New York's Civil Lawsuit Against Trump Is Unconstitutional

Trump has a constitutional right to do business in New York

New York State Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Donald Trump is unconstitutional and unfair. James is demanding that Trump, his business, his two oldest sons, and two business partners give back $370 million that she says they obtained through fraud. James wants to permanently ban Trump from running a business in New York State. And, she has obtained a ruling from the judge trying the case to place all of Trump's New York businesses in receivership and sold with Trump getting only the cash from a forced fire sale.  James' lawsuit alleges that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of his assets in annual net worth statements to banks to obtain savings on loan interest.  It must be noted at the outset that no bank has complained that Trump committed fraud and that James is charging Trump an enormous and unconstitutional penalty for what is essentially a victimless crime.

The New York State law, as it is being applied to Trump, raises the same due process of law problem as is raised by a classic politically motivated Bill of Attainder. Historically, a Bill of Attainder was a legislative act that singled out a politically unpopular person for punishment.  In Trump's case, a general and over-broad state law is being used against him in a hitherto unheard of way depriving him of property without due process of law.  And, everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that it is all because New York has a lot of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who hate Trump. The victimless crime that James has charged Trump with is basically that he is a liar, and she does not like his political views.  State Bills of Attainder are banned under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment provides that no person can be deprived of property without due process of law.

The Constitution does not allow banning people from running a business or putting all their assets in receivership and auctioning them off in a fire sale with the victim getting back the resulting cash.  I am not aware of any precedent that supports what James is doing.   The Constitution does not allow hitting Trump with a $370 million fine for a victimless crime, which almost certainly violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.  Putting Trump's assets in receivership and auctioning them off in a fire sale is a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause for which Trump must at a minimum receive just compensation.  But, even then, private property can only be taken for "a public use", and there is no "public use" unless you hate Trump's politics and want to punish him as a result.  And, at that point, you must confront the Bill of Attainder prohibition once again.

I have in the past opposed Trump, vigorously, as I did when he acted improperly as President on January 6, 2021.  I also think that most politicians lie and that Donald Trump lies more than most politicians.  But that does not strip Donald Trump of his fundamental right to do business in New York on the same terms as other New Yorkers. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, Trump, who is a citizen of Florida, has the same right to do business in New York as does a New York citizen.  James should have to show that other New York citizens have been banned from doing business in New York and had all their assets put in receivership for a victimless crime of lying.

I also believe, along with the Institute for Justice, that the four dissenters in The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) were right that Americans have a fundamental right to pursue any occupation they want to pursue so long as they do not endanger or hurt third parties along the way.  Occupational licensing of doctors, airplane pilots, and engineers are all O.K., but I think occupational licensing of barbers, flower shops, and tanning salons is unconstitutional.  I hope that some day the Supreme Court will have an epiphany and that it will overrule The Slaughter-House Cases. Americans should have the same fundamental, constitutional right to pursue whatever occupation they want to pursue, as is mentioned explicitly in the Constitutions of Germany, Japan, South Africa, and Israel.  All Americans, including Donald Trump, should and do have a constitutional right to pursue an occupation by, for example, running a business, either in New York State, or in any other state.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

So how long before an appeals court throws out this whole hot steaming mess?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There is a legal process, grasshopper.

Trump wants this one to move fast; others he wants to move very slowly...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, how long before the legal process throws out this mess?

[momo]

Not until SCOTUS.

That is the only point where the appeals court is not controlled by Democrats

If this has started in a purple state it would be stopped sooner. But coming from a deep blue state, the SCOTUS is the closest point of sanity.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hopefully there are some honest judges at the higher level NY courts.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And how will you determine if there are?

By looking at the outcome, of course!

[ReaderY]

I think the Supreme Court has honest judges, and honest judges would uphold the case. Trump thinks his conduct should be legal, but so what? There’s no plausible constitutional argument. It’s well established that states can regulate businesses by cracking down on corporations that systematically falsify their books.

Business regulation in general passes rational basis. And Trump doesn’t even pretend to deny that he committed the conduct he is charged with. He just doesn’t think it should be illegal.

Fine. The answer the US Supreme Court should give is, take that up with the New York legislature. It’s their business, and not the federal government’s or federal courts’, whether it should be illegal in New York or not.

[billardl]

Correct, states can regulate businesses, but selective enforcement based on protected 1st Amendment speech poses a Constitutional problem. And that's what happened beyond any semblance of doubt.

[Sarcastr0]

First Amendment protects fraud, eh?

[billardl]

No, of course not. But the First Amendment prohibits government actors from singling out for selective prosecution/persecution a person who has said things they dislike.

[Sarcastr0]

And it is your contention that the fraud is legit, but the prosecution is selective?

Have any proof other than ipse dixit 'that’s what happened beyond any semblance of doubt?'

[damikesc]

Who was defrauded?

The banks that were paid back in full?
The city that got the tax revenues?
Trump?

Tell us how you sell/invest/borrow against real estate without a difference in opinion of its value. Because it has never, not once, happened.

[Sarcastr0]

The banks were paid less than they should have been, because the interest was based on a rate based on a fraudulent valuation.

This is not about a difference of opinion; it is about actual false characterization of objective aspects of the properties (Saying the size of the penthouse was 30,000 square feet when it was 11,000).

[friscoda]

This is incorrect. The interest paid was based on the principal borrowed and not on the value of the collateral.

[Sarcastr0]

"[The NY AG successfully argued Trump was] fraudulently misstating the value of their assets on financial statements for personal gain, including to reflect a higher net worth for Trump and obtain more favorable business deals, such as loans with lower interest rates."

"[A banking expert] calculated the difference in interest payments that Trump might have paid with a commercial real estate loan that would have had a much higher interest rate than the rate he obtained by personally guaranteeing the loans on the basis of financial statements that inflated his net worth."

The judge: ""That the instant lenders made millions of dollars and were happy with the transactions does not mean that they were not damaged by lending at lower interest rates than they otherwise would have."

[David Nieporent]

This is incorrect. The interest paid was based on the principal borrowed and not on the value of the collateral.

Um, no. The rate that lenders charge for loans depends on the riskiness of those loans. (And that risk is measured ex ante, not ex post.) Less available collateral = higher risk = higher rates = more interest to be paid.

[friscoda]

The banks made their own determination of the value of the collateral here and the likely cash flow stream to service the debt (as they always do) and IIRC there was a personal guarantee. This is how banks set the loan terms, including the interest rate. The banks testified to this effect. I practiced in Big Law for 40+ years and can tell you that banks closely evaluate the collateral themselves and don't really rely on the borrower's assessment. People overturning norms to get Trump is something that I hope we don't live to regret.

[billardl]

friscoda, precisely. I would have no issue saying that he committed fraud if he submitted to the lender a doctored appraisal.

But merely representing one's net worth that is highly difficult to value as higher than a court later determines should not constitute fraud. As you said, lenders don't just take your word for it, at least for not a loan of any significant size.

[Bill Falcon]

Fraud? Fauci, Collins, the Federal Reserve, most of us foreign policy since the end of the cold war. The BLM riots, Ferguson. I could go on with knowing fraud committed by the media, academia, big tech, wall street, ngos, covid vaccines claims, and of course the govt itself.

[Darth Buckeye]

Yes, but some states are cracking down on businesses run by the minority political party, or on organizations siding with that party. If allowed to continue, you would see similar lawsuits in red states against blue-aligned businesses and organizations.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh man, the comments today will be hot and heavy. 🙂

[Randal]

I dunno... just more dementia from Calabresi. It's getting boring and speaks for itself.

The most interesting takeaway is that Calabresi still hasn't learned how to do contractions.

[Frank Drackman]

Grammar is the last refuge of the Homo, I mean Scoundrel

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Grammar is the last refuge of the Homo

I repeat my invitation to those who believe I make too much of this right-wing blog's everyday bigotry to line up alphabetically and kiss my ass.

Carry on, clingers. So far as betters American (for whose magnanimity you should be grateful) permit, and not a step beyond. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters.

[jjsaz]

Everyone has the fundamental, natural right to pursue whatever occupation they want to pursue. I hope that some day the Supreme Court will have an epiphany and that it will overrule The Slaughter-House Cases.

Fixed it for you. No thanks necessary.

[gVOR08]

Does everyone have a natural right to commit fraud?

Does Calabresi drag The Slaughter House Cases into this because Charles Koch's refineries wish to commit the modern equivalent of flooding the streets of New Orleans with dung and offal without being annoyed by government regulators?

[Mr. Bumble]

New Orleans' streets are already full of dung and offal.

[Eric (the OC tanker)]

Exactly whom was defrauded? I still do not have a handle on this particular point.

[ReaderY]

Suppose a restaurant keeps banana peals on the floor right in frint of a vat of sulpheric acid, or stores food in the toilet, or a builder uses wood for the foundation in an earthquake zone. Suppose somebody drives drunk.Suppose there has not yet been an accident, earthquake, or epidemic. Is it your position that the state can do nothing, because unless and until someone is actually hurt by these things, they are all victimless?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wood is way more elastic than steel, and structural wood would do better in an earthquake. Not the subsequent fire, but in the earthquake...

[M L]

Is it your position that the restaurant has committed fraud upon someone?

[Drewski]

Maybe work on that fourth-grade grammar before demanding a nuanced explanation of legal matters. I don't see the point in responding in detail to someone who never quite internalized when to use "who" and when to use "whom." It would be like explaining electrical engineering to someone that never understood why math uses letters sometimes.

[Bruce Hayden]

It’s not really fraud, because that requires intent and real measurable damages. It was essentially filing incorrect paperwork, which is why calling the fine “damages” is misleading.

[ReaderY]

Nobody has the right to pursue an illegal business. Professional pickpockets, hit men, bank robbers, prostitutes, book-cookers do NOT have a natural right to pursue their professions. Your argument thst they do, that professional hit men for example have a natural right to pursue their profession that overrides state murder laws, is nonsense.

People who want to pursue a profession must do so in conformity with the law. Those who engage illegal conduct forfeit their right to do so.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's early and so I doubt that many of the great legal minds who comment here are up yet, but my question is: How often (if at all) has this law been used in this manner?
My understanding is that this law is basically a consumer protection law. So, who are the consumers who are being protected?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Calabresi's hands do a lot a waving in this (thankfully brief) piece.

"In Trump's case, a general and over-broad state law is being used against him in a hitherto unheard of way depriving him of property without due process of law."

I don't know the answer to the question, but if Calabresi is arguing that NY State has never been used to shut down any other businesses which commit fraud in the State, it is odd that he doesn't bother to back up that surprising claim with any kind of evidence.

If New York State (or any other State) has done so in the past, then Calabresi's constitutional claims would fall quite flat.

[AmosArch]

Has any individual in US history been targeted by the legal system as many times as Trump? He's gotta be up there in or close to the top 10 or 20 at least. Kinda weird how he found all this time to do all these bad things he supposedly did with those Apprentice shootings and Presidential meetings in between. How he's supposedly stupid but is somehow able to juggle and additionally be responsible as the prime architect for these kajillion crimes that would take a prodigious intellect to even be able to keep track of and how this stuff only really came out once he became a political threat.

[santamonica811]

Amos,
Trump was sued well over 3,500 times BEFORE he decided to ever run for president in 2016. In other words, pro-choice, Democrat, Donald Trump was sued thousands of times. Do you attribute this to a vast right-wing conspiracy against him?

Or, maybe, it's because (a) He has a bunch of businesses, and anyone with many businesses will be sued from time-to-time (some legit, some iffy, and some totally without merit), and/or (b) he's has been a shitty and unethical businessman for decades; it's actually part of his method of doing business to screw over the hardworking small businesses that did work for him, and this explains most of the staggeringly-high number of lawsuits?

You make the call.

Of course; I'm guessing that you're in the group that thinks that all 20-25 of his alleged rape/molestation victims were lying. The conservative women; the liberal women, the Republican women; the Democrat women, the non-political women . . . all liars, and all lying over the span of decades. Again; you make the call.

But trying to paint Trump as the victim here is one of the weirdest things I've seen in donkey years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just curious as to your source for these numbers.

[Frank Drackman]

His Ass

[santamonica811]

Bumble, are you asking about the number of lawsuits, or about something else? A quick Google will give you lots of links to the approximate number of 3,500 lawsuits. I'll stick just one of them, below. (I'll note that, in 2016 when this issue first came up, the Trump campaign did not dispute that number, and Trump even proudly--albeit falsely, of course--boasted that he never settled lawsuits ahead of trials.) My vague recollection was that the 3,500 number was almost certainly a low estimate, as I think I remember the search being limited to lawsuits that specifically named Trump in the suit . . . so this eliminated all suits where Trump was a secret or silent partner or participant.

