Posted on 10/12/2023 1:31:03 PM PDT by thegagline
Donald Trump obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent, a retired bank official testified Wednesday at the former president’s New York civil fraud trial.
Trump’s “statements of financial condition” were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his golf resort in Doral, Florida, and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.
But although the bank didn’t conduct its own full appraisals of Trump’s properties, it sometimes gave sizable “haircuts” to the values he’d placed on such holdings as Trump Tower and his golf courses, Haigh said.
“I think the phrase we used might have been ‘sanity checks’ on the numbers,” he said.
***
A judge last month ruled that the former president and his company, the Trump Organization, committed years of fraud by exaggerating the value of Trump’s assets and net worth on the financial statements he gave to banks, insurers and others to make deals and secure loans.
Trump’s longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, acknowledged in testimony Tuesday that information in the financial statements wasn’t always accurate. ***
Trump’s 2011 financial statement listed his net worth as $4.3 billion, though Deutsche Bank pegged it around $2.4 billion in an internal credit report as he sought the Doral loan. The bank knocked 75% off the worth he’d given for planned developments, with the internal document citing “the uncertainty in valuing undeveloped land,” for example. The bankers halved the value he’d listed for his golf courses and had a $94 million difference of opinion over how to account for golf membership deposits among his liquid assets. ***
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
“But although the bank didn’t conduct its own full appraisals of Trump’s properties, “
They negligently did not do their own due diligence, so no one defrauded them. And they took no losses on the loans.
The suit is a case in search of a victim.
The private sector bank did whatever due diligence it felt comfortable with. In other words President Trump could have said his net worth was 973 gazillion dollars if that’s what he had good reason to believe. The bank would have said, uh... no we think it’s X and chose to do whatever with that result.
No one was coerced into giving the loan. No one was left unsatisfied by the loan, and if they were, they had the option to pursue it. No claim of fraud was ever stated. Rather a bank made profit off a loan, business as usual.
It’s as if there’s no adult in the room. No tenured professor to tell Ms. James or the Judge that they have stepped far out of line. No governing body to look at this and disbar, fire, and punish these persons. It’s disturbing to see how far we have fallen in the institutions we should trust.
Based on his testimony Trump made a best guess and they made a best guess. Just cutting 50% of the value he said isn’t better or worst that Trump coming up with a number based on his own internal calculus. At the end of the it’s a business deal with accepted risk and since they both won the business deal worked out. Had they both lost; well...that’s a part of the risk tolerance. This is in no way fraud.
Point! Truth is, they both made educated guesses and accepted the risk because they trusted their processes.
Where is the crime?? It seems to me the crime is bringing the matter for a court of law. The plaintiff is the criminal!!!
That is a crafty term thrown into the article. Banks usually don’t do full appraisals where the appraiser enters the property and essentially takes an inventory. Most appraisals are “drive by” ones- more cursory in nature. Either way, the only crimes here are being committed by the Judge and the AG.
It does seem like that that’s what Nicholas Haigh said. Will he be prosecuted? Maybe as an inside accomplice for defrauding his employer, Deutsch Bank? lulz
This kind of stuff happens all the time. There is no fraud. The bank did it’s due dilegence.
Trump was denied a jury trial.
Trump attorney Alina Habba thanked New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron after he confirmed that Donald Trump would not have gotten a jury trial – even if defense counsel had asked for it.
Shortly after the trial began, Habba was accused of “forgetting” to request a jury trial on legal forms.
“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said at the start of the trial. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.”
Under the code section he was charged, there is no jury trial. Hmmmmmmm .... was that why they used that code section and why they picked this judge.
But although the bank didn’t conduct its own full appraisals of Trump’s properties.
No Sale sign blinking what type of bank operates like that on such a large load.
The value to Trump will be different than its collateral value.
Too bad there aren’t people and companies called “due diligence assessors” and “appraisers” to determine these things before loans are issued...oh wait!
The valuation for tax purposes is done by the county assessors, not the Trump organization, based on the land use. Trump designated its use as a club (very low valuation and aligned with what Mara Lago had become).
If he designated it as residential lots, the current valuation would be astronomical.
What it is worth on the open market is totally different than it’s valuation.
The judge should know this.
There’s no reason to conduct a *full* appraisal if they’ve got enough to be confident of their loan.
When I apply for loans, I don’t tell them every income and asset I own, just enough of that to go with the debts. No mention of collectibles, reserve food in my freezer, canned goods, old books, grandma’s fancy table, Edsel in the barn, or any number of other mundane assets I might have - and I’m sure they have no interest in it even if it were to add up to a bunch.
After a point it is cost to them with no benefit.
How would one undervalue property for tax payments?
So if Trump says his net worth is 4.2B, and it is ‘really’ 2.1B, or 1.1B, that’s not even going to change the interest rate.
Maybe he has a rent-controlled apartment.
The disclaimers say, among other things, that the financial statements aren’t audited and that others “might reach different conclusions” about Trump’s financial position if they had more information.
Financial statements, in general, come in three flavors: audits, reviews, and compilations.
The first two have a sizable amount of rigor around valuations, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and testing and control evaluations.
Compilations are barely worth the paper on which they’re printed.
We will save tax returns for a separate day in class.
Trump’s financial data sounds like a collection of compilations.
Any banker with a brain will adjust these compiled statements. Indeed, audits are often adjusted, too.
These explanation for WHY banks will use crappy statements involves things like competition, capitalism, and optimizing shareholder value while managing risk.
Criminalizing use of this data, especially when the quality of the data was fully-disclosed, is patently absurd.
Thanks for the insight.
and just exactly what was the taxrate he was paying???
since they say it’s not worth what he says, do they OWE HIM A HUGH REFUND TAX???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.