Posted on 02/18/2024 5:45:14 AM PST by devane617
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.
Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”
“I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.
A New York judge on Friday ordered Trump to pay the massive sum in penalties in a civil fraud case. The decision came just weeks after closing arguments wrapped up a months-long trial after New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued Trump for alleging he falsely altered his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
While all that is true, you can’t be knowingly fraudulent with your supporting documents. There are a number of examples where the Trump’s sought professional valuations from Cushman & Wakefield. They had experienced and professional appraisals and yet submitted their own since the pros didn’t fit the narrative needed to get more favorable loans.
There was an FR thread In His Testimony, Deutsche Bank official says large changes to net worth like Trump’s isn’t unusual, which is excerpted.
A poster included this quote from the article:
David Williams: "Mr. Trump applied for the loan at a 3.5% annual percentage rate, the best rate we were offering at the time. We did our due diligence and after we adjusted his estimated net worth from $4 billion to $2.5 billion, we determined that he still qualified for the loan at a 3.5% annual percentage rate."However, the poster later retracted that comment at the bottom of the thread after I had posted to it myself.
This may be what I was recalling.
-PJ
I saw it and responded.
Since these are commercial properties, the value is not only in it's physical or "real" property value, but also in the income cash flow that the property generates over the life of the property.
This is where the Deutsche banker said that annual cash flows vary positive and negative with high-worth people, and that a valuation based on a point-in-time doesn't account for this.
President Trump was probably including the net present value of future cash flows over a time horizon in his valuations, and the bankers said they were looking at cash flow, cash-on-hand, property values, and past loan repayment performance. They lowered the values of Trump's cash-on-hand (which is probably a function of cash flow generation on the properties less operational costs).
I would not characterize a favorable expectation of future cash flow as "fraudulent."
-PJ
Using the analogy of a used car sale, if you said "the car had no oil leakage problems and the car leaked oil like a sieve" and I took it to my mechanic who said that it did have a leak and I declined to buy the car from you, you could still be charged for fraud by the state even though no transaction took place, no money changed hands, and nobody lost anything?
I know this is different from the Trump case where each side made representations, the lender did his own due diligence and still chose to do business, and both profited from the deal, yet fraud was still charged by an outside entity not part of the deal.
In other words, all private transactions are now subject to public scrutiny by the state?
-PJ
I’m not sure if there is a legal necessity for the bank to do due diligence. I do know that there’s a requirement that documents are not to be intentionally fraudulent. And frankly I’m a bit surprised at the turning a blind eye by many Freepers about how intentionally misrepresented valuations were submitted. Especially after the 07 -08 market collapse.
Of course they did. They have a entire departments devoted to analyzing the finances of high-capital businesses.
I’m not sure if there is a legal necessity for the bank to do due diligence.
According to the Deutsche banker's testimony, there is no requirement to audit the borrower's disclosures. If there is no requirement to audit the borrower's disclosures and the borrower includes a disclaimer telling the lender to do their own due diligence, do you really believe that the bank would only do it if it was legally mandated?
I do know that there’s a requirement that documents are not to be intentionally fraudulent.
And here we are, debating the meaning of "fraudulent."
And frankly I’m a bit surprised at the turning a blind eye by many Freepers about how intentionally misrepresented valuations were submitted.
I can't speak for FReepers, only myself, but I don't consider Trump's disclosures to be fraudulent, just high. I would add that Trump probably used a "brand augmentation" factor to the value of his properties, just like I showed with John Lennon's $4,000 guitar.
I will admit that Trump admitted that the square footage of his apartment in Trump Tower was overstated, but is that fraud? Was the deal contingent on the sq. footage of Trump's apartment or was that something that would be easily amended if questioned?
Especially after the 07 -08 market collapse.
Wasn't that due to sub-prime mortgages being given to people who couldn't afford them? How do you compare that to Trump who is not sub-prime and paid off all of his loans? One has nothing to do with the other.
-PJ
As for the departments that perform various conformance protocols, I don't recall anything being discussed other than the "haircut" excercise.
I can't for a moment believe that someone who claimed to know everything about their company wouldn't be aware of over/under valuations. Doesn't that seem to be an odd exception?
I really see these issues similar to the insider trading that's constantly being tossed around. At the end of the day, who got hurt? The company or broker made their money or their commission depending on the transaction. The stock buyer made their $$$. Trump inflated his values. The bank lent their money with interest. Trump paid it back, At the end of the day, it's really the same thing. No one got hurt. Just the little guy wasn't able to get the same perks. But everyone involved got paid. Everyone involved got a deal.
What perks? When were you denied for a $500 million loan?
-PJ
I was addressing those who missed out on the inside trades.
Trump wasn't indicted for anything, yet New York wants to seize a half a billion dollars of his property.
To me, this is civil forfeiture run amok.
-PJ
We got our own FR brand nut bar...
To you, it seems that way.
If the bond requirement to file an appeal is so large that no company in New York has the assets to back it, that's not a purposeful intent to deny President Trump his right to appeal?
That makes it an illegal civil forfeiture to me, confiscating a half a billion dollars from Trump by denying him his right to access to the courts to appeal their abuse of authority.
It's the classic "Catch-22" that you have to sell your house in order to appeal the seizure of your house.
