Judge Engoron's $355 Million Fine Against Donald Trump May Have Far-Reaching Consequences

[TastySuckToy]

Where did you get the idea they did their own value assessment.

From the bank's own court testimony:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html

Bankers whom Donald J. Trump is accused of defrauding testified at his civil fraud trial this week that they did not rely on his embellished claims of wealth, lending support to the central plank of the former president’s defense.

“We are expected to conduct some due diligence and verify the information provided, to the extent that is possible,” David Williams, a banker in the wealth management group at Deutsche Bank, said on Tuesday. He said repeatedly that the bank had performed that diligence and factored its own analysis into the relationship with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Williams testified that Deutsche Bank understood that financial statements like those Mr. Trump submitted relied on estimates. As a result, he said, the bank conducted its own “stress test” and adjusted the numbers downward.

At one point in their lending relationship, Mr. Williams said, Deutsche Bank adjusted Mr. Trump’s net worth to $2.6 billion from the $4.9 billion that he had originally reported. Asked about his reaction to the “magnitude” of that adjustment, Mr. Williams was sanguine.


“My reaction was probably pretty measured, considering it’s not unusual or atypical for any client’s provided financial statements to be adjusted to this level, or to this extent,” he said.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

From the bank's own court testimony:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html

What is the name of the bank employee who submitted that Trump’s pad was 3x larger than it actually was?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

From the bank's own court testimony:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html

nowhere does the testimony say the bank did it's own assessments . This argument you're now presenting also goes against the claim you made earlier....well you're getting better at the pretzel making, but you have long way to go to catch up to ican't.

 

[TastySuckToy]

nowhere does the testimony say the bank did it's own assessments.

I literally highlighted the parts where they did.

The bank is on record in court testimony saying they did not rely on Trump's own assessments of wealth.

Case closed.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Garrison's shitty editorial toons ain't gonna change fate for your Orangina Overlord, homeboi.

This one is more well-suited for the likes of you:

 

[YDB95]

Owners can declare whatever value they want for their assets.

It is not that simple, no matter how many times you repeat that.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It is not that simple, no matter how many times you repeat that.

Name anything I could own that I couldn't put any arbitrary price tag on.

I could put my desktop stapler online for sale at a billion dollars if I wanted, and there isn't a single law or person to stop me.

 

[YDB95]

Name anything I could own that I couldn't put any arbitrary price tag on.

I could put my desktop stapler online for sale at a billion dollars if I wanted, and there isn't a single law or person to stop me.

Again, this is not analogous to what Trump did. It's more like he claimed to have a warehouse full of staplers when he really only had a box of them.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Again, this is not analogous to what Trump did. It's more like he claimed to have a warehouse full of staplers when he really only had a box of them.

Absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Trump claimed to have or the valuations Trump submitted, because the banks testified in court they did not rely upon Trump's self assessment of wealth when issuing him loans. I submitted proof of this in post #276.

The entire premise of the case collapses, because the case against Trump claims he defrauded the banks by giving them false information about his wealth upon which the banks based their loan agreements, which the banks outright refuted in court testimony.

Case closed.

 

[YDB95]

I submitted proof of this in post #276.

That wasn't proof, it was cherrypicking. You're simply citing bits and pieces of the testimony that fit your argument, and ignoring the big picture. Besides, even you admit - between the lines - that Trump was lying.

 

[Bray123]

Absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Trump claimed to have or the valuations Trump submitted, because the banks testified in court they did not rely upon Trump's self assessment of wealth when issuing him loans. I submitted proof of this in post #276.

The entire premise of the case collapses, because the case against Trump claims he defrauded the banks by giving them false information about his wealth upon which the banks based their loan agreements, which the banks outright refuted in court testimony.

Case closed.

You can argue your point as much as you like, but it's point-less. You're not a lawyer in the court. You're not even a lawyer. You're a member of MAGAland who has been suckered by a grifter.

Real lawyers have gone to a real court with a real judge and won the case that fraud did take place. Trumps new grift on top of the grift is to slyly pretend that there was an error in the addresses of his businesses. When called out, he admitted that there wasn't.

The purpose of that was to get the court to think that the businesses were based in Florida, where DeSantis would have had his goon-squad arrest any bailiffs who turned up to enforce the court order.

