the bond companies would not accept trump real estate as collateral. after reading the 92 page judgement from judge engoran, i can understand why. fraudulent assessments, and the titles are not clear.
the carroll bond by chubb is holding his schwab account not real estate. that is clear if he loses, chubb has real collateral to get their money.
he did not have anything that clear for the trump org bond.
As @rocking_chair says, the bond wasn’t secured by cash, but by a trading account he has. That’s a liquid asset, so Chubb accepted it as collateral, unlike the encumbered real estate with dubious valuations.
As for why that, rather than posting cash himself, that would require Trump to sell off all the securities in that trading account, which raises the same point I mentioned earlier: Trump would prefer not to sell off his investment portfolio and then post the cash, because if he’s successful on appeal and the verdict set aside or reduced, he likely would not be able to get all those specific investments back. He’d have to rebuild his portfolio. He shouldn’t be in a worse financial position if he’s successful on the appeal.
That’s what the appeal judges had to take into account. What are the implications if he loses the appeal? But also, what are the implications if he wins the appeal?
As I understand it, the purpose of the bond is to secure the amount if he loses. But it shouldn’t end up prejudicing his financial position if he wins.
OK, I think I’ve got it - I thought it was cash for the Carroll bond. Thanks, guys.
j
You just made me spew milk out of my nose.
I think she’d then have the SEC up her ass. That activity has a foreseeable outcome and also harms the other shareholders.
Shouldn’t the appeal judges just be looking at is if it was a fair trial? No mis-steps by the judicial system?
But judges only have to take this into account for billionaires, right? If I had a judgement against me in New York for $500,000, I would not be able to post a bond and the creditor would, I assume, immediately take everything I have and leave me in a worse financial condition if I win the appeal.
A relatively novel idea for how Trump can post the bond or pay the Judgment (from satirist, Andy Borowitz):
I’m sure this has been addressed here, but I have no idea how to find it.
Last evening I saw some guy (I think from Shark Tank, a show I do not watch) complain about how unfair the fraud case against Trump was because all the big players in New York real estate do what Trump did, and none of them have ever been prosecuted for it.
I’m pretty sure this is BS. Is there a list available of New York real estate fraud cases similar to this one? Ideally the list would give the outcome of the case and what fine if any was assessed.
To say this is never prosecuted is an overstatement, but it is accurate to say white collar crime is significantly under-prosecuted. It’s complex, costly to investigate, and generally doesn’t provide the kind of sexy headlines that get DAs re-elected.
It’s entirely possible if Trump never ran for president he may have lived out his life with nary a significant legal problem (though he was pretty bad and already on people’s radar). His best strategy from a legal perspective would probably have been to remain in the shadows with the rest of the ne’er-do-wells.
ETA: This shouldn’t imply that “everybody does it.” But it would be hard to argue that there aren’t some who do and get away with it.
A scheme like that would tie up the cash and properties in limbo, for however many months the appeal process took. The loss of interest on the cash and of income from the properties would make it a nonstarter. Not to mention: who pays the real estate taxes, utilities, upkeep for the properties while their ownership is escrowed?
I’m sure you’re right in that such crimes are under-prosecuted.
But I’m guessing that it’s a fairly widespread RW claim hat this is a witch hunt, since everybody does it, but no one other than Trump was ever prosecuted. I thought it would be handy to have some names of others prosecuted should this come up. (I’m going to an Easter brunch, and one of the other guests is very conservative and vocal about it.)
" If other people do it, they should be prosecuted too. Are you saying you think it’s OK to be soft on crime?"
I like to remind people that this case came about as a result of Trump’s long-time attorney-fixer, Michael Cohen, turning whistleblower.
That makes this one sui generis, IMHO.
I seem to recall that James published or reported some details relevant to your question, directly in response to this nonsense. Stats on the number of similar cases prosecuted. You might try Googling for that.
No, he already had legal issues. His SOP of not paying people led to lawsuits. The sexual assault and lawsuits stemming from that were not connected to his position, nor was the new York fraud case, here. Now on that- this si a fairly new law, so there likely havent been that many sued under it.
And not paying attorneys got him bad legal advice.
But those that have include Exxon and Martin Shkreli.
It’s not a new law. It was passed by the NY legislature at the urging of Jacob Javits, who was AGNY in the mid-1950s.
That’s the main issue on the appeal, often called “the merits”
This was a pre-appeal procedural issue, solely on the question of the bond.
The appeal panel can’t pre-judge the merits and decide the procedural issue on that basis.
That is Kevin O’Leary from Shark Tank. You may have seen this in a recent Jon Stewart clip where he calls out O’Leary’s obvious hypocrisy. There are numerous example in the clip where O’Leary has absolutely no time for people who are over-valuing whatever it is they have brought to Shark Tank.
I also think “everybody does it” is a terrible defense. All you are doing is telling the authorities who they should be investigating next.