results in an overvaluation of the Triplex of between $114-$207 million. The overstatement of square footage was well known within the crime family. As long ago as 2012 employees were asking to inspect the apartment or review a floorplan. Those requests were denied. Even after Forbes challenged the claim early in 2017, the crime family continued to certify to their auditors for purposes of the financial statements that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet. Only after Forbes published an article later in 2017 regarding the misrepresentation of the condo did the crime syndicate correct the footage.

This is just one example of the fraud embedded in the financial statements that were certified to the banks for purposes of securing loans. Perhaps one of Trump's acolytes will explain to us why this okay and why we should all be entitled to do the same thing in our dealings with financial institutions.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
How can it be "novel in use" when Trump University was sued under the exact same statute. as have been other crooks?

Easy, because some nit wit like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram or Sean Hannity told Lane it was "novel".

. . . discussing something with Lane is like talking to a stump.

Lane never lets the truth get in the way of a good talking point.

I can't wait for his explanation of why participating in a Russian Intelligence disinformation op was the right thing for Republicans in the House and Senate to do.

AG Prepared to Seize Assets to Satisfy Award

As she should.

Maybe Lane will along shortly to comment on the Triplex fraud and tell us it’s no deal, he has done the same thing in the past and feels good about it.

Seems like all the MAGAggots have decided to play hide and seek . . .

This whole case is wrong on so many levels. I believe some relief will come on appeal.

Any capitalist/libertarian cheering this on is a moron…what else can I say.

Huge businessmen across the country have made it known this is a huge red-flag for doing business and/or investing in NY and goes against precedent and accepted principles.

The evidence used against Trump was subjective and far from meeting norms in burden of proof.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This whole case is wrong on so many levels. I believe some relief will come on appeal.

Any capitalist/libertarian cheering this on is a moron…what else can I say.

Huge businessmen across the country have made it known this is a huge red-flag for doing business and/or investing in NY and goes against precedent and accepted principles.

The evidence used against Trump was subjective and far from meeting norms in burden of proof.

You don't have the slightest idea what the evidence was or what "meeting norms in burden of proof" even means.

Per Jines....go read the Order and educate yourself instead of trying to act like the propaganda you hear and see on FOX News has any credibility.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16...-new-york/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

I dunno. We all know that there is a layer of society where they all bullshit each other about the size of their hands and so forth, and fiduciary responsibility is something that is habitually misspelled. Still...

Just to have it said, it seems to me like an awful lot of money for a fine. Did The Donald pay real estate taxes on 30,000 square feet?

So how much money did Trump borrow for how long? What would the interest rate differences be between the loans?

That’s the illegitimate damages, $300,000,000 plus is a lot of difference.

After dealing with a county tax assessment, I am thinking if this is a precedent we are looking at some serious issues for tax assessors because you get in front of a jury from that county and they will feel that these guys are cooking the books on values. Same/same here.

Do I think Trump played games with it? Yes.

So does the government. You don’t think that the NY AG office used the assessors that they felt would give the answers they wanted?

Personally, I feel Trump was outside the lines here, but the punishment and “disgorgement” are way beyond what my thoughts are as being fair.

What would be even more telling is if they take one of his buildings and they can’t even get half of what they claim it’s worth to get the awards.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

There was no punitive award, the award was disgorgement of the unjust benefit Trump derived from the fraud. If you had read the order you would understand that. But not having a factual understanding of what you are commenting on has never stopped you before, why would I think it would this time.

. . . everyone has an opinion and no one has read the order. This is the problem with the electorate today. People are too stupid to take the time to educate themselves and simply rely on television talking heads for information.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So how much money did Trump borrow for how long? What would the interest rate differences be between the loans?

That’s the illegitimate damages, $300,000,000 plus is a lot of difference.

After dealing with a county tax assessment, I am thinking if this is a precedent we are looking at some serious issues for tax assessors because you get in front of a jury from that county and they will feel that these guys are cooking the books on values. Same/same here.

Do I think Trump played games with it? Yes.

So does the government. You don’t think that the NY AG office used the assessors that they felt would give the answers they wanted?

Personally, I feel Trump was outside the lines here, but the punishment and “disgorgement” are way beyond what my thoughts are as being fair.

What would be even more telling is if they take one of his buildings and they can’t even get half of what they claim it’s worth to get the awards.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Says another person that has never read the order.

Intentionally falsifying financial records in order to obtain more favorable loan terms is fraud. Not hard. Let's use an example, if you or I misrepresented the size (square footage) of our home by 200% in connection with a financial statement furnished to a bank in order for us to secure a loan, would that be wrong? Should we be held accountable for doing so?

Whether the case is politically motivated or not is frankly irrelevant insofar as I am concerned. If the guy engaged in the conduct, then he needs to be held accountable. Is all the noise around Hunter Biden politically motivated? Does it matter? If he (and his dad) engaged in wrong doing, hold them accountable.

Some of you remind me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . and all because of your political orientation. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and whine about political motivation.

But there in lies the rub. They never showed any good evidence of falsifying documents. The information put forth was subjective.

Secondly, the banks reviewed the documents and signed off in satisfaction. The banks had the option of declining them. There was no fraud committed.

Fail . . . read the order and then respond intelligently, or at least on a more informed basis. I noticed you conveniently ignored answering the questions in the second paragraph. The statute does not require reliance by the bank, the statute simply requires intent to commit fraud . . . although the Judge did find that the evidence supported that the banks in fact relied on the financial statements.

The banks were happy, the evidence of intent was weak, the punitive fine was excessive, and no one was defrauded.

I expect that this will not be the last word in this case legally and the business community is coming out of the woodwork to say this ruling gives them pause for investing in NY.

There was no punitive award, the award was disgorgement of the unjust benefit Trump derived from the fraud. If you had read the order you would understand that. But not having a factual understanding of what you are commenting on has never stopped you before, why would I think it would this time.

"They" are not claiming Trump's buildings are worth unrealistic prices, Trump did.

"They" were not claiming Trump's 10,000 sq/ft condo in Trump Tower was 30,000 sq/ft, Trump did.