I have news for you; no business appoints managerial posts as depicted in 'The Apprentice'. His whole persona is as real as pro-wrestling.

 

[TastySuckToy]

That wasn't proof, it was cherrypicking. You're simply citing bits and pieces of the testimony that fit your argument, and ignoring the big picture. Besides, even you admit - between the lines - that Trump was lying.

Trump lying or not is absolutely irrelevant here. Trump can say whatever he wants or make whatever claims he wants about his properties. He could claim there are portals to other worlds in his building lobbies, it doesn't matter.

The entire premise of the case against Trump is that he obtained favourable loans from the banks based upon his self assessed valuations, which are claimed to be false.

The banks testified in court that they did not rely upon Trump's self valuations when issuing him loans.

That's a slam dunk refutation of the entire premise of the case against him. The case against him totally collapses at this point.

Case closed. Any further continuation of the case is an absolute sham trial, and a ton of people are calling it out for exactly that, including Trump himself.

 

[Bray123]

...

Case closed. Any further continuation of the case is an absolute sham trial, and a ton of people are calling it out for exactly that, including Trump himself.

If Trump himself says that he won, that's proof right there!!!

 

[YDB95]

The entire premise of the case against Trump is that he obtained favourable loans from the banks based upon his self assessed valuations, which are claimed to be false.

The banks testified in court that they did not rely upon Trump's self valuations when issuing him loans.

That's a slam dunk refutation of the entire premise of the case against him.

No it is not, unless you can prove they didn't consider his self-assessments at all. And that is not in fact what they said. They said they did their own research as well, but no one said they based their decisions exclusively on that.

 

[Bray123]

“We are expected to conduct some due diligence and verify the information provided, to the extent that is possible,”

Nowhere does it say that the bank turned up with a tape measure. The quote infers that was not possible; they took the measurements on face value. Maybe they didn't understand that instead of a large opulent gold painted apartment, they had the biggest apartment in the world covering half an acre of prime New York.

They were defrauded on the valuation.
And those who say that if the tax valuation was that it was worthless is 'capitalism', it's not. That's fraud as well.

 

[Lazaran]

No it is not, unless you can prove they didn't consider his self-assessments at all. And that is not in fact what they said. They said they did their own research as well, but no one said they based their decisions exclusively on that.

Here’s a good read about how the corrupt orange traitor’s lies (fraud) and Deutche Bank’s "gullibility" led to those outsized loans and favorable rates:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2023/10/16/how-trump-fooled-deutsche-bank/?sh=55e90c5cc0d8





Of course, who knows what the full / true story is, considering Deutche Bank’s recent history of corruption:

https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...nt-progress-addressing-anti-money-2023-07-19/





What a surprise that Deutche Bank was the corrupt orange traitor’s go to bank.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I literally highlighted the parts where they did.

The bank is on record in court testimony saying they did not rely on Trump's own assessments of wealth.

Case closed.

Absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Trump claimed to have or the valuations Trump submitted, because the banks testified in court they did not rely upon Trump's self assessment of wealth when issuing him loans. I submitted proof of this in post #276.

The entire premise of the case collapses, because the case against Trump claims he defrauded the banks by giving them false information about his wealth upon which the banks based their loan agreements, which the banks outright refuted in court testimony.

Case closed.

Nowhere in the court testimony does it state the bank did their own appraisal. Banks are not property appraisers, they are financial institutes that loan money. For any valuations they would use outside third parties. No bank will spend tens of thousands of dollars on third party appraisals without billing the customer for those services. No bills for those service were ever entered into the records.

Hell banks charge you to deposit and withdraw your own money. You think they'd give away "free" appraisals??? *chuckles*

The banks didn't rely on Trump's self assessments of wealth, they relied on Mazars documents. The information of which ultimately came from Trump and the Trump Organisation. Which is what the above testimony refers too. Context matters! ( well it doesn't to those who don't have their noses so far up Trumps ass, they are seeing out his mouth when he speaks)

You have repeatedly displayed a complete lack of understand on the mechanics of how large financial transactions are processed. You seem to think they work like a car loan, or simple mortgage. The intricacies of hundreds of million dollar loans are filled with a multitude of legally binding financial documents. Trump fudged those documents to save himself an estimated 100 million in loan interest.

