New York judge finds Donald Trump liable for fraud

[Buy1Sell2]

There are numerous avenues of appeal here. One that I expect to be employed is that the law that doesn't allow a jury trial is unconstitutional.

 

[Ricter]

Your analogy is ridiculous and is a convenient side step of the Trump "fraud" ruling. By the way, using your logic, the illegal immigrants each now need to pay 355 million dollars.

You just don't like it because I've turned one of your bogeymen back on you.

 

[Atlantic]

There are numerous avenues of appeal here. One that I expect to be employed is that the law that doesn't allow a jury trial is unconstitutional.

if you drive 200 mph on a highway -

there might be no victims

but if the cops get you - you will be punished.

are you too stupid to understand something like this?

 

[Ricter]

if you drive 200 mph on a highway -

there might be no victims

but if the cops get you - you will be punished.

are you too stupid to understand something like this?

I know a libertarian who thinks that if we already have property damage and manslaughter laws then it should be legal for people to speed all they want—they must simply accept the risk, and responsibility.

 

[mervyn]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-ny-law.html

The $355 million penalty that a New York judge ordered Donald J. Trump to pay in his civil fraud trial might seem steep in a case with no victim calling for redress and no star witness pointing the finger at Mr. Trump. But a little-known 70-year-old state law made the punishment possible.

The law, often referred to by its shorthand, 63(12), which stems from its place in New York’s rule book, is a regulatory bazooka for the state’s attorney general, Letitia James. Her office has used it to aim at a wide range of corporate giants: the oil company Exxon Mobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli.

Once the attorney general has convinced a judge or jury that a defendant has acted deceptively, the punishment can be severe. The law allows Ms. James to seek the forfeit of money obtained through fraud.

Of the roughly $355 million that Mr. Trump was ordered to pay, $168 million represents the sum that Mr. Trump saved on loans by inflating his worth, she argued. In other words, the extra interest the lenders missed.

 

[Tony Stark]

No bank, or other borrower indicated that they were defrauded. In fact, the banks testified that they were not defrauded. It is up to the bank to determine the value of a property, not the borrower. As for the property tax issue, it is the responsibility of the taxing authority to assess the value of the property, not the property owner. Thus, there is no fraud here committed by Trump. I'm not surprised by the ridiculous ruling, rather I expected it. I look for it to be overturned.

They usually don't know they have been defrauded unless the borrower defaults.They are still being defrauded by giving loan terms based on false information.

 

[Tony Stark]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-ny-law.html

The $355 million penalty that a New York judge ordered Donald J. Trump to pay in his civil fraud trial might seem steep in a case with no victim calling for redress and no star witness pointing the finger at Mr. Trump. But a little-known 70-year-old state law made the punishment possible.

The law, often referred to by its shorthand, 63(12), which stems from its place in New York’s rule book, is a regulatory bazooka for the state’s attorney general, Letitia James. Her office has used it to aim at a wide range of corporate giants: the oil company Exxon Mobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli.

Once the attorney general has convinced a judge or jury that a defendant has acted deceptively, the punishment can be severe. The law allows Ms. James to seek the forfeit of money obtained through fraud.

Of the roughly $355 million that Mr. Trump was ordered to pay, $168 million represents the sum that Mr. Trump saved on loans by inflating his worth, she argued. In other words, the extra interest the lenders missed.

Exactly

 

[SunTrader]

I know a libertarian who thinks that if we already have property damage and manslaughter laws then it should be legal for people to speed all they want—they must simply accept the risk, and responsibility.

Here in Floriduh they did away with Helmet requirement for Motorcyclists years ago under Gub Jeb Bush I believe.

Now they say, well you have to wear one unless you have $10,000 in PIP - then you are good to go once again.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

A couple of idiots in here are trying to compare driving tickets and illegally entering the country, both of which are criminal offenses, with a civil fraud proceeding.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

They usually don't know they have been defrauded unless the borrower defaults.They are still being defrauded by giving loan terms based on false information.

How so, if they were happy with the terms and it was their responsibility to ascertain values?