ever be held liable for submitting fraudulent financials to a potential lender. I understand the difficulty here because the lenders did not suffer losses (although without fraudulent financials they may have chaged a higher rate and made more money) and of course there could be competitors who would argue he received a comeptitive advantage with a lower rate based upon fraud.

NY as a state made the decison to pass a strict liability version for fraudlent financials Banks. Given the states role in the markets I can understand why they would pass that law.

If you dont think it should be enforced how would that be any different from a local prosecutor deciding not to prosecute retail theft under $1,000 even though the statute says $300 is a felony to use an example here in Illinois.

in private lending. Banks don't just take the financials provided to them by the lender, they have extensive time to do their diligence and make their own adjustments to what was provided by the borrower. If they feel the borrower's projections are too rosy, they then risk-adjust their loans, which is what happened in this case. The borrowers did not bring a claim of fraud here, let's be clear.

My issue is that this is not enforced at all regularly, and certainly never when there aren't actual damages. This was a prosecutor who is on tape regularly saying she will sue Donald Trump (for an unknown crime at the time), made it part of her election campaign, and sought out and found one where it hasn't happened before. That was absolutely political (find me the man and I'll find you the crime). On top of it, there was an absurd judgment on the amount of damages he owed given the circumstances of the loan. It was rightly brought down on appeal. In your example there is a victim (the retail store) and a criminal, so your example doesn't apply here. My issue is this sets an awful precedent, as I have not seen a business/private loan, or M&A transaction where the borrower's financials were not inflated. It's almost customary and expected, so if you're going to enforce this then do it across the board. It also sets a terrible precedent, as AGs can just run political campaigns against people with whom they disagree, and anyone who has done any substantial business in a highly regulated state I'm sure at one time or another has created some sort of foot fault in their dealings. You don't need to love or hate Trump to see how poorly all of this played out, and I would not be surprised to see the entire amount overturned on appeal. It's a distraction (at best) from the far more serious cases in Georgia and Florida.

First, outside of a deal where I sold a family business I have not done any M&A so not exaclty my area of expertise. However, I think there is a difference between projections and facts. As others have written extensively in other posts Trump lied repeatedly about facts. The apartment size was the most cited example becuase it was easy for the general public to understand but was not the only one.

Second the judgment has not been brought down on appeal. A judge made a decision (for which I am not certain there is authority) to lower the amount of the bond in order to allow Trump so room. The amount of damages may be lowered on appeal but that has not happened yet.

As to the amount of damages it seems like a lot but if you read the order the amount is actually based upon the differences between the rates charged and what the banks said they would have charged.

I think KByrnes has posted the best synopsis see if you can find it and see if you still think this is all made up and he didnt inflate his financials. There are number of writers who for yershave written about how he inflates his financials just look at the stories about him and the Forbes list. ANd under the law as passed the simple act of submitting them is a violation.

And by the way I agree it is a "political" decision in the sense that if he never ran he would not have attracted the attention to bring these cases but he was the idiot who did that.

financials. My point is that kind of thing happens, literally, all the time. The banks were not harmed, and in fact wanted to do more business with Trump. I posit that the "damages" (to the extent there were any at all), will be brought down, potentially to nothing. I never said this was all made up, you can re-read my post. I said it's rather common, and the lender has almost every avenue to diligence this, and if they feel they're not getting proper diligence, they don't need to make the loan. In this case, they made the loan and had the desire to do more lending to Trump. My point is, if you're going to enforce this, I guarantee you there are many many more people doing business in NY that would get caught up in this web. If his name was anything other than Trump this would have been a non-issue. It's a dangerous precedent and can now be used by AGs who don't like politicians who are more favored on this board. I've reviewed the facts of the case and while yes Trump absolutely inflated his assets, this judgment was insane and the bond was rightfully reduced, it's not "one set of rules for Trump" as posited by the OP, unless that set of rules is unfavorable to Trump as was clearly on display in this case. You don't get to say "oh, he brought this on himself because he ran for office", so therefore a case that never would have been brought and never really is brought makes sense. It's dangerous, and absolutely a slippery slope. We'll see if a political AG on the right starts doing these kinds of things to Democrats and dusts off the lawbooks to "get" Democrats, whether Kbyrnes and others on this board are as enthusiastic as they are about this case.

Meanwhile, on Monday a police officer in NY was murdered by a criminal out on bail ($2k bail for a gun charge) who has a rap sheet longer than this thread.

Anyway, I'm out for now, appreciate the volley and have a good evening.

I agree with you that the banks make adjustments based on a skeptical review of the buyer’s provided financials. But the Trump Organization apparently, per KByrnes’ post, put in valuations that they said were provided by a third party when they weren’t. That’s an indefensible fraud that the banks may have relied upon.

I don’t care one way or the other about the case. I don’t think it will have any consequences on doing business in New York, and I do think it was a politically motivated witch hunt. I don’t like him, and I think he’s guilty so I don’t mind seeing his feet put to the fire. Like most things, it will turn into a careful what you wish for item down the road.