That's not my position and it's not how borrowing works

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.