The 20-25 figure for rape and sexual assault victims has been widely reported, for years, so I assume that you're not asking for cites for that, yes?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

[Krayt]

You could be 100% correct, and still wrong because this is the king expropriating the estate of irritating noblemen to hurt them as political opponents, nothing more.

That's why this is done now.

It has to be done now.

Don't you see?

Don't you see?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is not involved in this at all, though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Biden is indirectly involved in the federal cases, owing to the fact that it is his Department of Justice which is pursuing those cases.
There is little reason to believe that he is directly involved in any of them--and to think he's directly involved in the NY State cases requires a special kind of credulity only possessed a select few.

The DoJ has long had a policy of not criminally prosecuting sitting presidents, so as soon as Trump left office, the gears began to turn. They could not start before then, and it is a years-long process to go from investigation to trial. Trump is doing everything he can to throw sand in those gears, to avoid standing trial in an election year, but the only way to remove this cloud from above his head (apart from pleading guilty, lol) would be to allow them to proceed to trial ASAP, so the result would be known before the election in November.

[iowantwo]

Biden is not involved in this at all, though.
By that you mean he used the standard 2 cutouts to communicate with the Prosecutors?

[damikesc]

Well, we know he met with the GA DA and her boy-toy prosecutor. I see little reason to believe he did not do the same with James.

[David Nieporent]

You "know" lots of things that aren't so. Not sure you know anything correct, though.

[bernard11]

No. Trump would not be expropriated.

The proceeds of the sale go to him, not the state.

[Social Justice is neither]

You are fucking retarded. If the State forced the sale of your home for no legitimate reason then tossed you the $20 proceeds of their corrupt deal you bet your Leftist ass you had your property expropriated.

[John Rohan]

"Trump was sued well over 3,500 times BEFORE he decided to ever run for president in 2016″

His BUSINESSES were sued thousands of times, not Trump personally. Which is not unusual for a multi-billion dollar operation that has operated for decades.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The article above clearly shows that is not true:

"For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.

To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined."

Trump was named in all those cases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers’ names were included"

That's research misconduct because (a) only one developer's name is as well known as Trump's, and (b) "Trump" *is* the brand name as well. "Trump" is bolted onto the buildings, e.g. it isn't the "Silverstein Trade Center."

Notice how you had to add who each of the other four men were?

[Drewski]

Do you think lawyers choose to name defendants based on whether they can think of that person's name in the moment?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amazing what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Has any individual in US history been targeted by the legal system as many times as Trump?

Are you referring to (1) the period when Trump was a silver-spooned fraudster largely uninvolved in politics, or (2) the period after Trump became the leader of the MAGA-QAnon political movement, you bigoted half-wit?

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the person who doesn't own a mirror and lacks self awareness.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great comment. You are the audience this blog craves and deserves.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hand waving is the only thing happening here.

Calabresi does not provide a single piece of evidence for his various assertions of impropriety.

The Bill of Attainder argument is especially laughable. NY 63(12) does not target any specific individual or group, and fraud is not lawful conduct.

It is also not a 'victimless crime.'

[Mr. Bumble]

"It is also not a ‘victimless crime.’"

So who was the victim in this case?

[santamonica811]

Situation One. I fire my high-powered rifle into a group of 20 students playing loud music. Somehow, I miss all 15 shots, and because of the music, no one there even knew I had tried to kill them. No victims, according to you and Calabresi, I guess--so no crime.

Situation Two. I hack into a bunch of bank accounts and steal $10,000,000. And throw all the money into risky stocks. But I am lucky, and make a ton of money in just a week. I put all the stolen money back (plus the tiny bit of interest that money would have earned during that 7-day period). None of my victims knew that the money had been taken. Again, I guess you and Calabresi would say that there are no victims, and--again--no crime.

I definitely want you two on my jury.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll try again:
Who was the victim in THIS case?

[santamonica811]

I dunno. Maybe all his competitors, who had to obtain loans honestly, and lost out on some opportunities that he was able (through his fraud) to qualify for?

I think states, and the federal govt, prosecute lots of crimes where there is no easily identifiable victim. Under a theory that intentional lawbreaking hurts the fabric of society, or some such twaddle. Maybe that’s a good theory; or maybe it’s a bad one. But literally thousands of tens of thousands of people have been convicted (including criminally, where the penalty is loss of freedom, rather than merely losing future business opportunities) where there is no specific victim. You will go to prison for years, for drunk driving, even though you made it home perfectly safely. I’ll go to prison for stabbing my ex repeatedly, even though she had happened to die unbeknownst to me earlier that evening. Countless people imprisoned (mostly in the past) for using illegal drugs in their own homes, or growing/making their own drugs strictly for their own personal use.

Again, maybe it’s dumb to have prosecuted all the victimless crimes. But that not remotely like arguing, “Hey, Trump is being treated unfairly and uniquely, since there are no victims in the alleged cases.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"I dunno."
Your further rambling confirms that.

[Michael P]

Of course you don't know. Banks testified in this case that lots of businesses generate estimates of asset value that are higher than the banks' estimates, and that's why the banks get their own assessments. What Trump is accused of doing is a standard aspect of getting such loans.

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

“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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte...

The banks were contractually obligated to get their OWN estimates of value as is common in such situations because of the presumption that the borrower could (intentionally or accidentally) overstate value.

If a bank didn't do its job, it's on them...

[David Nieporent]

The banks were not contractually obligated to do any such thing, of course. And "the victim was lazy/gullible" is not actually a defense to fraud, anyway.

[virginia]

Reasonable reliance by the plaintiff/fraud victim is an element of many fraud claims. Alternately, there may be an affirmative defense if the defendant can show either that the plaintiff did not rely on the false statement, or that such reliance was unreasonable.

[Bruce Hayden]

All of his competitors do exactly the same thing. They just weren’t the hated OrangeManBad President.

[Magister]

Maybe the banks don't want to admit that they were victims because it would harm their other business, or because they fear bomb threats like the one targeting the judge. In any case, it seems unlikely that banks will say that they consented to being defrauded.

Other likely victims are borrowers who failed to get their loans or got less favorable terms. Possible victims are those who bought Trump properties based on the inflated value

"Victimless crime" should not include crimes with victims who turn out not to be harmed or are unaware of the harm or who can't be located, but rather crimes in which everyone involved consented and nobody is harmed.

[Eric (the OC tanker)]

Question. Did the banking institutions involved have the loans in question repaid in full plus accrued interest?

So, if the loans were repaid, then there is no fraud perpetrated against the lender. Are the facts of the case (as I understand it) is that the loans were applied for, and the bank disagreed with the value of the collateral? Then the bank issued the loan/s nevertheless? Then the loans were repaid?

Does this look like the fact set as reported?

[Sarcastr0]

So, if the loans were repaid, then there is no fraud perpetrated against the lender
The repayment amount was fraudulently determined.

[bernard11]

And in sm811's first example above everyone left the party unharmed, and unaware they were ever in danger.

No crime?

[damikesc]

"Maybe the banks don’t want to admit that they were victims because it would harm their other business, or because they fear bomb threats like the one targeting the judge. In any case, it seems unlikely that banks will say that they consented to being defrauded.

Other likely victims are borrowers who failed to get their loans or got less favorable terms. Possible victims are those who bought Trump properties based on the inflated value

“Victimless crime” should not include crimes with victims who turn out not to be harmed or are unaware of the harm or who can’t be located, but rather crimes in which everyone involved consented and nobody is harmed."

Given that James has not produced such evidence, do YOU have evidence of these assumptions of yours?

[Magister]

No obligation for me or James to produce such evidence; I'm rebutting the certainty expressed in so many comments here, that there can have been no possible harm. Conversely, there has been a steady failure to provide evidence that harm must be demonstrated.

The meaning of "victimless crime" is not something that needs to be demonstrated in court; purely an opinion about what it should mean.

[Bruce Hayden]

I think that you truly don’t understand lending and banking.

[Frank Drackman]

"High-powered Rifle"??
are there any "Low-Powered" Rifles??, Maybe Ralphie's Red Ryder BB Gun (with a Compass in the Stock!) but even that could put an eye out!
$10,000,000? You're a more industrious fellow than me, if I had $10,000,000 (with inflation, not really that much, would only be $1,000,000 in 1962 dollars) I'd do 2 girls at once. I think if I had $10,000,000 I could hook that up.

Frank

[Heresolong]

LOL

[Dr. Ed 2]

You own a railroad and you have a grade crossing with all the FRA-approved gates and flashing lights and the rest. It fully meets current code (few do).

Some idiot drives through your gates and is hit by a train. Is it your fault?

Say the motorist was actually a diabetic having an insulin reaction -- again, is it your fault?

The banks agreed that (a) THEY would do THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS and that (b) THE BANK'S figures would be considered the official ones.

So what the hell did Trump do wrong here? What if he'd instead listed their value as "$1 or more"? All he's listing is what HE thinks the properties are worth AT THIS TIME.

[David Nieporent]

The banks agreed that (a) THEY would do THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS

No, they didn't. This is just a Dr. Ed-ism.

What if he’d instead listed their value as “$1 or more”?

Then he wouldn't have committed fraud, but he also wouldn't have gotten the loans.

[Bruce Hayden]

They of course do their own Due Diligence. It would be negligent if they didn’t, and gross negligence if they didn’t do so on loans this size. And the state wasn’t using the banks estimates, but the county’s assessed valuations, which are notoriously inaccurate. Nobody would loan money based on those values. For one thing, the county rarely has actual rent rolls available to them, unless you use such to try to appeal your valuations, and income stream is one of the primary components determining actual value. This is obvious here because many of the properties are appraised by the county absurdly low, based on income stream.

[damikesc]

"Situation One. I fire my high-powered rifle into a group of 20 students playing loud music. Somehow, I miss all 15 shots, and because of the music, no one there even knew I had tried to kill them. No victims, according to you and Calabresi, I guess–so no crime.

Situation Two. I hack into a bunch of bank accounts and steal $10,000,000. And throw all the money into risky stocks. But I am lucky, and make a ton of money in just a week. I put all the stolen money back (plus the tiny bit of interest that money would have earned during that 7-day period). None of my victims knew that the money had been taken. Again, I guess you and Calabresi would say that there are no victims, and–again–no crime.

I definitely want you two on my jury."

Interesting.

Who was harmed in THIS case?

[CountmontyC]

The DA claims that the banks are the victims even though the banks themselves say that they have no complaints about what occurred.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Great! That means the State can keep all the money Trump's businesses have to pay in fines for itself, then.

[CountmontyC]

So fine him 10 times the bank's provable losses. Oh let's make it 100 times. Of course the banks say they lost zero money so either way the fine is zero dollars.

[myself]

It's been well documented that Trump has trouble borrowing from banks due to all of his bankruptcies.

It could well be the case the banks are victims, but they don't want to complain since suing rich former clients is bad business (particularly clients with political connections).

[Mr. Bumble]

They were paid back.

[CountmontyC]

As Mr. Bumble states points out the loans and all interest was repaid. Repaid on time. So the banks made money off of these loans. Kind of hard to complain when the borrower fulfills the terms of the agreement isn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

The amount of interest was calculated based on fraudulent information, so this 'everything was repaid' is itself a lie.

[myself]

Then why don't the banks loan to him anymore?

The assets backing the loan weren't worth what he claimed. If they'd known the true value they may have demanded more interest or simply not given the loan.

Even if they made money on those specific loans, but as a result of his fraud were exposed to much more risk than they intended, then they rightfully don't want to do anymore business with him.

[Tom for equal rights]

As previously noted, there is no evidence that the bank relied on the fraudulent values from the client to obtain favorable loan terms. Every bank is going to do their own internal due diligence during the underwriting process. The size of the loans were such that it was very likely the loans were syndicated out to other lending institutions who would have also done their own due diligence. Does anyone think the banks didnt get any outside appraiser involve. There had to be 30+ people involved in the underwriting process, Does anyone think that everyone of the underwriters accepted a clients valuation as valid.

Even though Trumps valuations were fraudulent, its laughable that the banks relied on the clients fraudulent representations for reasons stated.

Its further laughable that a bank would have relied on the valuations since none of the valuation were based on professional appraisal standards. The valuations were not certified appraisals. Underwriters ignore client valuations.

[Magister]

Trump’s statements of financial condition were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his Doral, Florida, golf resort and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.

They also helped Trump secure bigger loans and lower interest rates, said Haigh, who headed the risk group for the bank’s private wealth management unit from 2008 to 2018.

It is not reported that anybody laughed at this testimony. Current Deutsche Bank officials later testified that this wasn't true, but of course they have an interest in preserving the bank's reputation.

[Tom for equal rights]

magister - Anyone involved in lending and underwriting would know that haigh's statement is dubious.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet another financial expert on these forums! Amazing! And they all tell us not to trust the credentialed experts, but rather them, anonymous posters on the Internet!