Don't like the court's ruling, I don't give a shit. Neither does the court. Trump has the option to appeal. Maybe he wins, maybe he loses, maybe he doesn't even appeal it. Myself I don't care, it means nothing to me, with the exception of the fun I get to have poking holes in the idiots here making pretzels while defending Trump!

 

[HisArpy]

No it is not, unless you can prove they didn't consider his self-assessments at all. And that is not in fact what they said. They said they did their own research as well, but no one said they based their decisions exclusively on that.

dudly the banks themselves said they didn't rely on Trump's valuations. This is the point where you need to stop asking for proof that they didn't rely on his valuation because they LITERALLY SAID ON THE RECORD that they didn't rely on him.

BTW, that's not cherry picking, it's the testimony in full, in context, as applied to the elements of the offense.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Judge Engoron issued a final order yesterday stating that Donald J. Trump shall provide the entirety of the 364 million dollar judgement to the court by close of business March 25, 2024. Attorney General Letitia James may attach liens and sell real property at her discretion (analysts say these are often done at 'fire sale prices') if not paid in full on March 26, 2024.

Trump's attornies said James violated "customary procedure" (not law) of allowing the party who had a judgment against it to suggest a "counter-settlement offer". Engoron reminded Trump's attornies that it was customary, but not law, and please submit a brief as to why you think it should be "required". Trump's lawyers responded "it's NOT FAIR"
Engoron said "no good enough".

Engoron also turned down a filing that attempted to move the business licenses of all of Trump's NY real estate properties to Florida. Tricksy Trump foiled again!

 

[dmallord]

Absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Trump claimed to have or the valuations Trump submitted, because the banks testified in court they did not rely upon Trump's self assessment of wealth when issuing him loans. I submitted proof of this in post #276.

The entire premise of the case collapses, because the case against Trump claims he defrauded the banks by giving them false information about his wealth upon which the banks based their loan agreements, which the banks outright refuted in court testimony.

Case closed.

Well the case isn't closed. The appeal process is in play. The case may be closed if DT cannot come up with the required funds for the appeal.

Moreover, the case is not about Trump defrauding the bank - it is about Trump defrauding the State of New York. The State is not filing the case on behalf of the bank. So, the bank's testimony is relevant, but not all-inclusive in the case. The self-assessment of wealth would not have been either if it had not been so grossly inflated to rise to the level of fraud. Trump, as usual, broke the bounds of normalcy in business practice and the AG determined it rose to a fraudulent level. He was found guilty; it remains open to see if the verdict and amounts hold up under the appeal process. Trump said he would appeal - does he have the funds is the next relevant question.

Still, the fraudster is trying to out maneuver the legal system by trying to change the business addresses to Florida in a preposterous display of idiocy. [See above post.]

 

[HisArpy]

Well the case isn't closed. The appeal process is in play. The case may be closed if DT cannot come up with the required funds for the appeal.

Moreover, the case is not about Trump defrauding the bank - it is about Trump defrauding the State of New York. The State is not filing the case on behalf of the bank. So, the bank's testimony is relevant, but not all-inclusive in the case. The self-assessment of wealth would not have been either if it had not been so grossly inflated to rise to the level of fraud. Trump, as usual, broke the bounds of normalcy in business practice and the AG determined it rose to a fraudulent level. He was found guilty; it remains open to see if the verdict and amounts hold up under the appeal process. Trump said he would appeal - does he have the funds is the next relevant question.

Still, the fraudster is trying to out maneuver the legal system by trying to change the business addresses to Florida in a preposterous display of idiocy. [See above post.]

You're working overtime trying to find a way out of the legal inevitability that this verdict will be overturned.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You're working overtime trying to find a way out of the legal inevitability that this verdict will be overturned.

Trump has to appeal it for it to be overturned. We're still waiting for him to file that appeal.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Trump has to appeal it for it to be overturned. We're still waiting for him to file that appeal.

Trump has no grounds to appeal.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Trump has no grounds to appeal.

AS far as I recall, you can appeal, grounds or not.

Trump's whole MO is about delay. Which is a problem in this case since he needs to post up some cash in the next 25 days or so...for the appeal to be heard.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

AS far as I recall, you can appeal, grounds or not.

Trump's whole MO is about delay. Which is a problem in this case since he needs to post up some cash in the next 25 days or so...for the appeal to be heard.

He can try, he’ll be laughed off.