Trump is pathetic
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
It is pathetic as is the Go Fund Me to pay his fraud-less fraud fine.
How can there be fraud when no one was defrauded or lost anything? While I'm sure his numbers were quite embellished, those that he purportedly defrauded say they were not defrauded. Now that's pathetic!!!
How can there be fraud when no one was defrauded or lost anything? While I'm sure his numbers were quite embellished, those that he purportedly defrauded say they were not defrauded. Now that's pathetic!!!
The fraud is lying on loan documents in order to obtain the loan in the first place. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for filling out loan documents?
This was a civil judgment and not criminal.
I just don’t understand where the dollar amount comes from. While the guy is an asshat and I don’t want him near office, what was the monetary harm and punitive multiplier that came to that number?
If the banks felt defrauded, wouldn’t they have been the ones to bring the charges?
There should be if the loaner feels they been defrauded and harmed. That's not the case here. Who was harmed here?
Are you saying that a third party should be able to file a civil suit for something that doesn't harm them or affect them at all?
Then that would be criminal. You essentially are saying that you can lie on all your loan applications and face no consequences as long as you make good on your loan. That’s not good public policy at all.
Btw, there were companies and individuals who did deserve that loan and did not get it due to his fraud.
What would that have to do with public policy? Two parties enter into an arms length transaction consensually and you want the government to interfere with that? If one party was harmed, it would be up to that party to bring suit or seek criminal charges. This government interference is scary.
That's malarky, how do you know this? Again trying to interfer in the private sector.
Government interference or government penalizing fraud?
Nichola Haigh from Deutsche (who was a witness for the defense) testified that Trump got bigger loans at lower rates because of his inflated assets. I think lower interest income meets the definition of “harm” to the company, no?
We’re just supposed to say good job on the fraud since he paid the loan off?
The other thing is how much did he unjustly enrich himself and his company by getting those low rates?
That's what these penalties are trying to accomplish. They were calculated based on the rates he theoretically should have been paying plus interest.
Haigh was not a witness for the defense.
David Williams of that same Deutsch Bank testified:
“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”
At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.
Then the banks should also be found guilty for accepting the loan terms that are based on the value of the collateral? The banks are complicit if this is the case which they are not by the way.
I hate Trump but this lawsuit and penalty are pure politics. In commercial real estate, it happens every day that developers overvalue their assets. It's up to the banks to come up with a more fair value and up to the banks to only loan what they believe is fair based on the value of the collateral. Many times they might say Ok we will give you 50% LTV because they might not believe the valuation the customer has provided. This crap about "he took loan money away from other deserving borrowers" is the biggest BS I've ever seen. That's not how it works. All the banks he worked with had lots of excess deposits they could have lent out to lots of borrowers. I've worked with some of the biggest lenders in the world for years and that is not even a thing. That is pure liberal drama queen BS for folks that don't understand banking. I also know two very large NYC banks that told me 20 years ago they wouldn't do business with Trump because of their past experiences with him. This lawsuit is pure politics.
If you don't believe me listen to Mr. Wonderful.
I hate Trump but this lawsuit and penalty are pure politics. In commercial real estate, it happens every day that developers overvalue their assets. It's up to the banks to come up with a more fair value and up to the banks to only loan what they believe is fair based on the value of the collateral. Many times they might say Ok we will give you 50% LTV because they might not believe the valuation the customer has provided. This crap about "he took loan money away from other deserving borrowers" is the biggest BS I've ever seen. That's not how it works. All the banks he worked with had lots of excess deposits they could have lent out to lots of borrowers. I've worked with some of the biggest lenders in the world for years and that is not even a thing. That is pure liberal drama queen BS for folks that don't understand banking. I also know two very large NYC banks that told me 20 years ago they wouldn't do business with Trump because of their past experiences with him. This lawsuit is pure politics.
If you don't believe me listen to Mr. Wonderful.
We're not discussing adjustments to estimates though. This is about fraud.
Were there ill gotten gains by Trump, as testified by Haigh, because of his fraud, or no?
No, per below:
<<< At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion. >>>
The only one that could have been defrauded was the bank and they weren't.
Documents provided containing fraud would not make the banks complicit.
Donald J. Trump is required under the terms of his loan guaranties to provide annual financial statements to Deutsche Bank and to ensure that those statements "are true and correct in all material respects." See, e.g., Old Post Office ("OPO") Guaranty Agreement, § 9(ix). This information is used by the Bank to assess the borrowers' and Mr. Trump's compliance with loan and guaranty covenants, as non-compliance with such covenants may result in an event of default. See, e.g., OPO Loan Agreement, § 7.1(b). Failure to provide accurate valuations of financial assets may fundamentally impact the Bank's view of borrowers' and Mr. Trump's compliance with such covenants. Additionally, Mr. Trump must submit annually a signed certificate certifying, among other things, his compliance with covenants relating to his net worth, debt, and unencumbered liquid assets, and further certifying that his Statement of Financial Condition "presents fairly in all material aspects" his financial condition. See, e.g., Old Post Office Guaranty Agreement, Section 11(i)(D). The loan agreements and guaranties provide that an event of default occurs when "any representation or warranty of Borrower or Guarantor herein or in any other Loan Document or any amendment to any thereof shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect at the time made or intended to be effective. "See, e.g., OPO Loan Agreement, § 7.1(d
Providing fraudulent documents is itself a default event. Trump "defaulted" on the loan by not complying with the stated terms. You guys are defending fraud.