[Tom for equal rights]

Magister

Is it credible that a major bank is going to forgo their internal due diligence and make a $125m based on the customers statement of value?

Is it credible that the Bank's internal compliance department is going to sign off on a loan of that size based on the customers statement of value

Is it credible that the outside bank examiners are going to allow the bank to continue making loans without the required due diligence.

Is it credible that the participating banks are going to forgo their due diligence.

Haigh testimony is not very credible. Look at how many procedures have to be circumvented or bypassed for his testimony to be accurate description of the events

[Magister]

The Trump defense does not seem to have called a bunch of disinterested experts to rebut Haigh's testimony, probably because they could only offer generalities like those seen in these comments.

Deutsche Bank has been investigated for many reasons; the Wikipedia page lists 15 "Controversies" including at least a billion dollars in fines imposed by New York in various cases. In light of its reputation, denying what its employee testified it did on the basis of what other banks normally do seems laughable and dubious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that the FED ships rolled quarters in boxes of $5000, clearly labeled both $5000 and quarters. I once saw such an *empty* box nonchalantly left on the counter of a busy bank.

If I were to have stolen it, did I steal $5000 -- or did I steal an empty cardboard box that may have been worth $1.78? And that's assuming that the FED (like Walmart) re-uses its boxes....

The BANKS did their OWN evaluations and the loans were based on the BANK'S figures.....

[Stella Link the dog]

"FED ships rolled quarters in boxes of $5000."

If a quarter weighs .2 oz, $5000 of quarters weighs 250 lbs. Just because it's impossible for you to steal $5000 by taking a box which weighs much less than 250 lbs doesn't mean you can't be convicted of attempting to steal $5000 by doing so. Impossibility is no defense. Just ask Squeaky Fromme who was convicted of attempting to assassinate Gerald Ford with a pistol (1911 .45) with no round in the chamber. About as deadly as a gun with no firing pin or a gun with no bullets in it at all or a toy pistol. If you can be convicted of trying to assassinate a president by sticking pins in a voodoo doll is left to law students to answer on a crim law exam.

After getting out of prison after something like 34 years, Fromme wrote a memoir. 480 pages and the 2d edition is available on Amazon for about $30. Appears to be some sort of vanity press dedicated to

Fromme spent about as much time locked up as did Hinckley, Jr. Hinckley, Jr. now has a youtube channel which exhibits his performances of original songs and covers. Spent about 15 seconds there. 10 seconds listening to him introduce and start one song (if it can be described as a song) and about 5 seconds on another just to confirm my impressions. His affect is not so different from that portrayed by Nicholson as post treatment Randle McMurphy or by Lange as Frances Farmer. The guitar playing is what might be accomplished by a talentless 14 year old after about a month of practice and the vocals match. Perhaps thorazine is the culprit.

[Magister]

Never trust what Dr. Ed 2 writes. A box weighing 250 pounds is not likely to be how quarters would be distributed, just because of the weight, unless the banks employ forklifts. A standard box of quarters has 50 rolls, worth $500 and not $5000, and thus weighing 25 pounds.

[bernard11]

Sure.

The banks have absolutely no concerns about testifying against a guy who might be President in a year or so, and who has sworn retribution against his enemies.

What could happen?

[Drewski]

The state. "Victimless" crimes are constitutional, as long as the state shows a rational basis. Policing fraud is a state interest, and a law forbidding fraud is rationally related to that interest. End of analysis.

[Bruce Hayden]

Maybe. But fraud also requires proof of actual damages, and those go to the victim, not the state. The “damages” going to the state means that they are, instead, fines.

[Joe_dallas]

Its laughable that anyone beliefs the banks relied on a clients claim of value of an asset when making a loan and pricing the interest rate and other terms. No bank, no underwriter is going to approve a loan without doing their own due diligence. Given the size of the loans, its very likely that other banks participated in the most of the loans, so its extremely unlikely that the participating banks didnt perform the their own due diligence.

The claim that Trump got favorable bank loan terms because of the inflated values is simply laughable

[Mxf339]

For an asset based loan, correct, but guarantees are based on financial statement, and that’s where the lenders don’t appraise the underlying assets. Remember Bruce McNoll (then owner of the LA Kings) went to prison for lying on a loan application. And legally (you know that seems relevant here), proof of damage is not required.

[Joe_dallas]

Mxf339 31 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
For an asset based loan, correct, but guarantees are based on financial statement, and that’s where the lenders don’t appraise the underlying assets.

Yes - they do appraise the underlying assets or perform some level of due diligence. Remember, these loans of the size that they will be syndicated out to other banks to participate. 30-50 individuals are going to be involved -
No underwriter, no banker, no loan officer is going to accept the clients version of values.

It remains laughable that the banks would rely on the valuation from the client.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe finds another area of expertise!

[Joe_dallas]

I deal with loan underwriting frequently in my profession.

It seems that a hallmark of the leftist bubble is to be completely ignorant of common everyday subjects. You should be proud

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe you do. At this point, your appeal to your own authority is something I give negative credit to - if you say it, I'll bet it's bullshit.

But one thing I do know is that 'they should have caught that I was lying' is not a defense for fraud.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastrp - sounds like your are just embarrassed being ignorant on common topics - and you are simply lashing out at your ignorance.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you're doing your usual attacks on people as though they should be ashamed for disagreeing with your off-the-wall takes.

Does that tactic get you far in the real world? On here it just makes you look like an insecure asshole.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro -- look in the mirror.
You can never point to a statement that is incorrect - yet you attack the person

If you dont want to be attacked for making despicable comments without a basis, then dont make despicable comments attacking the person.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, if the banks DIDN'T do their due diligence, that's a far bigger issue because they likely weren't doing it on OTHER loans, including OTHER loans that went bad and had to be bailed out by the public, be it the FDIC or whomever.

We ALL pay when insurance has to pay -- people tend to forget that...

[Bruce Hayden]

Except that these loans were repaid, in full, on time.

[Drewski]

Your argument is that he fraudulently inflated these values for no particular reason?

[damikesc]

If the banks had done this, their shareholders should be filing suits against them over this.

[David Nieporent]

Joe_dallas has expanded his expertise from climate science and epidemiology to financial regulation.

[Life of Brian]

That's pretty damn funny coming from the wage and hour (/PI/IP/EIEIO/LOL) lawyer who's peppered this thread with bold statements of what is and is not conventional practice in this area (and at least once has been explicitly corrected by an actual practitioner).

[David Nieporent]

Given the size of the loans, its very likely that other banks participated in the most of the loans,

Given the fact that it has long been reported that Deutsche was the only bank willing to lend to Trump and the others had blacklisted him, what you say is actually very unlikely.

[Bruce Hayden]

You are, most likely, talking about the initial loan, and not the syndication, where the loans were repackaged and sold on the secondary market.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed, what relevance is a "victimless crime" to a civil lawsuit?

[iowantwo]

The law used is a consumer fraud law. To Portect consumers from predetory lenders.

This law has never been used against a borrower. So yes it is targeting a specific indivdual.

The actions Trump is accused of happens every business day across the nation. No borrower has ever been targeted.

A fraud case, where the named victim, testified they were not the victim of fraud.

[Krayt]

That it is done now is because they want to hurt a political opponent. It is one of many such initiatives.

Continue maintaining facetious disinterested concern for the rule of law, though.

[David Nieporent]

That it is done now is because they want to hurt a political opponent.

It wasn't done now. It was done in September 2022, when Trump was out of office and not even a candidate for office.

[Michael P]

It's odd to you that he doesn't try to prove a negative? The trivial thing would be to show the precedent -- if any exists. Let's see someone who supports the NY persecution do that.

[Life of Brian]

You beat me to it. I've been asking for months for a single prior case where a comparable example was prosecuted at all -- much less in kill/crush/destroy mode -- and none of the big brains around here or anywhere else I've seen have been able to scrape one up.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/nys/pressreleases/March12/buckleywilliamappraisersettlement.html
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that the United States has settled mortgage fraud claims against real-estate appraiser WILLIAM BUCKLEY and his firm, PREMIER APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC. (“PREMIER”). Under the settlement, BUCKLEY admitted and accepted responsibility for the fact that certain of PREMIER’s appraisals overstated the value of properties that the Government alleges were part of a mortgage fraud scheme. BUCKLEY also agreed to pay $250,000 to the United States, to surrender his real estate license, and to be barred for a decade from performing appraisals in connection with mortgage loans insured by the United States. The settlement, in the form of a consent order, was approved yesterday by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “The integrity of real estate transactions depends on properties being valued fairly. When William Buckley overstated the value of these properties in his appraisals, it allowed others to commit mortgage fraud, ultimately ripping off the homeowners and the Government, which stood behind the loans to help home buyers. As today’s agreement demonstrates, strong enforcement is imperative, and any professionals who shirk their duties will be held accountable.”

This is what you asked for. I expect the goalposts to move.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK now cite a NY state law case.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Flailing, disaffected conservative bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Life of Brian]

Oh come on, dude -- I know you're not that clueless:

The Government alleged that the appraiser defendants, including BUCKLEY and PREMIER, inflated the value of residential properties in their appraisal reports, which enabled Mitchell Cohen, a co-defendant, to sell the properties to inexperienced home buyers at inflated prices.

Actual, quantifiable harm to actual victims. But thanks for playing as always!

[Sarcastr0]

OK, so your claim is victimless crime. So unjust enrichment isn't a thing in your world.

I disagree.

Getting favorable interest rates you don't deserve so you is not cool. Selling your properties based on those interest rates so you get more money than the market should bear is actually bad and worthy of punishment.

Even if no individual lost that money, fucking with the market is something we should punish. By your logic we shouldn't bother with insider trading either since no one is personally out any money.

[Life of Brian]

Selling your properties based on those interest rates so you get more money than the market should bear is actually bad and worthy of punishment.

Hey, talk about moving goalposts -- where'd this new hotness come from?

Even if no individual lost that money, fucking with the market is something we should punish.

Wow, "fucking with the market." I know this is the era of hopelessly vague, broad, laws that can be used as selectively enforced political clubs, but you could at least try to be a tad more subtle about it.

By your logic we shouldn’t bother with insider trading either since no one is personally out any money.

Again, I know you're not clueless enough to actually believe silliness like this. Keep flailing.

[Sarcastr0]

My new hotness came from the charges being made against Trump.

I was pretty sure that's what we were talking about.

Wow, “fucking with the market.” I know this is the era of hopelessly vague, broad, laws
This is extremely disingenuous. Or just you being pretty thick this morning.

Your entire point was that these charges do not have an associated harm.
I point to the harm as you asked; you pretend I've described the charges.

No new goalposts.

[Life of Brian]

My new hotness came from the charges being made against Trump.

I confess that I missed the part where the Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago were sold at all, much less on the basis of an interest rate of a loan taken out against them. Please do fill us in.

Your entire point was that these charges do not have an associated harm.

No, duckie, my entire point was that -- as I've said for months -- nobody has been prosecuted under this wastebasket New York statute for any remotely comparable behavior.

Having pretended to supply such a case that just laughably isn't, you're now trying to save face by pivoting to a broader policy discussion, which is an admirable effort in distraction but not responsive at all.

So just have the conversation you want to have, and drop the pretense that you've suddenly been the first to find the big smoking gun case that makes this debacle just a garden-variety exercise.

[Sarcastr0]

New York Attorney General Letitia James alleged that Trump, his adult sons, and his top deputies inflated the assets listed in his annual financial statement, known as a statement of financial condition or SFC. The statements gave Trump's lenders a false sense of confidence about doing business with him, which led them to offer Trump more favorable interest rates than he would have otherwise received, James alleged.

Based on the sale of two properties that relied on those financial statements, and on multiple loan transactions, James alleges that Trump's overvaluations allowed him and his sons to fraudulently pocket roughly $370 million over a decade.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-closing-arguments-trumps-370m-civil-fraud/story?id=106274378

Do your fucking homework.

And your argument that no one has been prosecuted on civil fraud where there has been no specific personal harm is moronic.
Here is a cite about that:
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/State_of_New_York_v_McLeod.pdf

I'm sure you'll keep adding elements to distinguish, because you do not argue in good faith.

[Life of Brian]

I'd say to stop embarrassing yourself, but I already know you're incapable.

You first said the sale of the properties was based on the favorable interest rates, but your article says it was just based on the financial statements. If the story is that a sophisticated buyer bought an 8-figure property based solely on the valuation say-so of the seller... well. You really need to stop just uncritically regurgitating media pieces written by partisan idiots that don't have the first clue about the subject matter.

And I'm not reading a 42-page opinion to try to guess what you think is relevant about it when you're too lazy to even pretend to explain.

Crawl back in your troll hole.

