@
sunsporter1649 So you have a misconception regarding what the case is about?? Read the judge's words. The judge never mentions "market value."
Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst," the judge wrote.
(1) Witnesses testified that the banks did rely on Trump's fraudulent claims.
(2) Witnesses testified that if they had had an accurate picture of Trump's financial state, he would not have gotten the highly favorable interest rates that he got. If Trump had filed accurate statements he would have had to pay much, much more interest (if they would have given the loans at all).
(3) The penalty was calculated based on that, and the details are all spelled out in the ruling. He defrauded the banks out of the higher interest he would have had to pay in order to get the loans. "No harm was done" is plainly false.
(4) The "no harm was done" defense is so insanely dumb that Trump's lawyers didn't even attempt it in court. (But see the update below for a related "nobody complained" defense.)
Think about how little sense it makes. If you embezzle a million dollars Friday just before the banks close, fly to vegas and bet it all on red at the roulette wheel, and win, and return the million dollars plus interest on Monday as soon as the banks open, would you expect a "no one got hurt" defense to get you acquitted when you go to trial?
Edited to add quotes from the ruling:
(1) For example, p. 9:
In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013.
And p. 68:
The evidence adduced at trial makes clear that Deutsche Bank relied on the SFCs for the information to underwrite, approve, and maintain the credit facilities on Doral, Trump Chicago, and the Old Post Office. PX 293, PX 3041 at ¶¶ 452-54, 456-466, 476.
And more. And on p. 75 it discusses how absurd this defense was:
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them.
And (next paragraph) it wouldn't make any difference as a matter of law:
Defendants’ argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff’s causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.
And (next paragraph) even though it wasn't a requisite element, the claim made by the defense is clearly false:
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.
(2) p. 68:
The record is also clear that Donald Trump would not have received the credit facilities from the Private Wealth Management Division, and the favorable interest rates that came with that, had he not executed an unconditional, “ironclad,” personal guarantee. Moreover, the Private Wealth Management Division was willing to accept the personal guarantees based upon false SFCs.
(3) Here's part of the "disgorgement of ill-gotten gains" calculation, from p. 86:
McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotten interest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill- gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.
In total, defendants’ fraud saved them approximately $168,040,168 in interest, which shall be imposed, jointly and severally, among Donald Trump and the defendant entities that he owns and controls, as the misconduct at issue was committed by the Trump Organization’s top management.
