You’re right in the sense that there is no analogy to the scale of risk of harm. I guess the closest you can get to an analogy is comparing a drunk car driver to a pilot flying a large airliner drunk.
Fraud on a billion dollar scale has much more severe potential consequences than fraud in a small business, so even if the actual harm is not severe because by good luck economic conditions remained sufficiently benign that there was no call on the nonexistent collateral, it should be punished much more severely than fraud on a small scale.
Trump has done a lot of horrible things but those aren’t all being litigated in this case. He and his company and others involved should be punished in a manner proportionate and appropriate under the law for what they did, who they harmed, and how much damage they caused. Not because it’s Trump and he’s a loathsome person causing a lot of harm in other ways.
Just my layman’s opinion. I want to see Trump destroyed but not in a way that’s actually persecution and using the law as a weapon.
I have faith that the judge in this case will draw the correct conclusions and assign just penalties. And if Trump isn’t completely ruined in a financial way then that’s okay, it’s the law not a revenge film.
I don’t really know much about big business, or business law, but would the following be correct?
He was in competition with mother businesses, all chasing a finite quantity of potential profit. Through illegal means he gained an advantage over them. He made profits, and as a result, other businesses didn’t make profits. Thus he effectively took money from rival businesses. They were the victims.
Is that more or less right? Or have I missed something important?
Profit is not a zero-sum concept. The economy consists of more than Trump’s businesses and those competing with Trump (the industry in which Trump’s businesses operate). There is more of the economy that is not involved in that industry than is involved. One (or more) of those businesses can draw revenue (and consequently, profit) from those other industries without affecting Trump’s businesses (and likewise). In addition, the entire economy can simply expand, providing more profit to everyone.
While Trump’s dishonest practices had the potential to harm competing businesses, if some of those other businesses were using the same dishonest practices, those businesses would not be harmed. Only the one who were not dishonest would be harmed. Not because there was less profit available, but because they would be at a competitive disadvantage (their capital would cost more than the dishonest businesses).
Judge Engoron’s decision was probably delayed a bit thanks to the timing of the financial monitor’s letter in which she drew his attention to the $48 M phantom loan and other inconsistencies.
Absolutely. That is why the laws Trump is being prosecuted under exist.
Dishonest business practices harm those businesses who do not follow them. This makes it easier for dishonest businesses to thrive. Dishonest businesses harm the public in general, which is why society has a duty to stop businesses from using dishonest practices.
More generally, those who expect a fair and reasonably transparent economy. In other words, everyone.
It’s entirely within the remit of public justice to enforce a level playing field, whether or not one can specifically point to a player on that field who fell behind because another player was cheating.
The fact that the American playing field has way too many cheaters and not enough referees is not an argument against punishing a cheater when caught.
Another aspect of business corruption is that it increases the costs of goods and services generally. If the corrupt business is providing goods and services to governments and other public entities, it means taxpayers are paying more for those goods and services than the market would require.
All those kickbacks have to come from somewhere.
It also can drive honest businesses away. If the « cost of doing business » in one province or state means paying bribes, kickbacks and other dishonest practices to get the contract, honest businesses will say « No thanks » and go élsewhere. That further increases the costs in the corrupt jurisdiction, by reducing honest competition.
So I’ve been mulling @Northern_Piper’s point about how the law reserves the cancelling of business certificates for the most severe violations, which the Trump Orgs may not have risen too in the materials seen to date (but if the $48 million and other accounting processes which are ongoing (!) and proven to be fraudulent in nature along with other yet uncovered examples, well, different story)… and I have decided I reluctantly agree. I -believe- there is more, and the years of abuse, patterns, and a certain amount of pour encourager les autres still justifies it overall, the law isn’t justice.
But just the fines don’t strike me as sufficient in light of all of the above. So, in my less perfect world, I think the best option would be for major fines, followed by Trump being forced to, say, for the next 5 years to hire a viable third party accountant/adjuster (a company rather than an individual considering the volume) at their own expense with substantial auditing oversight to oversee their obviously flawed business practices and keeping in line with New York’s legal and ethical practices. Say the courts could pick 3 or so companies that provide such services with substantial reputations, and Trump Org can pick which they want.
Certainly, if all their business is fine and aboveboard, and since their prior accountants will no longer work with them or stand by their evaluations, this would be a fair step in terms of preserving their ability to do business in the state! (fair bit of snark of course).
I still want Trump Org gone and dissolved, and still think it’s justified, but reluctantly understand that it’s substantially more likely to be overturned based on better minds than mine. Dammit.
I was not familiar with this expression (and I like to consider myself an edumacated person). So here is some background:
The phrase is found in the famous (and actually historical) scene of the execution of a British admiral, John Byng, on the deck of his own ship, for allegedly failing to engage the enemy in the Battle of Minorca. Voltaire adds of this:
“Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.” (“In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time so to encourage the others.”)
The un-ironic meaning could be preserved by simply saying “incentivize” or “motivate” the others. Similarly “threaten” or even “discourage” the others from failure. The irony is given by deliberately using “encourage.”
I apologize, I considered it common enough to not require a link, and thank you @ThelmaLou for making it clear to anyone else whom I may have confused.
