__________
#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-27 04:44 PM
Did Trump defraud the people who loaned him money? Is the intent of this lawsuit to get the lenders the money they would have gotten if the evaluation of Trump's assets had been more accurate? ... And if the banks feel they've been defrauded, why not let them sue? Or is that what's happening in this case?
That's the obvious angle, which is what Trump and his lawyers tried to argue in court... and in public.
That was not the real issue in the case - there are actually several (at least, two) other issues that are not clearly obvious but inter-related, why the state was involved - lenders/banks may have been eventually paid back because they were not the "end target" of fraud:
Think of this as inflating the valuations and therefore value of the investments in "business case" of the pyramid/Ponzi scheme "in progress" where the people have not yet lost or don't yet think they lost the money because they are overpaying for something based on understanding that since a bank loaned him money (which he openly touted, and which was part of his defense), it's presumed to have done a due diligence and therefore effectively "certified" the valuation for other would-be investors, condo buyers and/or lessees. For example, Bernie Madoff (who, as Trump, was also employing his relatives in the firm - brother, sons, niece) was running his Ponzi scheme for more than 20 years until more / enough people needed to withdraw or sell their overinflated "on paper" assets.
The other aspect is money-laundering - by inflating the valuation of the assets for the purpose of the bank loan, he may have either collateralized these assets to get other loans at much higher valuations - or, for example, as actually happened, had foreign (mostly Russian) "investors" buying condos in his empty buildings during 2006-2008 GFC at double pre-crash prices, to keep his bankrupt "empire" afloat.
That's why he was most concerned about, and making threats, to make sure that Robert Muller's investigation was not looking into his business dealings - anything else he could shrug off as a "hoax."
It's pretty well known that most, if not all, of his [money-losing] golf courses in Scotland and elsewhere are financed, and are essentially owned, by Russian money. ***
Of course, the easiest way to launder and/or "gift" someone money through fraud is via the stock market... like boosting the value of otherwise worthless securities or assets, as in "pump-and-dump" scheme. Trump has transferred his personally guaranteed loans, which unloaded his debts unto shareholders in his listed company trading under DJT and TRMP symbols, which "died" / was delisted in bankruptcy in 2004 (and its remnants filed BK in 2009, and then in 2014), when Trump had only a small stake but was getting fat "management and name licensing" fees. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto "empire" actually blew up - because Binance didn't bail him out - and he has just been sentenced to 25 years in "criminal" fraud case... yet there is a good chance that his victims may get all their money back simply due to huge bull run in crypto, which is also similar to what happened with "frozen" Mt Gox accounts years ago.
These "Ponzi in progress" charges would be a lot more difficult to prove, let alone get required unanimous conviction, in criminal trial - that's the reason for civil case and Trump's decision not to request a jury trial, i.e., getting a bench trial, which may be easier to appeal due to "bias" and/or "conduct" of the judge, which he constantly tried to provoke.
__________
