One of the remaining charges currently before the Court is conspiracy to commit the alleged frauds.
Yeah. This one, at least, probably just got wrapped up with a nice, neat little bow.
In addition to the violations of Executive Law 63(12) determined via Summary Judgment.
You have a positive outlook that I find inspiring. Thank you.
I’m not the only one.
…unless somebody rubs Meadows out before then.
“Crime Family! Crime Family! Crime Family!”
IANAL, but on Law & Order when a key witness dies, sometimes they aloow the deposition of that witness to be read into the record of the trial.
Could this happen here?
Are you saying that Trump is a living (I almost said “human”) Ponzi scheme?
A Ponzi scheme relies on giving earlier participants money from newer participants. Donald doesn’t give anyone money if he can help it, even if he owes it to them or promised them he would. He keeps it all for himself.
But that’s not really illegal, right? If the bank is willing to accept those promise notes as collateral, that’s between the bank and the trumps.
Is it any different than me co-signing on a loan for someone or allowing them to put up some of my assets as collateral?
Is the jaw-drop moment more about proving that all the trumps were involved in lying to inflate the value, or at least it places some of the responsibility on them?
In both those cases you are party to the loan agreement.
The issue appears to be Donald saying that he personally had sufficient assets to put up as collateral, which he did not, resulting in him claiming that assets belonging to others were his. Had he defaulted, the bank would have had no claim on those assets that were not legally his. Which means the bank had an exposure they were not aware of due to Trump’s fraudulent claims.
I’m not 100% sure on this part. I’d be interested in the thoughts of our attorneys.
If Trump truly had a legally binding Agreement with the kids, it’s possible that – in the event of default – they effectively would have been cosigners and could be liable along with Dear Old Dad.
I’m not sure how Trump would have otherwise threaded that needle: your money is mine if they need an updated financial statement, but it’s not mine if I default and they seek to enforce the personal guarantee.
If the Agreement were something the bank never knew about, and was never going to know about, then I think it’s pretty clearly Civil Fraud (Conspiracy, at least).
If the bank didn’t know about the agreement, why make the agreement?
And this is not a criminal trial. It’s a civil trial to determine the damages done to the banks as a result of accepting the Trump family’s fraudulent valuations as a basis to grant favorable loans to them. Basically, if the Trumps had accurately valued their assets, the banks would not have granted such favorable terms. Because they did, they lost hundreds of millions of dollars in interest.
The jaw-drop moment is due to Trump having signed an agreement that he, personally, had a net worth of a particular amount – but then required family members to surreptitiously throw their own assets into the kitty to “demonstrate” such value. It’s a fraud.
I’m absolutely not assuming that the bank knew. I’m absolutely inclined to believe that it was outright fraud.
I’m just imagining either a possible scenario or, at least, a tenuous defense that asserts that this Agreement did, in fact, make the Trump kids de facto cosigners.
ETA: I think that argument – no matter how fatally flawed – fits in perfectly with a “Hey! No harm, no foul” defense.
ETA2: My guess would be that this kind of agreement could have been, simultaneously, hidden from the lender and enforceable as between Donald Trump and his kids. In the event of default, Trump may have been able to force his children to throw in to cure the default, even if the lender was never aware of their personal financial involvement.
It’s possible but doesn’t make much sense as an arrangement and isn’t consistent with Trump’s usual MO. Falsely claiming the assets were his (with the cooperation of the kids) in order to get the deal he wanted while effectively shortchanging the bank is more his style.
But that analysis makes Trump the one who decides if the kids’ assets will cover the default, not the Bank. That’s the potential fraud. The Bank wanted to be able to go after Donald J. Trump for the entire amount of the guarantee.
They didn’t want to discover that Donald J. Trump didn’t have the assets to cover the default, and Donald J. Trump might have had the power to compel Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka to cover the default, if he wanted to.
Why would the Bank be content to let the full recovery depend on Donald J. being willing to compel his kids to pay up? That’s not what they bargained for, and that’s the argument that it was a fraud perpetrated on the Bank. The fact that the Bank didn’t know about it at the time just means that DJT did a good job covering his fraud, not that there was no fraud.
All of which, of course, depends on seeing if the defence team is able to challenge this issue when it’s their turn to call evidence.
Isn’t all the kids money in revocable trusts?
But why lie to the bank AND make the kids promise to cover part of the debt? If he lies to the bank, why even rope the kids into it?
Was he worried that he might default on the loan and wanted to be able to cover it so they wouldn’t decline his next loan request?
Maybe other loans we’re going to use this one as collateral and he wanted a better foundation so the whole thing wouldn’t come down as fast and/or the next bank wanted more proof of his worth than the first one?
There’s also the possibility that the agreement with the kids was so he could protect himself. That way he always had the option of defaulting and forcing the kids to pay. I don’t know how much they put up, but possibly enough to give Trump some leverage over them, should he need it.
A lot of fraudsters want to make the paperwork look good, even if it unravels once someone starts really looking into it. Whether that’s the case here, we’ll see.
I think of fraudsters as Lawful Evil, in D&D terms: they know what the law requires, and on the surface they comply with the law, but they are actually using the law improperly to advance their own goals.
That’s consistent with DJT’s insistence on his beautiful disclaimers that in his mind (using the term loosely) mean that the financial statements have no significance. They filed the financial statements to comply with the legal requirements, but did their best to make the financial statements meaningless: compliance in form, not substance.
I think the part of this that’s either Ponzi scheme-ish or generic house of cards comes in at this point.
We are given to believe that Deutsche Bank said: DJT: if your net worth falls below a certain minimum amount (I think it was $2.5BN), you’ll be in material fault of the loan agreement. That might entitle the bank to call the loan or take the building.
He wouldn’t have to be in monetary default – ie, he wouldn’t have to be behind on the loan payments for this to become a problem.
But Trump doesn’t want that, because it’s all a part of his house of cards – owning buildings in which he claims to have significant equity (spoiler: he doesn’t. He lies) in order to leverage that equity into other properties.
So he gets Don, Jr., Eric, and Ivanka to shift their assets to his balance sheet, if need be, long enough for him to hit that annual minimum net worth figure and keep the bank from moving on him (like a *****).
That’s my read, anyway.
Yeah. Fraud. Any way you look at it. But we know Trump will not concede the point, so I’ve been spitballing about how they might spin it.