[Sarcastr0]

You first said the sale of the properties was based on the favorable interest rates, but your article says it was just based on the financial statements.
Are you illiterate? In the comment you are replying to: "The statements gave Trump’s lenders a false sense of confidence about doing business with him, which led them to offer Trump more favorable interest rates than he would have otherwise received"

If the story is that a sophisticated buyer bought an 8-figure property based solely on the valuation say-so of the seller… well.
So much for your original thesis of no one being hurt. Or your other thesis about this being an unprecedented type of case. Now you're on to 'the banks shouldn't have trusted Trump.' Which is, of course, not a defense to fraud.

You really shouldn't come in this hot if you're not going to read the comment you reply to.

[Life of Brian]

Are you illiterate?

Far from it: I'm munching popcorn waiting for you to back up your original claim of "Selling your properties based on those interest rates so you get more money than the market should bear." That's an incoherent proposition, and your responses and the associated links you've been spraying around have been similarly incoherent. To wit:

So much for your original thesis of no one being hurt.

I never said anyone got hurt. Your story appears to be claiming that somehow, all of a sudden, magically just in time for this situation where it's desperately needed, an agreed-upon price in an arms-length transaction between a sophisticated buyer and seller is something other than the very definition of fair market value that it is. If you really believe that, you're just further beclowning yourself.

And speaking of, since you apparently have plenty of time to come back and prance in this thread, your choice not to respond to Eugene's polite question about your over-your-skis pronouncement about sealing practice in divorce cases seems rather glaring. When can we expect your next burst of self-imagined brilliance there?

[iowantwo]

Getting favorable interest rates you don’t deserve so you is not cool. Selling your properties based on those interest rates so you get more money than the market should bear is actually bad and worthy of punishment.

None of that is a real thing. Its nonsensical.
I own property. I am paying 4% interest that a guy on the internet says is a rate I don't deserve, where the market is 5.7% interest. When I sell the property, my loan is paid off, and has no effect on the sales price.

You know far less about real estate than you do the law.

[damikesc]

I think he's arguing that you're defrauding somebody.

Somehow.

[Mr. Bumble]

"This is what you asked for. I expect the goalposts to move."
Only one moving goalposts is you.

Again:
OK now cite a NY state law case.

[CountmontyC]

Did you read your own link? One big difference is that all 17 loans involved in the case you cited went into default whereas Trump repaid his loans with all due interest. And those buyers relied on assessments where the assessors were literally bribed to inflate the value of the homes. So the case you cited involves actual victims who ended up defaulting on government loans. A rather large difference.
Another difference is that the homes involved were sold to individual buyers whereas with Trump new buildings were built with the Trump corporation being the owner ( meaning that they would only have defrauded themselves if the allegations were true).

[Sarcastr0]

Yet another new distinction.

Repaying an amount of money that includes interest defined by your own fraud actually is a provable loss to the bank.

[CountmontyC]

The banks made a profit on their loans to Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

But, as alleged, not as much as they should have were the properties truthfully valued.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your concern for the poor incompetent banks is duly noted.

[iowantwo]

not as much as they should have

SHOULD have made. Like is their a chart or something of guaranteed profit?

In my business, profit is the responsibilty of the business employee, not the customer.

Besides, the Bank testified that the courted the Trump business because doing business with them afforeded the Bank an elevated Status.

[iowantwo]

"not as much as they should have "

Because that swindler Trump, paid the loan off early. What a shyster.

[iowantwo]

"Repaying an amount of money that includes interest defined by your own fraud "

The bank testified they did their own appriasals and used a percentage of the banks appraisal. So the borrower had nothing to do with the banks calculations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, that was an appraisal firm -- not a borrower.

[iowantwo]

That's were the borrower was defrauded. The lender was was guilty, and maybe the seller. The borrower was not charged with fraud.

The law used against Trump is a consumer Protection law. Trump is the consumer in the transaction.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not a "consumer protection law."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Prove a negative? No, but the claim seemed oddly without foundation to me. And, it turns out to have been a Trump claim, as well, which means it was most likely false, and according to the New Yorker, is false:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/17/trump-keeps-attacking-this-statute-in-ny-fraud-case-heres-why-his-claims-lack-merit/

The same New York State anti-fraud law had indeed been used before--against Trump in 2013--which is, of course, the most interesting example of the several they cited in the article.

It turns out the law in question is not especially old (it dates to 1956), and may not have been used very often, but it is still good law and does not appear to have ever been successfully challenged as "unconstitutional". Perhaps it has, but again, Calabresi hasn't mentioned that (and you'd think he would, if it supported his claim).

[iowantwo]

The forbes article states other cases the law was used. NONE of the cases mentioned suing the CONSUMER. All the cases were about lending practices. NONE of the cases were used against the borrower. All of the cases were about protecting the consumer. Trump is on the consumer side of the equation.

I dont chase down the cited case often. Because when I do they always fail to back up the claim. The articles prove that Trump is being persecuted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who cares if the other cases were all "pro-borrower"? The law was not written for Trump, and you have shown nothing to suggest the law is being improperly applied to Trump.

"Other cars were speeding" is not a defense.

"So unfair" is not a defense.

Don't you ever get tired of playing the victim? (Clearly not.)

[iowantwo]

Who cares if the other cases were all “pro-borrower”? The law was not written for Trump, and you have shown nothing to suggest the law is being improperly applied to Trump.
The law is written under the Consumer Fraud umbrella of laws.

The law used against the politician has been reversed. Now using the law to protect Deutsche Bank against a borrower.
This law have NEVER been used against the borrower.

But all rational people are eagerly waiting for you to prove me wrong.

[David Nieporent]

The law is written under the Consumer Fraud umbrella of laws.

The technical legal term for this claim is "lie." Iowantwo is likely not a lawyer, but is definitely not honest.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The law in question has nothing whatsoever to do with "consumer fraud". It can be found in the New York State's "Executive Law", which is part of its "Consolidated Laws and Constitution", but specifically within Article 5, which is entitled, "Department of Law".

The Department of Law is headed by the NY attorney-general, and the sections of that code (of which Section 63 is just one) cover all aspects of the AG's duties. Section 63 is entitled "General Duties", of which subsection 12 (the one we've been discussing in relation to its application to Trump) is just one. The very next one relates to the AG's duties with respect to the prosecution of "any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the attorney-general pursuant to statute", for example. I could go on, but there is little point.

Section 63(12) is quite broad, but it is there on the books. If you (suddenly) think it is much too broad, and gives the NY AG too much power, under the US political system there is always the opportunity to change the law. Good luck.

[Purple Martin]

Who are the victims?

New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against Donald Trump is unconstitutional and unfair.
…
It must be noted at the outset that no bank has complained that Trump committed fraud and that James is charging Trump an enormous and unconstitutional penalty for what is essentially a victimless crime.

“Unfair?” “Victimless”

The issue is engaging in unfair business practices in violation of New York state law. The primary victims are every NY business attempting to obey the law, while in competition with any of Trump’s hundreds of NY LLCs. Secondary victims are New York consumers living in such a distorted business environment.

The damage NY is trying to prevent is a race to the bottom business environment, in which all companies are motivated to skirt the law just to engage in business—a good description of the NYC real estate development business. The ends of that are the Jeffrey Skillings and Bernie Ebbers of the world, driving out competition in increasingly risky transactions until doubling-down on every failure finally catches up with them, with the potentially significant societal damage typified by the Enron and MCI/Worldcom collapses.

Trump mainly differs from Ebbers and Skilling in being so small-time that the vast majority of lawsuits were from trying to screw small businesses and subcontractors. Most of the major developments he attempted went bankrupt, and he was saved from personal bankruptcy only by an unexpected of cash from his unforeseen success in playing the part of a successful tycoon in a scripted reality TV show.

After that, he almost entirely abandoned major actual real estate development projects in favor of selling his name for suckers to put on other things. Which is where he remains today, except the suckers are now called MAGAs.

[ReaderY]

I disagree. If everybody cooked their books, and as a result took on more debt on better terms than justified by an honest assessment of risk, in the event of an economic downturn or financial panic, there could easily be a downward financial spiral.

Just as honest and dishonest people alike can be killed by an earthquake or bullets, homest and dishonest people alike can lose their savings in a financial panic. The victims are by no means limited to honest people.

Just look at what happened in the 2008 recession. Firms systematically underestimated and understated loan risk. Sure, everybody intended to pay an most did. But the consequence of this systematic misstatement of financial risk was that lots of people who intended to pay turned out not to be able to, and as a result a lot of people, honest and dishonest alike, lost big.

The purpose of New Uork’s law is to prevent a situation like the 2008 recession and financial panic, and other financial panics in our country’s past.

This is no more a victimless crime than a builder failing to earthquake proof a housing development just because there hasn’t been an earthquake yet, or somebody firing a gun into the street just because no passerby has been hit yet.

[Purple Martin]

Actually, we seem in agreement. “New York consumers living in such a distorted business environment” are victims if, as you say, Trump’s unlawful actions “are a factor in “a downward financial spiral” such as I called “potentially significant societal damage," all New Yorkers are subject to a higher risk that they “can lose their savings in a financial panic.”

I see nothing in your reply to disagree with.

[iowantwo]

Most of the major developments he attempted went bankrupt,

Yep, thats how you become rich, fail half the time and declare bankruptcy all of those times. There is nothing more attractive to a lender than repeated bankruptcy.

You are an idiot or lying troll. Nothing in your comment is factual

[David Nieporent]

Um, you appear to be unfamiliar with the person about whom we are speaking. Donald Trump "became" rich in the time-honored manner of choosing the right parents.

[AmosArch]

Dems are basically proving what we’ve already long known. Where theres sufficient will and control you can use the existing legal system to persecute anyone you want as much as you want.

[Randal]

I get it, you're talking about Blacks.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, playing with a deck of 52 race cards.

[Frank Drackman]

If they happen to be Surpreme Court Judges who don't Step N Fetch to their Liberal Overseers, yes.

[Kristian H.]

Yes. Dems do hate blacks. Always have.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservative racists are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and a core element of the target audience of a white, male, faux libertarian blog led by a guy afflicted by a form of Tourette Syndrome that causes habitual publication of vile racial slurs.

[Moderation4ever]

I do not agree with the author because it seems that government's, usually local have significant abilities to regulate businesses operating within their local markets. The things that come most to mind is restaurants and bars, where cities can remove serving licenses and liquor licenses. Gambling licenses are another example. Cities can also shut down and seize housing if landlords are not deemed to operate properly. If the Trump properties operate with approval of the City, it seems well within the City's legal rights to withhold that operating privilege. People can debate the merits of the case, but it does appear the NYC can restrict the Trump company's access to the market. I would also suggest that the defendants in this case have not done themselves any favor. While the former President's and his sons antics may help him politically, I don't see them helping him win this cases.

[Michael P]

How often do you confuse New York the city with New York the state? How often do you decide that because due process exists in a very different kind of case, it is applied in a particular case?

[John Rohan]

This isn't just about a license to operate. They are threatening to sell all of Trump's properties at whatever rates they choose.

[Moderation4ever]

Yet Donald Trump had no problem using Eminent Domain for acquiring land? Should rules only apply to other and not him?

[Mr. Bumble]

Where and when?

[Moderation4ever]

Properties near the border to build his wall. He also supported the plans for a Foxconn plant in Wisconsin that took people's land for a promised factory never build. He also been pressuring Scottish farmers for their land for his golf course.

[Roger S]

He needed that wall to save the country.

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't get the wall, so I guess America is over.

[Mr. Bumble]

The same wall that Congress promised to build (but didn't) as part of the Reagan Amnesty?

[Moderation4ever]

Reagan did not build wall he tried to tear them down.

[Bruce Hayden]

Which is a public purpose, acquired, with just compensation, by the government.

[iowantwo]

Just like a property owner does not set the price his property is assessed at for Property tax purposes, Citizens have no power to take property by emanate domain.

[Randal]

If he loses his license, he has to divest. It's the only option.

Trump is still the seller. He can set the price.

If he fails to sell, then the state will sell it for him, but as always in these cases, they'll get the best possible price.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think that's what the state is seeking.

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal 36 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Trump is still the seller. He can set the price.
If he fails to sell, then the state will sell it for him, but as always in these cases, they’ll get the best possible price."

Randal - Are you familiar with the concept of willing buyer and willing seller. The facts in this case, do not support your presumption

[Randal]

I assume that’s the same thing Steven was getting at by repeating “fire sale” a bunch of times.

Yeah, probably these assets will sell at a modest discount because of that. I guess the lesson is, don’t do frauds.

[iowantwo]

Yeah, probably these assets will sell at a modest discount because of that.

You are like lots of commenters on this topic. You know nothing about real estate.

The larger the pool of buyers the higher the sale price. Nothing else matters

[Randal]

Great, then there's no problem forcing Trump to sell at all. The pool of buyers is as big as it can possibly be.

[damikesc]

So...you're saying Trump is not ACTUALLY the seller. The state is.

