7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Simple question: if a Ponzi scheme is detected before anyone loses money, is it criminal?

 

Stop the presses...  Trump was involved in a Ponzi scheme? 

 

If so, and I sued him for losses before there were any, the case would be tossed out.

 

The state may be able to prosecute him in criminal court, but that's not what's happening here.  This is a civil trial.  For damages.  When there were none.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You've already seen the judge's ruling that hasn't yet been made?

The judge has already made an initial determination of asset valuation fraud.

 

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You've already seen the judge's ruling that hasn't yet been made?

The judge has already made an initial determination of asset valuation fraud.

But he hasn't made his final ruling.

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Stop the presses...  Trump was involved in a Ponzi scheme? 

 

If so, and I sued him for losses before there were any, the case would be tossed out.

 

The state may be able to prosecute him in criminal court, but that's not what's happening here.  This is a civil trial.  For damages.  When there were none.

 

 

 

This is like explaining colors to a blind man.

 

Risk exposure is a thing in business. Lying about risk is punishable. Banks are risk-averse. If the risk is too great, they won't lend.

 

Yes, a Ponzi scheme is a form of asset valuation fraud, the most extreme type. If the authorities detect a Ponzi scheme, they will shut it down before anyone has lost money.

 

Your position is that asset valuation fraud is no big deal. Not because you know anything about it, but only because your Orange Jesus is accused of it.

 

Bad public policy.

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But he hasn't made his final ruling.

We all know that Trump is going to have to pay. 

 

Even you know that. So, what's your point?

21 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

He managed to run a casino into the ground. Nuff said.

And that takes a lot of hard work – – yeah right! 

He would have to be a completely dumb and utter loser to do that – – oh, wait a minute, he is!

Unfortunately for members of the Cult of the Orange Jesus, they have not been issued talking points about this trial that cover all of the legal issues. So, they can re-cycle what they have:

 

No one has ever been prosecuted for this before.

 

Nobody lost money.

 

but they can't deal with the real issues:

 

Why were the books fraudulent? 

 

Why did Trump induce the banks and insurers to accept significant unknown risk exposure?

 

What's the monetary compensation for that undisclosed risk exposure?

 

There aren't any talking points for these questions, so the responses should be entertaining. Or zero.

36 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Stop the presses...  Trump was involved in a Ponzi scheme? 

 

If so, and I sued him for losses before there were any, the case would be tossed out.

 

The state may be able to prosecute him in criminal court, but that's not what's happening here.  This is a civil trial.  For damages.  When there were none.

 

 

 

There were losses, the banks did lose money.

 

Trump cost banks $168M by inflating his company's worth: fraud trial expert - Raw Story

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Is that case within the remit of the NY AG in 2024?

 

WAS he charged with that offence by the NY AD?

 

If he was, fair enough. If he wasn't then once again you are diverting, or trying to anyway, off topic.

9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Stop the presses...  Trump was involved in a Ponzi scheme? 

 

If so, and I sued him for losses before there were any, the case would be tossed out.

 

 

 

 

If the government discovered that someone was operating a Ponzi scheme, they would immediately be put out of business, even if no one had lost money yet.

 

Trump's scheme will likewise lead to shutting down his company, or Trump being banned from running a business in New York.

 

 

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

If the government discovered that someone was operating a Ponzi scheme, they would immediately be put out of business, even if no one had lost money yet.

 

Trump's scheme will likewise lead to shutting down his company, or Trump being banned from running a business in New York.

 

 

Wouldn't that be wonderful.......getting his just desserts!

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But he hasn't made his final ruling.

I look forward to your reaction when he does.

End of January early February is the forecast.

 

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But he hasn't made his final ruling.

End of January early February is the forecast.

Yes, we can all read.

18 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

This is like explaining colors to a blind man.

 

Risk exposure is a thing in business. Lying about risk is punishable. Banks are risk-averse. If the risk is too great, they won't lend.

 

Yes, a Ponzi scheme is a form of asset valuation fraud, the most extreme type. If the authorities detect a Ponzi scheme, they will shut it down before anyone has lost money.

