If it wasn’t painfully obvious that the case had zero merit before, it should be now.
“We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statement”
This really should be a summary judgement against James.
So…if my house is worth $200K and I tell someone it’s worth $800k to get a loan at a lower rate, but in my document, I note that the $800K hasn’t been audited, no harm no foul? Taking caveat emptor pretty far, aren’t we? I don’t think we’re talking about a simple miscalculation here. There’s a scale to consider.
Correct.
You finally get it.
The bank has the fiduciary responsibility to have an appraisal done on their own. And guess what, no bank has claimed to have been de-frauded, all of the loans in question have been paid back in full.
1 Like
If a salon owner went to the bank for a loan and estimated the cost of her equipment at $80,000 because she paid $80,000 for it 4 years ago but it’s actually now worth only $20,000 should the attorney general go after her for fraud with the same tenacity after going after Trump?
Not remotely close to what is alleged here.
It’s exactly what’s alleged against Trump, over valuing property on a loan application.
Yes, by just making shit up out of thin air, not a simple mistake like using the amount paid.
Exactly the same thing, bottom line is in both cases the estimated value was wrong. The only difference is you don’t like Trump.
I raised this same issue a couple of months ago. In the financial world, disclosures are always the first line of defense against charges like these or claims made by lenders, and are usually accepted as a defense against damages. I recall seeing one disclosure a few months ago stating that the financials should not be relied upon.
There were so many disclosures like the one cited, in Trump’s docs that no reasonable lender would have accepted the financials at face value and would have conducted their own investigation and analysis of values. I suspect that the lender was anxious to lend and just needed some paper to support a decision that had already been made. Deutsche Bank and Trump’s organization had a decades long relationship prior to the loans in question.
I wonder if James has ever tried a similar case or understands the corporate lending process. That may be why she is going civil and not criminal (plus I have seen no statements by Deutsche that believed they were deceived).
Almost a perfect comparison, just smaller scale
I remembered you saying something about this when I read the article
here’s a question, what’s the DA’s standing in this? She brought the charges not the bank. So what is her standing in the case? The loans were repaid and there is no victim
Someone made a very weird argument that her standing is because other people in the state couldn’t get loans because Trump was being loaned money.
It is a gigantic stretch, but that is the argument.
If Trump got loans at lower interest rates than he was supposed to, there is a victim.
Who?
Those who loaned him $
The State does not set interest rates.
That is a worse argument than the idiotic one I mentioned.
1 Like
They aren’t parties of the lawsuit.
How does this give the State standing?
and yet they are not the victim as they did not complain or ask for charges to be filed.
Try again
I didn’t speak to the standing issue. Fraud is fraud.