[bernard11]

They are threatening to sell all of Trump’s properties at whatever rates they choose.

No. They are not setting the price. They are conducting an auction, and it will be well-publicized, unless Trump is a complete moron.

He should recover pretty much what they are really worth, maybe more.

[John F. Carr]

Real estate auctions can get close to market value or pennies on the dollar.

[bernard11]

Real estate auctions can get close to market value or pennies on the dollar.

True, John.

But this one is likely to bring at least very close to market value - not the value Trump claims but actual market value.

The basic determinant is going to be who shows up to bid, how much they know about the properties, and how much financing they can get.

If you auction off a foreclosed house in an average residential neighborhood, you might not get close to FMV, because potential buyers might not know about it, might not be confident in their valuations, or might just not be interested in buying a stand-alone single-family house. That translates to not many interested bidders.

Trump's properties are completely different. They are well-known, and you can bet the auctions will be well-publicized, by Trump if no one else. There won't just be one small print notice in the newspapers. The bidders are likely to be large, knowledgeable real estate investors or firms. They know the market, know what kind of income they can expect, etc. They also will have access to financing.

So I would expect the bids to get pretty close to market value. In fact, you could almost say the winning bids will be the actual market value, despite what Trump might claim.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I see a new Trump fundraising opportunity here!

"Only YOU can save St. Donald's iconic properties from being poisoned by grubby Democrat property investors!

Give NOW. Give BIG. MAGA!!!!"

[iowantwo]

I am well within my rights to fire my black employee.

I am breaking the law for firing my employee because they are black

See the difference.

Same action, viewed differently by the law.

[Mxf339]

The particular law has been used before against other entities to ban them. And I miss the taking argument if the proceeds of the property sales go to the owners? Isn’t that what happens in bankruptcy all the time in forced sales?

[Mr. Bumble]

"The particular law has been used before against other entities to ban them."
Cite?

[Life of Brian]

Don't get all excited -- I suspect all our friend is referring to is situations that resulted in actual, quantifiable harm. But hey, he appears to actually practice in the space, so maybe he knows of some obscure example that nobody else has been able to dredge up in the past several months.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The salient question is whether the law has been used before, and it has.

The "resulted in harm" part is something you appear to have conveniently made up. It's not in the statute.

Trump has a history of objecting to anti-fraud laws. Not only this one but the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I'll leave you to wonder why.

[Randal]

Plus, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Trump's fraud did result in harm.

[Mr. Bumble]

What harm and to whom?
The lenders were paid back in full and on time.

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal - there is no evidence that Trump's fraud resulted in Harm.
There is no evidence that any of the banks relied on Trumps valuation.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no evidence that any of the banks relied on Trumps valuation.

How closely are you following the trial? I've not been following it too closely, but I'm quite sure you're bullshitting.
Because the failure to show the vital element of reliance seems like it'd have been a showstopper.

[David Nieporent]

Because the failure to show the vital element of reliance seems like it’d have been a showstopper.

Actually, no. This isn't a common law fraud case, despite what Trump's lawyers kept arguing over and over despite the courts rejecting it. §63(12) does not require proof of reliance.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah Randal walked me through that above.

Though I would note that it appears that the theory of the case does include reliance by the banks.

[Randal]

Even if that were true -- which, like Sarcastr0, I doubt -- it's totally wrong to call it a victimless crime.

A victimless crime is one that's victimless in all its applications. Sodomy, for example, was a victimless crime.

You don't get to look at individual cases and say "no victim, no crime." That would mean we couldn't punish "attempted" anything. We couldn't punish speeding, drunk driving, trespassing, impersonating an officer, etc. unless some concrete damage was done to an identifiable victim. No, those crimes are not victimless crimes -- there's a potential victim, and the purpose of preemptive punishment is prevention.

Fraud is not ok. NY has an interest in preventing fraud. If Trump is allowed to get away with it, that's a green light to fraudsters. That's harm. Just like it would be harmful to let trespassers get away with it as long as they did no damage. If we allowed that, there would be a lot more fraud and a lot more trespassers actually doing damage.

Man, you law-and-order types sure are selective about who has to actually obey the laws.

[Sarcastr0]

Reliance is an element of the crime of fraud.

It would not have gotten to closing arguments unless there was evidence of reliance.
Not a lawyer in NY, but Google shows me these elements, which track with my general knowledge:

(1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact
(2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity
(3) and intent to defraud;
(4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and
(5) resulting damage to the plaintiff.

[Randal]

He's not being criminally charged.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying civil fraud doesn't have the reliance element?

[Randal]

No, just, you used the word crime. Maybe you didn't mean it.

The real problem here is that the plaintiff is the government. Normally, in a tort context, the plaintiff is the injured party and has to prove reliance in order to claim injury. Without reliance, there still could be fraud, but no injury means no recovery.

That doesn't apply here (I suppose), where the government is suing in its role as regulator, not as a tort victim.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't mean to use that word, no.

I think part of it is that there are two different theses being offered in the alternative:

1) you don't need to prove harm for a regulatory action like this.

2) there was indeed detrimental reliance proven in the case, in the form of interest rates being lower than they should have been, causing millions of dollars of unjustly low repayments.

[David Nieporent]

Are you saying civil fraud doesn’t have the reliance element?

Civil fraud does. This isn't a civil fraud case.

[iowantwo]

1. Nope
2. Not false. The values are no false. The bank used their values, and then reduced that amount (Like every lender everywhere.
3. No intent Trump understood the lender would use their own valuation , hence no motive to lie
4.The plaintiff is the govt. The govt lost nothing

[Bruce Hayden]

There was no fraud. The court determined fraud based on the difference between assessed value and Trump’s value. But assessed value very rarely comports very closely to actual value. And, in this case, it appears to be off by better than an order of magnitude in some cases.

[Sarcastr0]

And, in this case, it appears to be off by better than an order of magnitude in some cases.

This sentence is a mess. It wouldn't matter, except it seems to be the crux of your argument - was Trump's valuation way off or normally off?

[damikesc]

Do you frequently sell things at the lowest possible price?

[Sarcastr0]

The price at issue here wasn't a possible one at all, damikesc.

[iowantwo]

Which price was not possible.

Now at least their is something real to talk about.

[iowantwo]

Name the Trump victim

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump.

He's the alpha-victim.

[iowantwo]

— there’s a potential victim, and the purpose of preemptive punishment is prevention.
we have eliminated protections against prior restraint?

[Randal]

In non-first-amendment cases? 100%.

Next you'll claim Trump has a first amendment right to lie on loan applications, right? You guys need to write the word "sycophant" on your bathroom mirrors and let it sink in.

[iowantwo]

There is no such thing as attempted speeding, or attempted Drunk driving.
Those are both actions defined as civil crimes

[Mr. Bumble]

"The salient question is whether the law has been used before, and it has. "
So please cite or point us to such a case.

[Purple Martin]

Easy enough to search for, but multiple people have already done and inserted citations in the rest of the comments string for you.

You have an unfortunate habit of blurting out things you believe must be true, because you think they should be true, and because the limited number of sources you favor tell you they're true.

You and Dr. Ed should stop doing that.

[BrotherMovesOn]

He's a retired AutoZone parts manager.
Cut him some slack!

[Mr. Bumble]

Be kind enough to point one out.

[Purple Martin]

Is your scroll wheel broken?

[iowantwo]

I have followed the links
Zero of them have been used against the consumer

[Life of Brian]

The salient question is whether the law has been used before, and it has.

That a law is being used appropriately under a given fact pattern is measured by whether it’s been used before under any fact pattern?

You can’t be serious.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So now you're concerned about the "disparate impact" of the enforcement of the law in question? Sure...

It's true the law does not appear to have been used very often, but the statutory language is clear enough for it to be faithfully applied in Trump's cases. If there is an argument that the law cannot be applied to Trump in this case, I'm sure he will file an appeal on that basis.

But you're just complaining that he got caught. Because any time Trump gets caught, it's a "hoax" or a "persecution".

Lock him up.

[Life of Brian]

Of course, I said nothing about disparate impact -- that's just another red herring.

That a particular law has never been used (and, watch -- likely never again will be used*) to cover this particular set of behaviors is a strong indicator that the law is being distorted to serve a particularized purpose.

* As I said when the ruling first came down, the soon to be conspicuous lack of a blizzard of revised valuation statements from a bevy of Manhattan property owners/investors would tell the tale clearly enough that the community understands full well this is a one-off grudge proceeding.

[Randal]

Or maybe it just means everyone else is playing by the rules.

There's no good reason to inflate valuations, as you guys have been saying over and over. So, normal, law-abiding people won't. Even most non-law-abiding people won't, because why? I'm totally willing to believe that Trump's narcissism was the main motivation here. That may be a set of facts unique to Trump.

[Life of Brian]

Or maybe it just means everyone else is playing by the rules.

OMG. OMFG. I mean, I teed this up truly thinking that SURELY nobody was going to be quite the required mix of bold and just plain asinine to go there. But up you popped! Nobody else has ever been charged because Trump is the ONLY ONE in Manhattan that has EVER fudged his estimated property values -- in ANY context of trying to generate money from the property. The. Only. One.

I don't know that this is QUITE spray-coffee-on-the-screen funny (thankfully for my new laptop), but it's pretty damn hilarious. I'd send you a nice bottle of rotgut for your effort if I knew where to send it.

[Randal]

Huh? Comprehend reading much? Other people have been charged, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I was responding to your expected "blizzard of revised valuation statements." The reason there's no such blizzard is that Trump is an outlier.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: Trump didn't "fudge" anything; he just completely made shit up. Nobody is going to be sued or prosecuted for fraud for saying that his property is worth 5% more than other people think it is. But Trump said, "Fuck it; facts and rules don't apply to me."

As one example from the Court's summary judgment ruling: there's a property Trump owns in Westchester County for which he got multiple appraisals from different sources in the 2000 - 2014 time period ranging from $25-$30 million. But on Trump's 2011 financial statement, he claimed it was worth $261 million. And then the next year he just made up a new number: $291 million. (He did get a 2015 appraisal of $56 million, which even if it applied retroactively was still a massively lower number than what he claimed.) That's not fudging; that's lying.

And of course claiming that a 10,000 square foot apartment is 30,000 square feet is also not fudging.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, that was a joke. Glad you got it.

In my wayward youth, I was prone to driving my somewhat loud modified car at illegal speeds on the public highways (especially late at night). One night, I was pulled over by a very annoyed cop who informed me that he had heard me on many occasions from miles away and, after investigating and no doubt lying in wait, finally managed to catch me and issue me with a hefty ticket.

Was I breaking the law? Yes.
Was I being singled out? Yes.
Did I have any legal or moral basis for objecting to this? No.
Did I subsequently modify my antisocial behavior as a result? Yes.
Did I thereafter incessantly whinge about how unfairly I had been treated by the justice system? Fuck no.

[Sarcastr0]

'a classic politically motivated Bill of Attainder' is not classic anything. This case is nothing like how that clause applies.

These are the legal arguments of someone who took a single survey class in US law 101 and wrote something up.

Unbelievable.

[Area Man]

You and I don’t agree on a lot, but I agree with you here. Calabresi has been making some weird—frankly, nonsensical—arguments recently—including some that completely contradict arguments he’s made in the past. He’s going full Dershowitz in his fealty to Trump, and it would be interesting to find out why.

[Sarcastr0]

Always nice to find some common ground, even if it's sad stuff like this.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, this is getting pretty weird.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If anyone expected better than this from the Volokh Conspiracy, don't be too upset. Everyone makes mistakes.

That one was a whopper, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Commonly referred to as fellow travelers.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't really followed Area Man's posts, I guess.

[Roger S]

Who cares about the Constitution? Trump must be eliminated by any means possible, as his candidacy is a threat to Democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

You say the exact same shit, but sincerely, about Prof. Somin.

Hypocrite.

[Roger S]

At least Trump is a natural born American.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren't even consistent with your own bullshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The victimless crime that James has charged Trump with is basically that he is a liar, and she does not like his political views.

I hope those responsible for hiring faculty members at strong, mainstream, reason-based law schools read this blog -- although this will require them to wade through a thicket of racial slurs and incessantly bigoted content -- and consider carefully whether they should hire movement conservatives.

[Randal]

Not to mention the parts about a Bill of Attainder and Due Process? How does the chairman of FedSoc not know what those terms mean?

This is a bad look for a lot of people in conservative circles and at Northwestern. Does he have students? Do they just laugh and taunt all day, like Blackman's would if they weren't already at the worst law school?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And, Kirkland, I hope that Judges responsible for hiring clerks from the graduating classes of these hollow/rotten-to-the-core FORMERLY mainstream law schools realize whom they would be getting were they stupid enough to continue hiring from this source...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The clinger judges will continue to engage in viewpoint-driven hiring discrimination, hiring racist right-wing clerks and fledgling bigots from the Federalist Society.