 

Your position is that asset valuation fraud is no big deal. Not because you know anything about it, but only because your Orange Jesus is accused of it.

 

Bad public policy.

 

 

 

 

This is like explaining colors to a blind man.

I'm afraid you are wasting your time here, because remember that Trump likes his supporters to be of a particular level as regards intelligence, so you're probably dealing with someone of that ilk. Furthermore there is an old saying which goes something like, "never argue with idiots because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

 

Having said that, I do admire your persistence in trying to "educate" trump supporters, but as you have seen, it is an exercise in futility.

23 hours ago, impulse said:

Interesting what Kevin O'Leary had to say on CNN Friday...

 

And so, that's what this case is all about. And by the way, forget about Trump. Every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this. They always talk about their asset being worth a lot, and the bank says no. That's just the way it is.

So, in this case, what I'm trying to figure out, and I'm not pro or con, I don't care about the politics, who lost money? Nobody. The bank got paid back the construction finance loan and a new building was built. And if you're going to sue this case and win, you've got to sue every real estate developer everywhere. This is all they do. This is what they do all day long, every day.

So, I don't think this thing will ever survive appeal, regardless of what the fine is. This doesn't even make sense. 

 

The interview is all over the right wing blogosphere.  Being of a cynical nature, I looked on CNN to confirm that's what the guy actually said.  I dare anyone to try to find it on CNN.  They buried it.  Crickets. 

 

I finally found it buried in their "transcripts" section.  Had to Bing "Mr Wonderful" to find it.  But I guarantee, no CNN viewer will ever know about it.  Doesn't fit their narrative.

 

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lcl/date/2024-01-11/segment/01

 

I agree CNN buried it.

 

Right where most or a CNN viewer would not expect to find it.

 

Top of the Google search page with a link to CNN's YouTube Video Site.

 

I assume by their narrative you mean, hold the interviewee accountable?
 

22 hours ago, impulse said:

I don't move in those circles, so I have to count on input from experts.  Reading the rest of the interaction, O'Leary doesn't seem to be a fan of The Donald.  But solely on the topic of the lawsuit, he's pretty clear.  This doesn't even make sense. 

After watching the video, I would suggest O'Leary as a Canadian businessman would have little experience in US property development and law and would not qualify as an expert in this field.

O'Leary's justification for siding with Trump is that 'everyone is doing it' and he even advocates Tax Fraud for the same reason.

 

O'Leary is a rightwing Canadian millionaire businessman and TV personality who ran for PM and leader of the Conservative Party in 2017 on a similar platform to Trump, with some even saying that he is a Trump clone.

Seems, the only subject where he is not a fan of Trump, is with impeaching Biden.

 

17 hours ago, impulse said:

CNN seemed to hold him out as an expert...   From the transcript:  I'm going to ask an expert. Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary, he's next.

 

Of course, that changed after he went off message.  I just read the transcript because they buried the interview so deep.  But she sure seemed to change her tune and become rather rude dismissing him...

I watched the video, which wasn't buried.

 

O'Leary did not go off message, his message was always the support of Trump.

 

The only change was like a good journalist, she finally pushed back on his justification for breaking the law of 'everyone does it'.

 

She commented on his rhetoric by suggesting getting a larger prosecutor's office to cope with the hordes 'as everyone does it'.

 

Obviously, you are only used to the 'soft balling' with zero accountability done on rightwing media.

 

The close was respectful and cordial and she was not rude and did not dismiss him.

 

What I thought didn't make sense was O'Leary, when talking about the US 2024 elections, used 'we' multiple times and also said 'I want to make a decision as a voter', yet he is a Canadian citizen and cannot vote.

I believe we are 2 days away from big news in this case.

11 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I believe we are 2 days away from big news in this case.

Are you talking about the latest news about Trump's tax avoidance Ponzi scheme?

This stems from when he defaulted $334M on the loans owing to Deutsche and others for the construction of his Trump International Tower Chicago.

