CURRENT EVENTS July 31-Sept 27

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 63K
  • Politics 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Enigma94 said:
I'd be curious to know your background as it relates to commercial real estate lending. I worked for over 20 years for one of the largest CRE lenders in the country and have originated in the billions of dollars of loans. The reason for the laws against fraud isn't because nobody was hurt in this particular case or because the lenders are "big boys". The reason is if every borrower was allowed to provide fraudulent information then when there is a downturn those flaws would make the downside correction even worse. Think about the great financial crisis in 2008 - mortgage fraud where buyers simply lied on their applications and the "big boy" banks didn't care because they were getting bonuses (and in many cases offloading the risk through MBS) made the crisis much more acute.

If borrowers feel emboldened to lie about their financials and lenders look the other way because they are getting fat bonuses it creates systemic risk for all of us.
Click to expand...
No background in commercial lending; however, my wife is a commercial real estate attorney who's been involved in numerous multi state commercial closings so I have a general familiarity with commercial closings. Also, I have represented individuals and entities in civil litigation arising out of the mortgage fraud crisis in 2008 so I'm aware of the abuses in the system.

I'm not advocating for false and misleading disclosures in the lending process. What I am saying is that what Trump did in "puffing" his financial statements is not unusual and large commercial institutions are well aware of this and thus, conduct their own inquiry and investigation concerning the borrowers' assets and loan collateral. Trump was singled out by James for selective prosecution when his case was not an egregious case since the lender suffered no damages and even wanted more of Trump's business. The bank even testified that they did not rely on Trump's disclosures in making the loan approvals.

I would ask you what about what James is being investigated for: lying on mortgage applications in order to secure better financing? Lying that her father was her husband and misrepresenting the number of units of an apartment building? Isn't that just as bad as Trump's case - and she's an AG not a private citizen?
 
Ramrouser said:
Justice Friedman's perfect description of lawfare:

"Plainly, [James'] ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene'...but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business. The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. The bench today unanimously derails her effort to destroy his businesses."
Click to expand...
NEW YORK — A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years.

So the court essentially ruled that Trump is a fraud but let's not punish him too much for being a fraud😕
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this is neither the final word on either this fine or whether or not a different fine is imposed. This merely suggests this one is inappropriate but that he's still guilty as hell.
 
Ramrouser said:
No background in commercial lending; however, my wife is a commercial real estate attorney who's been involved in numerous multi state commercial closings so I have a general familiarity with commercial closings. Also, I have represented individuals and entities in civil litigation arising out of the mortgage fraud crisis in 2008 so I'm aware of the abuses in the system.

I'm not advocating for false and misleading disclosures in the lending process. What I am saying is that what Trump did in "puffing" his financial statements is not unusual and large commercial institutions are well aware of this and thus, conduct their own inquiry and investigation concerning the borrowers' assets and loan collateral. Trump was singled out by James for selective prosecution when his case was not an egregious case since the lender suffered no damages and even wanted more of Trump's business. The bank even testified that they did not rely on Trump's disclosures in making the loan approvals.

I would ask you what about what James is being investigated for: lying on mortgage applications in order to secure better financing? Lying that her father was her husband and misrepresenting the number of units of an apartment building? Isn't that just as bad as Trump's case - and she's an AG not a private citizen?
Click to expand...
You seem to be drawing a distinction between “puffing” and “lying.”

Maybe help us with that?
 
I wish more and more we could just have a section of the country for MAGA Land. The problem with it is the ones who wouldn't want to be a part of MAGA would be fine going about their lives and happy with being apart from MAGA Land, but you know at some point MAGA Land would collapse and they would want to take over the non MAGA part of the country.
 
finesse said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this is neither the final word on either this fine or whether or not a different fine is imposed. This merely suggests this one is inappropriate but that he's still guilty as hell.
Click to expand...
The appellate court voided the fine in its entirety and did not remand the case back to the trial judge for further consideration of a more appropriate fine. The case may be appealed to the Court of Appeals which could reverse the decision. The lower court's finding of civil fraud, with an injunction of Trump serving as a director for a NY corporation for 3 years, remains.
 
lawtig02 said:
You seem to be drawing a distinction between “puffing” and “lying.”

Maybe help us with that?
Click to expand...
Puffing is an exaggerated statement of opinion used to promote or sell a product or service.
Lying is a false statement of material fact conveyed with the intent to deceive or mislead.

Trump puffs all the time. The trial judge held it was fraud (lying), for example, for Trump to value Mar a Lago at 18M. You be the judge. The one area that sticks out for me where Trump could have unquestionably lied was his listing the wrong square footage of his Trump Tower condo (he said it was a mistake) on the statements. Of course, the square footage of the condo could have been easily verified by the lender by examining the property tax records as part of its due diligence investigation.
 
Ramrouser said:
Puffing is an exaggerated statement of opinion used to promote or sell a product or service.
Lying is a false statement of material fact conveyed with the intent to deceive or mislead.

Trump puffs all the time. The trial judge held it was fraud (lying), for example, for Trump to value Mar a Lago at 18M. You be the judge. The one area that sticks out for me where Trump could have unquestionably lied was his listing the wrong square footage of his Trump Tower condo (he said it was a mistake) on the statements. Of course, the square footage of the condo could have been easily verified by the lender by examining the property tax records as part of its due diligence investigation.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But wrong. And yeah, the legal valuation of MAL is about the most objective thing imaginable.

Also glad to know you're ok with fraud as long as the recipient of the fraud has the ability to determine the statement's truth or falsity.

I literally cannot imagine how you've kept a law license for so long.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top