Other judges will continue to hire most of the better law student candidates.

The record indicates affirmative action for right-wingers (involving law faculties and especially federal clerkships) is the one and only type of affirmative action clingers do not hate -- to the contrary, they love it!

[ReaderY]

Do bank robbers have a constitutional right to rob banks in New York? Hired assassins a constitutional right to ply their trade?

Mr. Calabresi simply asserts that Mr. Trump’s crime is “victimless.” But he forgets that limited liability is a privelege a state confers on those who meet its purposes and abide by its rules. Nothing prevents a state from having every incorporation occur only by private legislative bill, for only those corporations that the legislature, applying whatever political criteria it wants, decides meet the State’s purposes.

Given that reality, merely requiring that a corporation can’t falsify its ballot sheets and loan applications if it wants to retain its corporate status, and posing liability on corporate officers who facilitate it, is trivially constitutional.

[ReaderY]

To clarify the harm, it’s well established that government can act proactively. It can require factories to follow safety rules and enforce safety violations even in the absence of an accident; it doesn’t have to wait until major accidents happen and people get killed. It can enforce health codes before pandemics break out.

Similarly, government can require businesses to maintain honest books and disclose their financial state to would-be lenders and investors accurately before a pervasive pattern of inflated assets results in systemic defaults and widespread financial panic in a downturn. Violations in the absence of default are no more a “victimless” crime than violations of safety codes desinged to prevent accidents in the absence of an accident, health codes designed to prevent pandemics in the absence of a pandemic, or building codes designed to prevent earthquakes in the absence of an earthquake.

So the “victimless” argument is nonsense. Mr. Calebrese’s argument boils down to a complaint that the penalty is too harsh. Surely that’s not a valid constitutional argument. Except for striking down life imprisonment for things like passing bad checks for small amounts of money, the Supreme Court has made clear that states have wide leeway to devise punishments. People will often disagree about what the appropriate punishment is.

New York proved that there was an organization-wide pervasive pattern here, not an isolated violation. Given this, no honest attempt to square this case against the Supreme Court’s cruel and unusual punishment cases could find it in violation of the Constitution’s requirements. Indeed, New York could have chosen to make this conduct a felony and sent Trump to prison for years over it, rather than making it a merely civil matter.

It’s well established that corporations can be disincorporated for violating administrative rules. As just one example, states can disincorporate corporations for things like failing to file annual reports. A state could reasonably choose to find rule violations like that trivial compared to what the Trunp Organization has done.

[Bored Lawyer]

Agree with most of what you say, except this is not a criminal case. So this court cannot meet out punishment. What it can do is determine the corporate form has been abused, and Trump cannot continue to use it.

[ReaderY]

Yes it can. Punitive damages are an example of civil punishment. Same with civil fines for parking tickets and the like.

You could classify dissolution of the corporation as non-punitive if you want. But barring Trump from running a business in New York is a kind of civil penalty.

You can’t put someone in jail based on civil proceedings. But you can fine them, dissolve corporations, and debar people from being corporate officers.

After all, you don’t need a criminal conviction to debar a doctor or a lawyer.

It’s worth pointing out that the court isn’t proposing to seize corporate assets beyond the damages. Any remaining corporate assets will be returned to the shareholders.

[Roger S]

If govt can act proactively, let's remove Biden-Harris before they start any more wars. And before they abuse the US DoJ any more for their political ends.

[ReaderY]

I just want to point out how common it has become for Anericans to make comments with fundamentally Nazi thinking. This person talks about the constitutional leadership of the United States exactly the way the Nazi party talked about the constitutional leadership of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. He looks to Nazi thought, and not American thought, for how to think and how to condict himself.

[Roger S]

The Presidential campaign is going to be Trump's enemies yelling Nazi and Hitler for the next ten months.

[Sarcastr0]

You also hate the Jews, IIRC.

[ReaderY]

And your comment above is Exhibit A in why they absolutely should.

[Kazinski]

This case is going to end up hurting New York a lot more than it will hurt Trump.

No one that has a choice will choose to do business in NY, its not just this lawsuit by Trump, or trying to shut down the NRA by denying it banking or refusing to develop the Marcellus Shale, or the confistitory tax rates, the climate law suit grifts, but they are all adding up.

New York loses $1 trillion in Wall Street business as firms flee the city: report

https://nypost.com/2023/08/21/new-york-loses-1-trillion-in-wall-street-business-as-firms-flee-report/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you for the perspective on New York from a bigoted, antisocial, Republican culture war casualty who chooses to live in an off-the-grid hermit shack because he can’t stand modern America.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte Kirkland.

Care to explain why most corporations are now incorporated in Delaware while all the credit card companies are out of South Dakota?

Trump's biggest mistake was not forming a Delaware corporation circa 1975...

[Kazinski]

The only reason I saw Kirkland’s comment was because Reason’s website logged me out, and it lost my mute preferences until I logged in again.

And the only reason I’m responding is to make the Rev jealous.

I do live off the grid 6 months of the year, in a 2300sqft house I built myself, with 17 skylights, on 15 acres of forest with a year round creek with 48′ waterfall cascading around, under, and over 15-20ft boulders. It’s off the grid because it’s remote enough that I don’t have to deal with noise, close neighbors, pollution, or any the other crap that makes you so cranky. I just passed my final inspection in July, I did all the construction, wiring, plumbing myself. The only thing I used a contractor for was the foundation septic, and well. My 250′ well at 5000′ elevation gives me the coldest clearest best tasting water I’ve seen.

Of course when winter comes I have to clear out, because 6′ of snow on the ground is routine, and head down to my year old house in the suburbs where my backyard opens up onto a few thousand acres desert reserve with miles of hiking, and biking trails. Had a nice bike ride on the desert today during the GB-Dallas game, it was sunny and 65.

[M L]

You made me jealous. Can I buy your place?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, Dr. Ed: stick to cleaning floors. I assume you're qualified to do that, but not to understand our economy or laws. Corporations disproportionately — not "most" — being incorporated in Delaware has precisely zero to do with whatever you're thinking it does.

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't look like your source links any of that to this lawsuit.

It is utterly unsupported that firms will take this case and impute legal exposure on their businesses.
I think the fair default assumption is appraisal fraud is not the ordinary course of doing business, unless you have a source saying otherwise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still clueless as to how the world works.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The world of Bumble and Kazinski?

Probably.

[Sarcastr0]

High-handed ipse dixit is not a source.

Seems to be a lot of that going around on this thread...

[Randal]

You think the world works by big companies engaging in fraud?

If there are some shady, fraudster companies leaving New York over this, New York couldn't be happier.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The law is the law, and the NY AG is sworn to uphold it. Perhaps it is an unwise law? Feel free to lobby the NY State legislature to repeal it.

I think I'd have to see the law used a lot more often before I could consider it to be having a measurably deleterious effect on business in New York.

[SimonP]

Are you an idiot, or just a liar?

The story you posted is about assets under management. Almost none of that $1 trillion passes through New York, and most of it goes completely untaxed.

We can talk about hedge funds moving their headquarters to Florida, sure, which they do to take advantage of a tax haven with a nice climate and easy access to New York and other international destinations. People who move are taking a chunk of tax revenue and business with them. But $1 trillion? No. And a lot of those people were spending their money/paying taxes in New Jersey or Connecticut anyway.

[Kazinski]

Headline:'It's very sobering': Experts react to report of NYS losing $9.8 billion of income to Florida in 2021

"A new study, entitled "The State of The Finance Industry and Its Impact in New York" found:

- In 2021, New York lost $9.8 billion of income to Florida
- Over the past three years, $993 billion in assets moved to other states
- New York is outranked in financial sector growth at 0.2%, lagging behind the 4% national average

The report says while the finance and insurance sector in New York makes up 5 percent of the state's employment, it's the largest contributor to the state's GDP with average incomes of over $275,000 annually.

"So when these jobs leave the state they hurt everyone because those are high-earning jobs, which means that the tax revenue derived from those jobs is significant, and the investment that those individuals put back into their communities through the purchasing power is also significant," said Loomis."

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/its-very-sobering-experts-react-to-report-of-nys-losing-9-8-billion-of-income-to-florida-in-2021

[Stella Link the dog]

[Estragon]

Sammy the Bull says Trump is incorruptible… just ask him! Isn’t that good enough for you pointy headed libs?

[Bored Lawyer]

THis sounds downright silly. A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature passes a bill that a particular person is to be treated as a criminal. If the Legislature passes a general law that some activity is a crime, and then a court determines that John Doe committed a crime, and then punishes him, that is not a Bill of Attainer.

No law was passed by NY against Donald Trump or his business entities. There were general fraud laws. If a court determines he violated them, it can enact civil penalties. (There may be other issues here, but Bill of Attainder is not one of them.)

[Roger S]

Yes, but fraud means cheating someone out of money. Trump did not cheat anyone out of money. This lawsuit is just a political hit.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trying to cheat someone out of money is also fraud. There are many criminal cases to that effect. Unlike a private plaintiff, the government or the State does not have to show anyone relied on or was hurt by the fraud.
That is the law for federal mail, wire and bank fraud.

[Roger S]

It is funny how no one ever criticizes Trump for what he does. It is always for some supposed evil intentions that can only be detected by Democrat mind-readers.

[Randal]

What? All the suits, including this one, are based on stuff Trump did. You are in some sort of delusional state. Probably still haven't fully recovered from QAnon.

[Bored Lawyer]

Dude, the man applied for bank loans, and lied about the value of properties that would be pledged as collateral. I had clients who went to jail for the same thing. The defense is, the banks didn't believe him and did their own due diligence. Well, bully for them. But that does not change the fact that Trump is a con man.

[Mr. Bumble]

The only true valuation for any property is what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller.

[Sarcastr0]

Defrauded means *not really willing.*

You've bumbled into arguing that fraud is in general is not a crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

I did no such thing.
You bought new digs. What is the value of your condo?
What you paid for it, what the bank lent you or what it is assessed at?

[Nige]

If you deliberately over-value the property for the purposes of securing a loan, thats fraud. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

[iowantwo]

Dude, the man applied for bank loans, and lied about the value of properties that would be pledged as collateral.

Have you ever sold a house? You set a sales price. If you end up selling the house for 69% of the asking price, you defauded each person that looked at the property and put in a bid you rejected?

[Roger S]

If you did that, and your name were Trump, then you could be prosecuted.

[Bored Lawyer]

You just changed the facts. Nice try.

[iowantwo]

Changed what fact?
Trump is charged with over valuing his property.
My scenario does exactly that. Over values the property. That would be fraud.

[MoreCurious]

What a strange universe you seem to live in. If no one ever criticizes Trump for what he does, how do you explain the criticism of his racism, his bigotry, his bullying, his misogyny, his constant lying, his unethical business practices, his mishandling of government documents, and his interference in the 2020 election?

[Roger S]

Those are not criticism of what he does. He never does anything racist. People only say he is racist because of dubious inferences about what he says, not what he does.

[MoreCurious]

That's a pretty pathetic defense. What about birtherism? What about his support for the white supremacists in Charlottesville? What about the separation of families at the southern border? What about his attempt to ban Muslims? And is it really your position that Trump is not an immoral, unethical, misogynistic, liar?

[damikesc]

"What about his support for the white supremacists in Charlottesville?"

We can go ahead and ignore you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Yes, but fraud means cheating someone out of money.

There's the level of legal insight for which this blog is known!

Is there a single employer of a Volokh Conspiracy that is a strong, mainstream law school and does not regret hiring the Volokh Conspirator?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Fraud" means whatever the relevant statute says it means. In this case, fraud, "shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions". (Note the absence of any requirement to prove "harm".)

The statute is designed to penalize "repeated fraudulent or illegal acts ... in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business" in the State of New York. Here's section 63(12) in full:

"Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.  The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.  The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct.  The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.  Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.  Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section."

In short, no, fraud doesn't mean "cheating someone out of money", and Trump doesn't first need to have been convicted of criminal "fraud" (or "insurrection") before the NY Attorney General can apply Section 63(12) to him (and his NY companies) in a civil suit.

[Jaypd]

Fuck Steve and fuck Eugene for posting garbage like it's just discourse. You both deserve the boot from academia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel better now?

[Michael Ejercito]

At the very least, Trump, along with everyone, should benefit from. qualified immunity.

[JasonT20]

Qualified immunity? For civil fraud charges against his private business?

[Roger S]

Those charges are only being brought because he is running for President as a Republican.

[Nige]

So to get out of fraud charges, run for president!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Prof. Calabresi's latest posts here have been quite interesting, in that knowledgable commenters rip them apart in entertaining and informative ways.

[Bored Lawyer]

This particular one, IMO, is a new low. The Insurrection Clause has not been the subject of much litigation. Business fraud has.

