Appeals court has put a stay on the sham trial

https://youtu.be/--uxxB_My28?feature=shared

How is it a sham?  His property is not worth over a billion dollars.   I can't apply for loans and say my current property is worth 100mil.... that's fraud.   If not I would have hundreds of properties.

Show me any bank or other lending institution that will take a borrower's word alone for the value of a multi-million-dollar property.

The insurance companies as well.

None of the banks or insurance companies loaning Trump money on the properties or covering it for losses has complained that the property is over-valued.  They have had professionals appraise the values, and were satisfied it could be sold to cover the loans and would not allow inflated claims were there to be a loss.

You are just as delusional as the judge.

banks issued the loans under their assessors and parameters
loans WERE PAID OFF
where's the crime? who was harmed???

How is it a sham?  His property is not worth over a billion dollars.   I can't apply for loans and say my current property is worth 100mil.... that's fraud.   If not I would have hundreds of properties.

Federal banks overloaned money causing a resession.

No one went to jail or trial. In fact, the banks got paid.

At most its underwriters not doing their job.

But orangeman bad.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I declare my parents' basement  worth $1Googolplex...so why am I still living here?

I declare my parents' basement  worth $1Googolplex...so why am I still living here?

I get scam offers to buy my condo. I tell them $1,000,000 cash. No offers after that.

Hope I dont get indicted.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I get scam offers to buy my condo. I tell them $1,000,000 cash. No offers after that.

Hope I dont get indicted.

I get calls weekly to sell my house.  I try to get the name of the business, and most just hang up.  The ones i could research were not incorporated anywhere i could find, were not licensed realtors in Hawaii, and their websites looked like they were created on the fly by a novice high schooler.

One guy had to let his "partner" call me to talk about checking the property out.  Sounds like an "I hook 'em, he reels 'em in" thing happening.

I get calls weekly to sell my house.  I try to get the name of the business, and most just hang up.  The ones i could research were not incorporated anywhere i could find, were not licensed realtors in Hawaii, and their websites looked like they were created on the fly by a novice high schooler.

One guy had to let his "partner" call me to talk about checking the property out.  Sounds like an "I hook 'em, he reels 'em in" thing happening.

they are called "wholesalers"
they are not real estate agents
when you see those "we buy houses" signs up, this is what they are
they con people into wanting to sell their houses, and make thousands on the sale...

they are called "wholesalers"
they are not real estate agents
when you see those "we buy houses" signs up, this is what they are
they con people into wanting to sell their houses, and make thousands on the sale...

I figured it was as scam at some level.

I asked one if he was a licensed realtor, and he told me no, but his "partner" is.

These cold calls asking "are you thinking about selling" gets an immediate hang-up now.

so much hate blinds people...
I wish I could self evaluate properties when I got my mortgage and when the City does their evaluations for taxes

Yeah,  everyone would do this.   Trump said his property was worth over a billion for the sake of getting loans, but when it came to taxes it was valued alot less,  I think 18million? 🤔

Everyone knows tax assessments are not based on actual market value.

if it is, then I'm a criminal, too.

You still don't have an answer for why the banks blindly took Trump's valuation -- or did they get an independent assessment themselves?

Why won't you answer that?

Fraud is fraud.  If I got 100 properties with fraudulent over evaluations, sold them all and paid all my loans, are you saying I didn't commit a crime?

Unless the people lending the money got stuck with a defaulted loan and a property that can't be sold for the loan balance, there is no fraud.

No different than one car dealer asking for $2000 more than other dealers ask.  Something is worth what others will be willing to pay.  There is no concrete number that remains stagnant.  Markets fluctuate, values change, and assessments vary.  Choosing the highest assessment isn't fraud.  It's just an opinion.

Unless the people lending the money got stuck with a defaulted loan and a property that can't be sold for the loan balance, there is no fraud.

No different than one car dealer asking for $2000 more than other dealers ask.  Something is worth what others will be willing to pay.  There is no concrete number that remains stagnant.  Markets fluctuate, values change, and assessments vary.  Choosing the highest assessment isn't fraud.  It's just an opinion.

This sums it up.  It's also very common for people to pay more than what a property is appraised (valued) at. Like someone never heard of bidding war.

Fraud is fraud.  If I got 100 properties with fraudulent over evaluations, sold them all and paid all my loans, are you saying I didn't commit a crime?

It's not fraud if the amount borrowed is less than the actual market value of the property.  He can say it's worth a gazillion, but if he only borrows half the market value of 18 million, then there's no fraud.  The loan would have to exceed the market value of all the collateral involved, not just one property.

if Trump defaulted, and a property brings less than what's owed at auction or public sale, then the lender can still get a judgement against the Trump Corp and get paid. 

If you have a house worth $1M, and you owe $400K, when you default on your mortgage the bank will sell the property.  If the property sells for $300K, you will still owe the bank $100K after the sell.  They don't write it off as their loss that quickly.

But, since all loans were paid off, there's no dispute.  Other factors go into approving a loan, such as assets, income and credit history.  The Trump Corp declared bankruptcy in the past, too.  Is it fraud for them to now claim they are a good credit risk?  If so, that would also apply to all the auto makers in the US.  Arrest  them all!!

It's not fraud if the amount borrowed is less than the actual market value of the property.  He can say it's worth a gazillion, but if he only borrows half the market value of 18 million, then there's no fraud.  The loan would have to exceed the market value of all the collateral involved, not just one property.

if Trump defaulted, and a property brings less than what's owed at auction or public sale, then the lender can still get a judgement against the Trump Corp and get paid. 

If you have a house worth $1M, and you owe $400K, when you default on your mortgage the bank will sell the property.  If the property sells for $300K, you will still owe the bank $100K after the sell.  They don't write it off as their loss that quickly.