-PJ
There was loss to the marketplace, loss to the income of the financial institution and loss to the owners/stockholders of 168 million in underpaid interest.
This claim is unsupported, unsupportable, and FALSE.
Assume Trump offers to take a loan for an amount of money, m, at the best rate the bank offers, 3.5%, claiming a net worth of $4B, and agreeing to collateralize the loan.
The bank determines that the estimated net worth of Trump is $2.5B. It does not rely on the estimate of Trump, but decides its by own estimate that Trump more than qualifies for the loan at the 3.5% interest rate, and accepts Trump's offer. The agreement is made and the money m is given to Trump and the bank is given the authority to seize and sell the collateral should Trump default. The transaction is for a lawful purpose.
Compare that to the following.
Assume Trump offers to take a loan for an amount of money, m, at the best rate the bank offers, 3.5%, claiming a net worth of $4B, and agreeing to collateralize the loan.
The bank determines that the estimated net worth of Trump is $2.5B. It does not rely on the estimate of Trump, but decides based on its own estimate that Trump does not qualify for the 3.5% interest rate, and issues a counteroffer to extend the loan at 4% interest.
Paging Professor Kingsfield. A contract includes (1) an Offer; (2) Acceptance; (3) Consideration; and (4) a Lawful Purpose.
The first scenario contains all the required elements. The second scenario contains an offer and a counteroffer. The counteroffer exterminates the original offer. Trump would be free to accept or reject. He is a billionaire who can seek better terms from another bank.
There is no contract. The hypothetical counteroffer was neither made nor accepted, nor is there any evidence that it would have been accepted, had it been made. The counteroffer and its acceptance exist only in your fanciful imagination.
There is no evidence that the bank failed to do its due diligence. Rather, there is proof of its due diligence. It's estimate was lower than Trump's, but high enough to qualify for the best interest rate available. Neither the estimated value by Trump or the bank used the assessed value of Mar·a·Lago established by the County Tax Assessor before Trump made fantastic improvements and turned it into a $20M a year income asset.
Assuming the bank was well aware of the Tax Assessor's Mar·a·Lago estimate of $27.6M, did the bank commit a crime by ignoring that estimate for glaringly obvious reasons? Do you claim the Tax Assessor estimate is binding upon the bank? Do you claim the Tax Assessor estimate is not binding on the bank but is binding on Trump? Do you claim the Tax Assessor estimate, capped at a 3% a year increase since first made, in any way approximates current value?
‘Ridiculous’ Is the Word Real Estate Appraisers at Palm Beach Are Using To Describe the Value Being Put on Mar-a-Lago by Judge in Fraud Case Against Trump‘Just the land value alone, I think we get close to the $500 million, with just that alone, without even the property and how iconic it is — iconic before Trump even took it over,’ one broker says.
Caroline McCaughey
New York Sun
Friday, September 29, 2023
16:23:18 pmIs President Trump’s historic Palm Beach estate, Mar-a-Lago, worth $18 million or closer to $500 million? That question — and Mr. Trump’s property valuations more broadly — is central to the $250 million civil fraud case brought by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, against the former president.
For the right answer, the advice of Florida real estate brokers and appraisers seems to be that the judge is way off the mark.
This is no loss to the banking institution of $168M or one might think the bank would make some effort to recover it. One would think restitution would be sought but it wasn't. Not even a protest from all those owners/stockholders you make believe you are so concerned about. If criminal fraud occurred, Trump was not charged with any such crime. It is hard to imagine that the lawfare collective overlooked such a heinous Trump crime.
The matter proceeded under a consumer protection law which did not provide for a jury trial. What was sought was not restitution but disgorgement. The Court determined that Trump was liable on a pre-trial motion before the trial began.
As noted previously, Engoron at 81-82:
the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
The disgorgement is not punitive; it is not punishment for a crime. The source of the ill-gotten gains is immaterial. It does not mean the money is going back to any individual, group of individuals, owners/stockholders, or corporate entity.
What makes me not a liberal plant or democratic operative as claimed is I hold the same conclusion if this were the Biden's, Clinton's, Obama's, Pelosi's, Schumer's, AOC's, Talib's or some other democrat/liberal.
Hmmmm, what was your take on Senator and VP Biden collecting classified documents and leaving them all about, and even reading classified documents to his ghost writer? Should he have been impeached for his conduct, and removed from office for his misbehavior; or removed from office for his senility? Or should Kevin Bacon stand around with a sign saying "All is well!"
It's the classic "Catch-22" that you have to sell your house in order to appeal the seizure of your house.
Democrat political operatives on the Internet:
"Rule of Law for me, but NOT for thee!"
They want to drag Republicans and conservatives into their rigged blue city/county courts, where their befuddled hero & leader Joe the Frontman can shuffle away "because reasons" - but people like Scooter Libby, Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani and President "Don the Clean" Trump are nailed to the wall by juries packed with Democrats, or "judges" who are Democrat partisans to the bone and beyond.
An awful lot of assumption.
I believe he was wrong to do so. I would say however that it was noted he was deemed cooperative during the collection process. Trump’s problem was his files were subpoenaed and he withheld and defied the subpoena. Biden cooperated fully.
Biden, who shouldn't have had any of the files in the first place, cooperated fully.
fixed it.
Some stuff appears to have fallen out of your Democrat Party operative "explanation"...
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.