Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | Georgia RICO case grinds on

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 332
  • Views: 9K
  • Politics 
It helps them a lot. Compensatory damages will be difficult to prove. It may move the parties toward settlement, however.
 



“…

Justice says size of penalty against Trump ‘troubling’​


… “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

…
Vale responded that while it was a large number, the process of disgorgement, or the return of “ill-gotten gains” looks to take away the gain from the wrongdoer.

“Although this is a large number, it’s a large number for a couple reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality,” she said.

“That is an enormous benefit they got from this conduct” of falsifying financial statements to obtain better loan rates, Vale said.

The judges also questioned how the disgorgement was calculated. Justice Llinet Rosado asked if it should have been calculated based on the difference in the property valuations.

Vale argued that the disgorgement was properly calculated based on the difference in loan rates that Trump received from the falsified financial statements, which they were able to quantify.

She also pushed back on the notion that the penalty against Trump “double-counted” the Trump’s sale of Old Post Office building in Washington, DC, saying that the disgorgement properly included both the benefit Trump received with a better loan rate and the profits from the sale. …”

… The panel did not rule at the end of Thursday’s hearing and no decision is expected before the election, and the appeals court ruling can still be appealed to New York’s highest appellate court.”
 
nycfan said:



“…

Justice says size of penalty against Trump ‘troubling’​


… “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

…
Vale responded that while it was a large number, the process of disgorgement, or the return of “ill-gotten gains” looks to take away the gain from the wrongdoer.

“Although this is a large number, it’s a large number for a couple reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality,” she said.

“That is an enormous benefit they got from this conduct” of falsifying financial statements to obtain better loan rates, Vale said.

The judges also questioned how the disgorgement was calculated. Justice Llinet Rosado asked if it should have been calculated based on the difference in the property valuations.

Vale argued that the disgorgement was properly calculated based on the difference in loan rates that Trump received from the falsified financial statements, which they were able to quantify.

She also pushed back on the notion that the penalty against Trump “double-counted” the Trump’s sale of Old Post Office building in Washington, DC, saying that the disgorgement properly included both the benefit Trump received with a better loan rate and the profits from the sale. …”

… The panel did not rule at the end of Thursday’s hearing and no decision is expected before the election, and the appeals court ruling can still be appealed to New York’s highest appellate court.”
Click to expand...

If the appellate court thinks the statute should not extend so far as to cover frauds in which banks were not harmed, that’s one thing. Wrong, but at least the decision an appellate court would make. If they’re second-guessing the trial court’s assessment of damages, which it made after hearing all the evidence, experts, etc., that would be much more odd. It’s really rare in my experience that appellate courts disturb the damages awarded at trial.
 
nycfan said:



“…

Justice says size of penalty against Trump ‘troubling’​


… “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

…
Vale responded that while it was a large number, the process of disgorgement, or the return of “ill-gotten gains” looks to take away the gain from the wrongdoer.

“Although this is a large number, it’s a large number for a couple reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality,” she said.

“That is an enormous benefit they got from this conduct” of falsifying financial statements to obtain better loan rates, Vale said.

The judges also questioned how the disgorgement was calculated. Justice Llinet Rosado asked if it should have been calculated based on the difference in the property valuations.

Vale argued that the disgorgement was properly calculated based on the difference in loan rates that Trump received from the falsified financial statements, which they were able to quantify.

She also pushed back on the notion that the penalty against Trump “double-counted” the Trump’s sale of Old Post Office building in Washington, DC, saying that the disgorgement properly included both the benefit Trump received with a better loan rate and the profits from the sale. …”

… The panel did not rule at the end of Thursday’s hearing and no decision is expected before the election, and the appeals court ruling can still be appealed to New York’s highest appellate court.”
Click to expand...

I thought Trump had a pretty compelling appeal in this case. Not sure what the NY courts will ultimately do, but I would not be surprised to see a partial reversal and perhaps a remand for further remedy calculations.
 
lawtig02 said:
If the appellate court thinks the statute should not extend so far as to cover frauds in which banks were not harmed, that’s one thing. Wrong, but at least the decision an appellate court would make. If they’re second-guessing the trial court’s assessment of damages, which it made after hearing all the evidence, experts, etc., that would be much more odd. It’s really rare in my experience that appellate courts disturb the damages awarded at trial.
Click to expand...
I've seen several reversals on unjust enrichment calculations. I've not seen the nuts and bolts of the math, but it seems like the trial court made some very aggressive assumptions about the enrichment to Trump.
 
Calheel said:
I've seen several reversals on unjust enrichment calculations. I've not seen the nuts and bolts of the math, but it seems like the trial court made some very aggressive assumptions about the enrichment to Trump.
Click to expand...
These were statutory consumer protection claims, not unjust enrichment, right? My understanding is the judgment was more akin to a fine than a measure of unjust gain. So the appellate court can’t really find Engoron calculated Trump’s gain improperly. It would have to find Engoron erred (under whatever applicable standard) by awarding the fine/penalty.
 
“… The five-justice panel showed mixed reactions, with at least one jurist who has repeatedly sided with Trump indicating that he is inclined to do so again. Their joint decision is expected in a little over a month — precarious timing with the presidential election just six weeks away. …”


www.notus.org

A New York Court Questioned If Trump Was Correctly Nailed For Bank Fraud

The state appeals court is evaluating whether Letitia James went too far in the case that has Trump facing a half-billion-dollar judgment.
www.notus.org www.notus.org
 
nycfan said:
“… The five-justice panel showed mixed reactions, with at least one jurist who has repeatedly sided with Trump indicating that he is inclined to do so again. Their joint decision is expected in a little over a month — precarious timing with the presidential election just six weeks away. …”


www.notus.org

A New York Court Questioned If Trump Was Correctly Nailed For Bank Fraud

The state appeals court is evaluating whether Letitia James went too far in the case that has Trump facing a half-billion-dollar judgment.
www.notus.org www.notus.org
Click to expand...
How many of the 5 need side with Trump to overturn?
 
lawtig02 said:
These were statutory consumer protection claims, not unjust enrichment, right? My understanding is the judgment was more akin to a fine than a measure of unjust gain. So the appellate court can’t really find Engoron calculated Trump’s gain improperly. It would have to find Engoron erred (under whatever applicable standard) by awarding the fine/penalty.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the law in question is similar to Cal Bus and Prof Code Section 17200 (and similar business fraud statutes around the country) that allow the state to collect ill gotten gains from the fraud but not an untethered penalty akin to punitive damages. And the reporting seems to confirm that view.

If I really cared, I’d research it. But I’m just a somewhat interested observer. I don’t think there is a precedent for this kind of award under that statute, and that is sure to raise some concerns with certain judges (ie, are we potentially damaging New York’s status as the business capital of the U.S. by approving this kind of award).
 
How can it be an October surprise when this case has literally been going on for two years? It's hard for me to imagine anything in the indictment that would move the needle in the presidential race. Everyone knows what Trump did, and they are either at peace with it or they aren't.

I suppose it could have an effect of amplifying an unflattering message about Trump when he would like to be talking about something else. I don't think this is quite like Comey/HRC because Comey's comments about re-opening the investigation made it seem as though there had previously been a cover-up, and that there was more lurking beneath the surface. I mean, maybe there's something really explosive in there, but I have my doubts. I think this is a tipped-over iceberg; what lays unseen is probably the tip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top