Trump’s Latest : Court Monitor Flags Multimillion Dollar Fraud

 

Trump’s Latest Liability: Court Monitor Flags Potential Multimillion Dollar Fraud, Prompting Trump Anger—Here’s What’s At Stake (forbes.com)

 

History :

https://aseannow.com/topic/1316870-donald-trumps-new-york-fraud-trial-wraps-up-with-millions-of-dollars-on-the-line/?do=findComment&comment=18617964

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1316870-donald-trumps-new-york-fraud-trial-wraps-up-with-millions-of-dollars-on-the-line/?do=findComment&comment=18618181

 

January 31 is the day the decision is supposed to be published.

 

It may be delayed, due to the complexity of the issues.

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

January 31 is the day the decision is supposed to be published.

 

It may be delayed, due to the complexity of the issues.

I’ll guess at $300million + business ban in NY for Trump 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll guess at $300million + business ban in NY for Trump 

I don't think a business ban would hold up under appeal.

 

I suspect that the financial penalties should be the amount that Trump saved via his asset valuation fraud, plus some penalty, so $300 million is in the ballpark.

 

Trump may argue the judge is unfair, but Trump never put up a defense.

I'm going to guess $450 million (the judge can go above prosecution request) and a lifetime ban from doing business in NY, plus 5 year ban for Uday and Qusay Jr & Eric.

 

It seems justice is being served and the diner is trump.

The Trump fluffers don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Not even  to suggest the penalty should be $0.

 

They have to wait for their talking points.

Could the judgment be postponed? Apparently the court appointed monitor has uncovered a paper loan, enabling trump organization to dodge 50 million in taxes. 

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Could the judgment be postponed? Apparently the court appointed monitor has uncovered a paper loan, enabling trump organization to dodge 50 million in taxes. 

Possible, but might be another district.

 

If it proves accurate, this would be yet another Federal felony indictment for tax evasion.

 

It seems 91 felonies is never enough. Perhaps we can expect to hear something between "Witch hunt" and this:

 

"Nobody knows more about felonies than me"..."Some people are saying I'm the biggest felon ever"

I am guessing $370M plus interest @ 9% over 10 years total approx. $560M.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice a lifetime of deceit im hoping north of 400 million and a lifetime ban then let the Russian mob sort him out!!

 

Donald Trump May Win Appeal Against Letitia James (8 hours ago)

 

The trial ended on January 11 when Engoron said he hoped to hand down a ruling by January 31.

 

Professor Greg Germain of Syracuse University of Law told Newsweek that Trump may be able to convince an appeal court that James had not proven he had committed fraud.

 

"The traditional job of the attorney general is to protect innocent citizens who cannot protect themselves, such as consumers and investors.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-may-win-appeal-against-letitia-james/ar-BB1hyJGP?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c73d0836511d45dfafc05272df480779&ei=6

 

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Donald Trump May Win Appeal Against Letitia James (8 hours ago)

 

The trial ended on January 11 when Engoron said he hoped to hand down a ruling by January 31.

 

Professor Greg Germain of Syracuse University of Law told Newsweek that Trump may be able to convince an appeal court that James had not proven he had committed fraud.

 

"The traditional job of the attorney general is to protect innocent citizens who cannot protect themselves, such as consumers and investors. In this case, the attorney general is purporting to protect large financial institutions who can protect themselves and did not request the attorney general's [protection]. So while motive is not directly relevant to the issues before them, I don't think the judges will be able to ignore the ramifications of their decision," he said.

 

"This case involves punishing Trump primarily for past harm in using an overstated financial statement. I think he has a strong argument that when the attorney general seeks to punish for past use, rather than prevent future use, she would have to show all of the traditional elements of fraud."

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-may-win-appeal-against-letitia-james/ar-BB1hyJGP?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c73d0836511d45dfafc05272df480779&ei=6

 

And of course he might not.

Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

Updated 7:58 AM GMT+7, January 30, 2024

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.

 

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

 

AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors.

 

(long article)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

On 2/1/2024 at 2:28 PM, jerrymahoney said:

Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

Updated 7:58 AM GMT+7, January 30, 2024

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.

 

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

 

AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors.

 

(long article)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

It might not be necessary if the house of cards gets toppled by Trump’s inability to raise funds to pay his legal penalties.