Trump made himself a target. Most criminals try to hide their criminality and keep a low profile; he did the opposite. Many of us wish these had been charged earlier. If they had, Trump could be quietly serving time in prison instead of selling bibles. That's simply incorrect. There was no requirement or expectation that the properties be listed at their tax assessed value. However, there are accounting rules that needed to be followed, and weren't. You are arguing against a strawman here. Easy question, it's the State of New York. That's who sued him. That's the amount the judge determined he stole. Maybe if he'd been more honest, he'd have less to pay back. Because there is a very clear paper trail. The central facts in the case are documented. Criminal businesses, yes. That's part of the point. To discourage criminals from operating in NYS. It's not hard to imagine, since Trump has promised to do exactly that if he somehow gets back in office. barfo
This is absolute garbage, and shows how little you know about our financial system. The ONLY restriction on banks lending capacity is having enough collateral to maintain leverage ratios. Each bank does a risk/reward calculation based on the specific circumstances and then decided if they will do the loan. This is where the vast majority of 'money creation' comes from. If a bank sees a big enough opportunity, they will find a way to make the loan.... they never 'run out of money'
If a bank sees a big enough opportunity, they will find a way to make the loan.... they never 'run out of money'[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but banks do "run out of money". When debts exceed assets in excess of being recoverable they fail! At least 5 major banks failed in 2023 alone.
Yes, some banks fail. The reason is that the value of the collateral that they have drops and they are not able to maintain their leverage ratios... they made bad loans or choices. The primary reason for Silicon Valley's demise is that they were holding low interest T-Bills. As the interest rates rose, the value of those assets dropped sharply. Some people noticed & started withdrawing money from the bank... which exhaserbated the dropping of collateral held by the bank. When the banks leverage ratios exceeded allowable limits - they were deemed insolvent and taken over. But technically, they never ran out of money. Even one the last day before being taken over, they bank was still lending money.
It's splitting hairs a bit here - yes, they were shut down instead of running out of money, but it's pretty clear that if they'd stayed open, the bank run would have continued and then they literally would have run out of money. Back to the point, banks don't have infinite backing to make infinite amounts of loans. They prioritize the loans that seem like they are the best bets, and turn down those that aren't. The fact that there isn't a rigid, bright red line to decide doesn't mean they don't make a call about which loans to approve and which to deny. So if false information causes them to prioritize loan applications incorrectly, that's fraud. Alternatively, the property could be eligible for a loan on the merits, but the fraud caused the bank to offer a lower interest rate on the loan. Court determined that both of those scenarios happened (on different properties) in the Trump case. barfo