[Sarcastr0]

I wondered if there's been an abrupt change in his style, but it looks like he didn't post here too often until recently so I have no comparison.

[BrotherMovesOn]

+1

[fafalone]

Imagine if you put your mind to use doing something useful rather than taking political conclusions to defend Trump of all people, and working backwards to find a legal basis to support them, no matter how ridiculous.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

No one knows the value of a piece of real estate until the instant it is sold. A day after such a sale any estimate of value is only an estimate. An estimate equal to the previous day's sale is almost certainly wrong and too high as the seller had found the only buyer willing to pay the sale price.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you're mixing up real estate valuation with quantum physics.

[BrotherMovesOn]

+2!

[iowantwo]

He's right.

I bought 110 acres of farm ground. A week later I had an offer for 15% more than I paid.

Real estate is worth exactly what the buyer is willing to pay. No more no less. After the papers are signed, the negotiation starts anew.

[damikesc]

No, he's saying you're defrauding people now.

Because...reasons.

Progressives believe negotiation should start with the seller going for the lowest possible pricing. And that poor massive banks get hoodwinked by listening to the valuations of borrowers and never ---- NEVER, I tell you --- generate their OWN valuations.

[Krayt]

Except quantum physics doesn't have politicians "guaranteeing" that when you take the measurement, it's gonna be in the great top 10% of the bell curve.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Just wow.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor does anyone truly know the size of it. It's all so big. Big numbers, big feet, big hands...

[BrotherMovesOn]

There's got to be some kind of accolade, some recognition, of what Abdul Abdulbul Amir just posted.
The Internet Archives might have to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what's your doublewide worth? What you paid for it, what Zillow says it's worth, what the bank lent you, what the local tax assessor values it at? Pick a number, any number.

[M L]

The opinion I read in this case was a joke, this judge was claiming there was fraud when nobody was deceived about anything, and nobody suffered any harm. The judge ignored the yuuge disclaimer in the financial disclosures. The authorities the judge cited did not support his positions. Just another lawfare joker.

[bacchys]

Let me guess: you read the opinion of some MAGAt lawyer like Turley, Blackman, or Calabresi?

[M L]

No, I read this:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

For a third party leftwing opinion in WaPo see here: https://archive.ph/qrHLP

[Sarcastr0]

The opinion hasn’t been handed down.

You also make claims about the facts of the case and the law that are clearly wrong. Especially for a lawyer.

Are you posting drunk or something?

[M L]

I was referring to this: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=tTcU_PLUS_uJJ8i5XjrCTSNk2eA==

Feel free to specify what you think I'm "clearly wrong" about (you won't).

[Magister]

I'm no lawyer, but I'll give it a shot. Quotations are retyped from the previously linked ruling; apologies for any typos. I have not tried to confirm the authorities cited; if they do not support the judge's ruling, then that should be a slam dunk for appeal, and some Trump apologist would actually point out such cases.

It's not true, and anyway it would not matter if "nobody was deceived about anything, and nobody suffered any harm."

"Fraud" defined in the law does not require that anybody suffer harm or be deceived. I think the harm would be to honest competitors who could only get loans on worse terms, to New York that would lose reputation as an honest business environment, to banks that got less interest than they would have received, and possibly other harm.

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

The "yuuge disclaimer" was not ignored.

The disclaimer provided by accountants Mazars leaves Trump responsible; from page 6:

these non-party dislaimers do not insulate defendants from liability, as they plainly state that "Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and for designing, implementing, and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement."

"[t]he rule is clear that where one party to a transaction has superior knowlege, or means of knowledge not open to both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak and his silence constitutes fraud"

Further comments from pages 13 to 14:

However, defendants' reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words "worthless" or "useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years." Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.

Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are, obviously, peculiarly within defendant's knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.

[M L]

Thanks for your thoughts. Based on memory from a few months ago:

1. Fraud as defined in the law does require injury. That is an ancient and universal rule, as far as I can tell, and it applies in New York. The judge here argued that there is a remedy called "disgorgement" which allows remedy/damages not limited to actual injury. However, the judge ignored that disgorgement still requires fraud to have occurred in the first place, which requires injury (even just $1.00 would suffice I suppose). So the judge's reasoning was wrong there.

There could be a separate argument, perhaps, based on the words of the statute, that for the first time ever fraud as used in this statute does not require injury because the legislature came up with something new. I don't really see it though, and that wasn't the judge's argument.

2. I say the judge ignored the disclaimer because he did not directly address any of the language in it, other than a single word "current." The judge rambles on about things that are not in the disclaimer without addressing what it says.

After having ignored the content of the disclaimer, the judge moves on to arguing that it doesn't matter what the disclaimer says, as a matter of law - nothing it could say would ever make any difference, because "the valuations of the subject properties are, obviously, peculiarly within defendant's knowledge." Unfortunately, the judge offers zero explanation or support for the strange proposition that the the valuation of real estate is peculiarly within an owner's knowledge (as opposed to banks and their armies of professional appraisers and routine processes for virtually every piece of real estate across the nation).

3. There are other problems with the judge's baseless ordering of "dissolution" and cancellation of a "certificate." This has been commented on various places I think.

[Magister]

1. I suggested what harm had taken place. But the law does not seem to require it. Plenty of analogies above to situations where actual harm was not realized from something illegal and risky.
2. The disclaimer was not a defense for the reasons listed. I do not intend to visit the judge's citations; still not a lawyer. Of course the owner knows more about the value of something than another party. If banks independently verified, would Trump have been able to persistently misrepresent these things?
3. Cancellation of the certificate appears to be squarely within the law quoted on page 3 of the ruling. "The court may award the relief applied for" would seem to cover the dissolution, given the relief requested in the complaint. The court of appeals has stayed the dissolution, but this may just be because it would be difficult to undo later.

[M L]

Certainly, things can be illegal or actionable when they don't harm anyone. They're just not fraud. I'd like to see a single example of a fraud conviction or liability where there was no detrimental reliance. Other than Trump.

No, a property owner doesn't typically have more knowledge about their property's market value than the real estate professionals. Usually it's the opposite, and sellers are asking professionals for guidance on this question. And the rule isn't who "knows more," anyway - it's about "special facts" (it is called the "special facts doctrine") that are "peculiarly" or particularly within defendant's knowledge and not someone else's. The value of real estate is not one of these "special facts" and the judge made no attempt to explain or support his strange position to the contrary. He comes off as whiny and politically motivated.

If you actually review the reference in the statute, it is about the cancellation of assumed names. Not the cancellation of a certificate of formation or similar instrument implying the dissolution of an entity or the revoking of their ability to do business. There is nothing in the statute about forcing dissolution or liquidation and sale of assets. What the judge did here looks completely ludicrous and off the wall.

[iowantwo]

No, a property owner doesn’t typically have more knowledge about their property’s market value than the real estate professionals.

You ignore facts particular to this case.
Trump is not just the Property Owner. Trump is by trade a real estate Developer. He is THE expert concerning special facts for NYC commercial real estate

The other experts testifying as experts in real estate, and in finance, all said the actions taken by Trump were exceedingly boring and customary. Only James, who promised to take out Trump before she was elected, cooked up this scheme and shopped a judge more the willing to whore himself out for political retribution.

[Magister]

The statute defines "fraud" and it does not match what you claim.

Like a used car owner, the owner of a property knows more about it than others would.

You ignore the additional "the court may award the relief applied for". Revoking the certificates was only one thing requested in the complaint.

[M L]

"You ignore the additional “the court may award the relief applied for”."

No, read it again. The attorney general may apply for the specific types of relief listed in the statute. Then, the court may award all or part of the relief applied for.

[Magister]

I read it again; the attorney general can request "an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity" (referring to "the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business" in which fraudulent activity has occurred).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

1. The statute defines fraud, and fraudulent, in this way: "The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions."

Simply ignoring the somewhat circular reference to "defraud", you are left with the statute still defining "fraud" to include "any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions".

If you think the statute's definition of fraud nevertheless implicitly includes the requirement of "harm", good luck in your legal challenge.

[M L]

1. Yes, I think it does. All of those words you quoted from the statute must be defined with reference to case law and general legal principles. Also the word "deception" is why I mentioned in my original comment that not only is there no evidence that anybody was harmed, there is no evidence that anybody was deceived either.

2. If you think this statute does not include the requirement of harm, I ask once again for a single example of anyone ever being prosecuted for fraud in the absence of any injury. Other than Trump of course.

3. If you think this statute does not include the requirement of harm and the legislature in this case reinvented the word with a totally novel meaning, then, even if you are right, my comment still stands, because this was not the judge's reasoning in the opinion. Instead, he used faulty reasoning relating to the remedy of "disgorgement" which allows generalized unjust enrichment type of damages, while ignoring that disgorgement requires a threshold finding of fraud.

[David Nieporent]

2. If you think this statute does not include the requirement of harm, I ask once again for a single example of anyone ever being prosecuted for fraud in the absence of any injury. Other than Trump of course.

Once again: this is not a prosecution; it's a civil suit. And once again again: it's for violating a statute, not for fraud.

And once again again again: obtaining a loan to which one would not have been entitled is a harm. For the purpose of assessing whether someone engaged in misrepresentation (or fraud), we measure damages ex ante, not ex post. We don't wait to see whether a borrower pays back a loan before determining whether fraud (broadly defined) had been committed. Even if Trump had repaid the banks extra to account for the missing interest, we don't retroactively excuse his lies.

If I tell a bank that I'm borrowing money to build an addition onto my house, but I instead take the loan proceeds to Vegas, as I had intended all along, I have cheated them. Even if I get lucky at craps and win enough to pay back the loan. To be sure, that I paid off the loan would affect how much of an award they might be entitled to, but it in no way mitigates my liability.

[M L]

The word prosecute means to commence legal proceedings against someone. I am asking for any example of prosecution - either criminal or civil liability. Preferably, a civil action under the statute in question - which is a statute about fraud, as many statutes are.

"And once again again again: obtaining a loan to which one would not have been entitled is a harm."

That might be an argument, if there was any evidence to support it. But it's not an argument that the judge made or accepted, so my point stands. And there's no evidence that anyone obtained a loan they wouldn't have otherwise received.

In your example, you would have breached your contract with the bank in numerous ways, and that is the avenue they would pursue, among numerous other possible causes of action. You may have committed fraud as well, if there was injury. At least, that seems to be the traditional rule and the current rule in New York and other states, from what I can tell.

[David Nieporent]

That might be an argument, if there was any evidence to support it.

You mean, besides the testimony to that effect?

[M L]

If there is evidence, this is still not an argument that the judge made or accepted, so my point stands.

So, what are you referring to ?

On page 7, “Defendants correctly assert that “the record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm”” but goes on to say that it’s “completely irrelevant.”

On page 25, “it is not significant that the banks . . . would have done business with the Trump Organization notwithstanding” and then footnote 21, unsupported by any evidence or testimony.

Maybe you misread the end of para 1 on pg 26?

[David Nieporent]

So, what are you referring to ?

You seem to be referring to the Court's summary judgment ruling. You understand that after that ruling, there was a trial on remaining issues, right?

[M L]

Yes, that ruling is what we have been discussing.

[Magister]

I believe M L means the pretrial ruling that found Trump et al “to be liable as a matter of law for persistent violations of Executive Law § 63(12)”, ordered sanctions for Trump’s attorneys, and ordered dissolution of various Trump LLCs (an order that was stayed). We discussed that ruling at VC when it came out.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod

Edit: M L confirmed this while I was typing my response, although with a different link to the ruling.

[Randal]

As Magister pointed out, fraud that doesn’t result in harm is still fraud.

What I think people are getting confused about is that 99% of fraud cases are brought by the fraud victim. They have to prove harm since that’s what they’re suing about.

But this case isn’t about recovering for victims. It’s about kicking a fraudster out of New York. No actual harm is required for that.

Like, if you run a red light and hit me, I can sue you for the damage. If you run a red light and almost hit me, I can’t sue you. But the government can.

[M L]

Incorrect. Detrimental reliance or injury is an element of fraud - even for criminal or civil fraud liability sought by the government.

Running a red light, and many other things, are illegal even when they don't harm anyone. They're just not fraud.

I'd like to see a single non-Trump example of liability for fraud when there was no detrimental reliance.

[Randal]

Well... it's complicated by the fact that the law being used here includes a pretty broad definition of "fraud"...

The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

[M L]

That's not a definition of fraud so much as a list of things that fraud includes (but is not limited to). All of those words must be defined with reference to case law or other law. See my reply to ObviouslyNotSpam above.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It is an element of common law fraud. This is statutory law. You would need to have an extraordinary argument to convince anyone that the statutory law necessarily includes that somewhat significant limitation imported from the common law.

[M L]

If you are right, then where is the one single example, other than Trump, of someone being prosecuted for fraud under the statute when there was no injury?