I ask Section112 for a loan of $100,000. He asks for my financial statements which I embellish and provide to him stating my net worth is $500,000. He reviews and thinks "I know SPK, he's an idiot, his net worth is only $250,000." But that is still good enough for him and he loans me $100,000. I pay it all back with interest all as agreed to. He's happy and I'm happy.
Cern/Merge/SHUSA et al all think the government should get involved now though.
Scary and disgraceful.
Cern/Merge/SHUSA et al all think the government should get involved now though.
Scary and disgraceful.
The loan documents say "may" result in default, not that it "is" a default.
Who was defrauded here? NOBODY.
Assume you pay 3% interest on that loan and if Section112 would have made you pay 8% if he knew the full truth (again, this was the testimony of Haigh) then you're happy, he was harmed.
If he felt that he was harmed, he should bring suit not BIG BROTHER.
Haigh worked for Deutsch but he was not Deutsch. Deutsch, the corporate entity, was just fine with everything.
I read loan documents a a part of my job. They all provide that fraud is a default event.
How the bank chooses to move forward with the default is another thing, but fraudulent financial reporting will 100% be a default.
Amazing. Ill gotten gains are fine as long as no one complains.
You feel the same for those on welfare who wouldn't qualify if they were honest about their earnings?
No one is complaining, so it must be fine.
And the bank chose not to view this as a default and call in the loan as all was proceeding according to plan.
It's the bank that would claim fraud not some uninterested, biased, governmental big brother.
Why no fraud claims from Deutsch Bank?
Where are the ill gotten gains? In order for there to be ill gotten gains someone must have suffered ill gotten losses. Nobody did, certainly not the ones bringing suit here.
The HUGE difference there is that the taxpayers would be suffering a loss not an arms length third party.
The only possible argument against that is whether there was an applicable federal rate charged, but again, that wouldn’t impact the bank, only the income the bank reports and pays tax on. You cannot loan at a rate that is below federally expected interest rates and underreport income, but obviously the bank is not in the business of lending below those rates. It’s why technically you’re not supposed to lend money to friends and family interest free, as even if you do you technically have to pay tax on imputed interest income.
That would lead to underreporting if income for tax purposes from the bank.
While the underreporting of assets could be fraudulent, the only possible party that could be harmed did not bring a suit.
I think this suit cheapens those suits that are much stronger. This does lend truth to the notion of a political witch hunt and cheapens the other cases.
That is not accurate. Deutsche contacted Trump when this case was opened because of the issues with the loan.
"As described in Mr. Khost's letter of October 29, 2020, the Bank has identified relevant, publicly available information including certain information filed in a court proceeding-raising concerns regarding the accuracy of certain representations made in Mr. Trump's prior submissions to the Bank under the terms of his guaranties. Consistent with the Bank's legal and contractual rights and its general practice, it is seeking further information from the Trump Organization to aid in its analysis of whether an event of default may have occurred with respect to such submission sand representations. We appreciate your prompt response to these matters."
That lead to the bank pushing Trump to pay off the loan. That was not all according to plan.
Because that legal fight may not have been worth their time.
Or they didn't suffer any losses. Which one is the fact and which one is the idle speculation?
Lower rates for Trump = Ill gotten gains.
Taxpayers would not be harmed unless their tax rates changed as a result which they did not.
But here you can compare Deutsche shareholders to taxpayers if you'd like. Lower interest income impacts shareholders.
And those shareholders can certainly act against the board.
Maybe there should be a suit against Deutsche Bank for unequal treatment of borrowers that benefited Trump over others? Maybe they’re at fault for lack of due diligence or unfair lending practices.
Merge, you've really stretched this into something it's not.
If I suffered a loss, I'd bring suit. If I didn't suffer a loss, I wouldn't bring suit.
The city of NY brought civil suit here. Please tell me how NYC suffered a $354 million loss.
If I suffered a loss, I'd bring suit. If I didn't suffer a loss, I wouldn't bring suit.
The city of NY brought civil suit here. Please tell me how NYC suffered a $354 million loss.
Last edited:
They did not, but the statute does not require the city to suffer a loss in order to prosecute civil fraud.
At the end of the day, why did Trump provide fraudulent reporting? Was it to his benefit to do so, or not?
If he didn't benefit, he wouldn't have done it.
If he benefited by breaking the law, then that is disgorgement.
"Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct."
^ That does not require harm to Deutsche.
If he didn't benefit, he wouldn't have done it.
If he benefited by breaking the law, then that is disgorgement.
"Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct."
^ That does not require harm to Deutsche.
If that were true why wasn't he charged criminally instead of civilly?