But, since all loans were paid off, there's no dispute.  Other factors go into approving a loan, such as assets, income and credit history.  The Trump Corp declared bankruptcy in the past, too.  Is it fraud for them to now claim they are a good credit risk?  If so, that would also apply to all the auto makers in the US.  Arrest  them all!!

You left out how especially for loans this size, banks just believe what the borrower tells them.  No need verify for themselves. TDS is laughable for this one.

BRB applying to get a loan to buy 20 Lamborgini's.

Excuse me Mr. Bank, my income is $400,000,000 a month.  Loan me money based on this.

Bank says : OK sure.

I think the situation is a bit more complicated than it’s being painted here.  I don’t think it’s a case of overvaluing property used as direct collateral for a loan (which would still be wrong, but not necessarily as big a deal).

After reading just a little bit of the civil complaint, it looks like that in at least one case, there is an actual loss to one or more banks, like this:

- Mr. Trump wants a loan to buy a property.
- Bank says the proposition involves some risk, based on the nature of the property (one bank executive called a property a “tough asset” and said the bank’s initial reaction to the application for a loan was “not enthusiastic”), which they consider in setting loan terms (interest rate, etc.).
- The proposal is to do a “recourse loan,” in which the lender may go after borrower’s assets other than the property being purchased in the event of default.
- The terms of the recourse loan depend heavily on the borrower’s net worth, as represented by annual Statements of Financial Condition; higher net worth means easier recourse for the lender, which means less risk, which means better terms (lower interest rate, etc.)
- I don’t know for sure, but I would expect the lender to get an independent opinion on the value of the property to be purchased; I don’t know that the lender would have the capability to completely assess the net worth of every borrower, and so may rely on Statements of Financial Condition and guaranties from the borrower.
- IF the borrower fraudulently represents their net worth to be higher than it truly is, the lender then provides the loan at a lower interest rate than they otherwise would, resulting in direct financial loss to the lender.

I didn’t read the whole complaint (it’s 222 pages), but that seems to be the issue in at least one part of it.

I think the situation is a bit more complicated than it’s being painted here.  I don’t think it’s a case of overvaluing property used as direct collateral for a loan (which would still be wrong, but not necessarily as big a deal).

After reading just a little bit of the civil complaint, it looks like that in at least one case, there is an actual loss to one or more banks, like this:

- Mr. Trump wants a loan to buy a property.
- Bank says the proposition involves some risk, based on the nature of the property (one bank executive called a property a “tough asset” and said the bank’s initial reaction to the application for a loan was “not enthusiastic”), which they consider in setting loan terms (interest rate, etc.).
- The proposal is to do a “recourse loan,” in which the lender may go after borrower’s assets other than the property being purchased in the event of default.
- The terms of the recourse loan depend heavily on the borrower’s net worth, as represented by annual Statements of Financial Condition; higher net worth means easier recourse for the lender, which means less risk, which means better terms (lower interest rate, etc.)
- I don’t know for sure, but I would expect the lender to get an independent opinion on the value of the property to be purchased; I don’t know that the lender would have the capability to completely assess the net worth of every borrower, and so may rely on Statements of Financial Condition and guaranties from the borrower.
- IF the borrower fraudulently represents their net worth to be higher than it truly is, the lender then provides the loan at a lower interest rate than they otherwise would, resulting in direct financial loss to the lender.

I didn’t read the whole complaint (it’s 222 pages), but that seems to be the issue in at least one part of it.

If a banker is lending millions based on guarantees of the borrower, that's not fraud -- it's stupidity.  They shouldn't be allowed to manage their own money, much less the assets of a large financial business.

If a banker is lending millions based on guarantees of the borrower, that's not fraud -- it's stupidity.  They shouldn't be allowed to manage their own money, much less the assets of a large financial business.

Like I said, banks gave out loans to people who couldnt pay them. Enter recession and banks being bailed out.  Was any borrower or underwriter (bank) charged for a crime for this?  I remember reading 1 article that stated banks weren't verifying income, but taking what ever was written on the applicaiton so they can meet their sales goals.

Like I said, banks gave out loans to people who couldnt pay them. Enter recession and banks being bailed out.  Was any borrower or underwriter (bank) charged for a crime for this?  I remember reading 1 article that stated banks weren't verifying income, but taking what ever was written on the applicaiton so they can meet their sales goals.

Congress (Freddie and Fannie Mac) lowered the qualification standards, because the Dems believed owning a home is a "right."  So, the industry started doing all kinds of creative financing -- no principle/interest only payments, low payments for 3 years then massive balloon payments, variable interest rate loans, etc.

Then, when they got the bright idea of selling these toxic loans bundled as investments, the bottom fell out when the truth was publicized.  Homes lost all that inflated value caused by increased demand for loans they never would qualify for before.  The bubble burst, and that's when the banks that played ball with Obama were bailed out.  Bears Stearns was the first to fail.  The bail outs started the next week.  They were sold to JPMorgan.

All that borrowing going on because Congress wanted to have everyone owning homes -- whether they could afford it or not.  And the banks playing "Hot potato" with the loans they were certain would be foreclosed on let them reduce their risk.  BtW, the banks downplayed the risk for those bundled loans to get them sold.  Anyone go to jail for fraud?

If a banker is lending millions based on guarantees of the borrower, that's not fraud -- it's stupidity.  They shouldn't be allowed to manage their own money, much less the assets of a large financial business.

This is based on your years of experience in investment banking…?

Maybe that’s why we have laws that say you can’t misrepresent material information when you apply for a loan?

I’m not saying Trump did or didn’t misrepresent information in this case, but if he did, seems like pretty clear fraud to me…