If there is not even a single example, then let's open it up to any example, under any common law or statutory definition, in any state. Anything?

See my replies above. In addition, for example, can you tell me what the elements are for any type of actionable misrepresentation?

[Magister]

(Others have commented that this is not a prosecution.)

Consider People v. Ernst & Young LLP; from the appeal reversing the lower court which dismissed a claim for disgorgement in 2014:

Defendant argues that the remedies provided in both General Business Law § 353 (the Martin Act) and Executive Law § 63 do not include disgorgement.

However, where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution

Therefore, while the Attorney General does not allege direct injury to the public or consumers as a result of defendant's alleged collusion with Lehman Brothers in committing fraud, the equitable remedy of disgorgement is available in this action, and it was premature to categorically preclude it at the pleading stage.

That seems to satisfy your request.

[M L]

It does not. Ernst & Young paid $99 million in damages to Lehman investors in that matter (this was regarding the 2008 financial crisis and the implosion of Lehman Brothers). There was a staggering amount of damages with respect to that matter broadly. In the cited case, the attorney general was bringing a claim based on that fraudulent activity.

[Magister]

That was not part of New York's case, though. There was actual harm in the current case; the victims choosing not to contest it or being unaware of it or being impossible to identify does not mean the state cannot pursue the case. Exactly as multiple judges have ruled.

[Drewski]

Real sovereign citizen energy in this essay. Expecting any moment for Calabresi to start ranting about capitalization in court documents.

[bacchys]

The Trump Organization isn't Donald Trump.

Calabresi's just showing he's willing to sayanything to pander to MAGAts.

[Darth Buckeye]

Too bad AG James can't be held personally liable for the defendant's costs in this case. That would be one way to prevent elected officeholders from abusing their powers.

[loki13]

I would like to extend a hearty congratulations to Josh Blackman.

He is no longer the worst regular contributor to the VC. Based upon the (and I hesitate to use the term to describe the above post) "legal analysis" by Prof. Calabresi above, he seems downright reasonable.

This would get an "F" in any ConLaw 101 class, and while it is difficult to shock me ... I am honestly so shocked by this (Bill of Attainder???) that I have to wonder if someone hacked his account.

[Estragon]

I think it’s a hacked account plus the posts are written by ChatGPT

[Randal]

ChatGPT is a way better writer than this. Plus knows what a Bill of Attainder is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Imagine if Trump were able to do what the left is doing to him -- imagine if he spent the second week of January 2025 making people disappear into very deep holes in the ground.

I won't cry because the left deserves it....

[Nige]

Yes, the left has made Trump disappear into a deep hole in the ground, very sane and real comment, quite good.

[Magister]

Well, Trump's lawyers say it's all OK if he doesn't get impeached. Maybe even if some of those enemies are Senators who wouldn't vote to acquit him.

Of course, the sitting president could invoke the Insurrection Act, because the next inauguration will be after the second week of January 2025, and prevent all that with the full force of the US military. And apparently he could just make Trump disappear into a very deep hole in the ground, from which it would be difficult for Trump to do these things that are not being done to Trump.

Maybe this is another civil war prediction from the ever eager Dr. Ed 2.

[Voize]

Where to begin? Is $370 million an excessive fine? James asked for disgorgement of fraudulently obtained benefits, in an amount to be determined at trial but that she now estimates to be $370 million. It isn’t a fine, and in any case the amount hasn’t been established.

Can NY shut down a business like this? They have certainly been doing it for some time. In State of NY v. Cortelle Corp., 38 NY 2d 83 (NY: Court of Appeals 1975)Chief Judge Brietel wrote

The State’s cause of action is for the abuse of power entrusted to its creature, a corporate body. In this sense, apart from any possible wrong to individuals, it is also a wrong against the State. This wrong against the State gave rise to the right of the State (or the sovereign) to petition courts to amend corporate charters or dissolve corporate existence.

tracing the action to the medieval writ of scire facias which was used to annul the royal charters of corporations that acted illegally.

But it was victimless, the banks weren’t harmed See above. It’s like arguing you shouldn’t get a ticket for running a red unless you T-bone somebody. The State has an interest in keeping fraudsters out that is independent of the rights of any victims.

But the banks did their own diligence That red light ticket is valid even though the reason others on the road didn’t get T-boned was because they were driving defensively.

[pts]

Since the judge has already ruled on liability, civil damages is the only thing left. I would think that harm to someone would factor in to the damage award. If so, the "he would have paid a higher interest rate" is one of the weaker arguments. Commercial loans aren't based on one's credit score like a consumer loan would be. The loan amount, documentation, and terms are all the product of negotiation between the lender, borrower, and possibly counter-parties. Everybody represents themselves and tries to get the best deal that can be agreed upon.

[pts]

To flesh it out a little more, Section 63(12) allows the court to award "restitution and damages". Restitution presumes an injured person or entity, who, presumably, would get the benefit of the court decision. Damages, while not necessarily to make someone whole, certainly suggests that someone or thing has been damaged. It is not a fine for being a bad person (or for speeding even if no one is injured). Damages has a specific meaning in the law. Who or what was damaged?

[Magister]

In a proceeding brought by the Attorney General under Executive Law § 63(12), this Court may order “disgorgement—an equitable remedy distinct from restitution—of profits that [the] respondents derived . . . .” (State of New York v Applied Card, 11 NY3d 105, 125 [2008]; see also People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 57 114 AD3d 569, 570–571 [1st Dept 2014] [finding disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution].) The primary purpose of disgorgement is to deter law violations by depriving violators of their ill-gotten gains. (Ernst & Young, LLP supra at 569; see also People v Greenberg, 43 Misc 3d 1229[A] [Sup Ct, NY County 2014], affd 127 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2015]; Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v S.E.C., 467 F3d 73, 81 [2d Cir 2006].) Therefore, the size of the disgorgement order “need not be tied to the [amount of] the losses suffered.” (WorldCom, Inc., 467 F3d at 81.)

From a non-Trump case, New York v. Fulton Commons Care Center, memorandum of law in support of the verified petition.

[tuphat]

Sorta tired of the whole "victimless crime" thing. When someone runs a red light, but there's no crash, there's no victim but it's still undeniably a crime.

[M L]

But there's no fraud.

[Magister]

You should read the pretrial ruling again.

[M L]

When someone runs a red light, but there’s no crash, there’s no victim but it’s still undeniably a crime. But it's not fraud.

[Magister]

Nobody says that running a red light (with or without a crash) is fraud, any more than they're saying that the fraud found in this case is running a red light. The ruling explains why a victim is not required for this law to apply.

[M L]

Nobody ever said that nothing is ever a crime or a civil liability unless there is an injury. That would be really stupid, and the comment about running a red light is inapt. Instead, the point is that injury is a required element of fraud, and always has been, even in New York it seems, and the judge's opinion is shoddy as explained above.

[Magister]

Over and over, you've been told that that is not true for the statute in question.

[M L]

According to this one judge in this one case only, sure.

[Magister]

A lot more than one judge.

[pts]

And the person running the red light can get a fine, because that is what the statute or ordinance say. Section 63(12) does not.

[Magister]

See the excerpt in my comment at https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/14/new-yorks-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-is-unconstitutional/?comments=true#comment-10400789

[Michael P]

"He should write informally by using contractions" is not a complaint that is leveled at people who failed grammar school. Back on the mute list you go.

[Bwaaah]

No. New York goes after all real estate developers who use inflated property estimates to secure loans. And the routine penalty is to force a sale of all their assets and to cease doing business in the state.

Nothing unusual here.

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn't need to be all.

If that that law has been used before for appraisal fraud by real estate developers, it doesn't need to be used every single time that's come up or else Trump's being persecuted; that's way overdetermined.

[iowantwo]

Name one

[David Nieporent]

I love the vague "inflated," as if Trump said that a $150 million property was worth $160 million. Do you think most people say that a property is worth multiples of what it was appraised at by their own appraisers?

Remember, this isn't a difference in valuation between the bank's appraisers (or the government's) and Trump's appraisers. One can expect one's own appraiser to say one's property is worth more (except, of course, at tax time). This is Trump getting an appraisal saying that the property is worth $X, and then him just writing down a much higher number, that he pulled solely out of his own ass, on his financial statement.

[John Rohan]

Did anyone try to lock Hillary Clinton up?

[damikesc]

The irony of an impeachment over something Biden 100% did.

Bragged about it even.

And, legally, it could not be done as the Congress approved the funding and Obama could not refuse to spend it

[Mr. Bumble]

If someone did (lock her up) I'm sure they'd have Bill's everlasting gratitude.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/20/trump-wanted-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-james-comey-report

Donald Trump wanted to prosecute former election rival Hillary Clinton and ex-FBI director James Comey but was talked out of it, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

The US president told then White House counsel Don McGahn in the spring that he wanted to order the justice department to bring charges against the pair, the Times said, citing two unnamed people familiar with the conversation.

McGahn wrote a memo to dissuade Trump, noting that the potential consequences for such an action could include impeachment, according to the report.

The New York Times added that Trump has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Clinton and Comey.

[Krayt]

No, IIRC, Trump said that various times, then when he won, immediately said nah, not really, not gonna do that.

In short, cynical “lathering of the rubes”, even Trump (‘s advisors) said it was a non-starter in reality.

Sometimes I preface my posts about not abusing the investigative power of government to “git” a political opponent with “Perhaps Donald ‘Lock Her Up’ Trump deserves this in some cosmic sense. But the nation does not.”

Again, I invite all to join me in neither side abusing this.

Also, this is payback for Republicans churning away unfettered on Clinton in the late 90s. Then, a special prosecutor brazenly “going wherever illegality lead”, and process crimes, in an aping of general warrants, were A-Ok!

I feel like Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, seeing yet another incident of kids misbehaving, and sighing, muttering, “Wait. Stop. Don’t do it.”

[Randal]

Oh, you think he's going for formality? I hadn't thought of that. Way too much first-person perspective, for one thing.

[Roger S]

As opposed to Biden, who really did prosecute his political enemies. Biden got those same memos advising against it, and did it anyway.

[Bwaaah]

See? Trump thought about locking her up. And the New York Times found somebody that said so. And the Guardian copied that. And Sarc echoed it.

The audacity of that Trump guy, to even think about arresting somebody. It's criminal, I tell you! Criminal!

WHAT ELSE DID HE THINK???!!!

[Sarcastr0]

The US president told then White House counsel Don McGahn in the spring that he wanted to order the justice department to bring charges against the pair

When the President says he wants to do something, that's tantamount to an action. It is not 'thinking about it.' Don't be an apologist for this.

Trump has promised not to be dissuaded from weaponizing the DoJ this time. You cool with that?

[Roger S]

The NY Times is staffed by Trump-haters. Its anonymous sources are Trump-haters. Even when reporting on Trump's public statements, the paper gets them wrong.

I am afraid that Trump needs to weaponize the DoJ like Biden, just to demonstrate what a bad idea it is. The Biden-Garland DoJ has been the worst, and everyone needs to understand that.

[iowantwo]

Trump has promised not to be dissuaded from weaponizing the DoJ this time. You cool with that?

Equal application of the law is not weaponization. It is "no one is above the law" Right?

Lawfare is a real thing, and something the left brags about. Its goal is to use novel legal theories to punish conservatives. Think Speaker Delay, or Senator Stevens, or Governor Perry. Or Senator Hutchinson.
Or follow Jack Smiths career. He took down one of the largest most prestigious accounting firms in the World. Until SCOTUS tossed the entire case because of mis application of the law.

[iowantwo]

" One can expect one’s own appraiser to say one’s property is worth more (e"xcept, of course, at tax time)."

Why did you throw that line in there?

"tax time" I assume you mean income tax time. Property appraisals are not part of an income tax return. Only the SALE PRICE of property, for the purpose of calculating capital gains. Real estate developers seldom pay capital gains, by taking advantage of 1031 property swap. Which just means if you re invest the sales revenue from property to buy other property, there is no capital gains.

[David Nieporent]

Or follow Jack Smiths career. He took down one of the largest most prestigious accounting firms in the World. Until SCOTUS tossed the entire case because of mis application of the law.

No, he didn't. You got your stupid I-Have-No-Fucking-Idea-What-I'm-Talking-About-Because-I'm-MAGA talking points wrong. That was Andrew Weissmann, not Jack Smith.

Think Speaker Delay, or Senator Stevens

Ted Stevens was prosecuted when George W. Bush, not "the left," was president.

[David Nieporent]

You assume incorrectly. I meant at property tax time. It is quite common to challenge the property tax assessor's valuation of one's property in order to lower one's property tax bill. That's the one situation in which one wants one's property to be seen as having less value. In any other circumstance, one prefers a higher valuation.

[Bruce Hayden]

And, yet, the county appraised the properties absurdly low.