He didnt commit a crime or break the law. The problem is that you dont know about underwriting, and you wont ask about it because it blows up your case.
Good point on JP morgan, now lets take a look at the penalty. Trumps penalty was nearly over 1/2 of his networth or so (I dont know what it really is), and JP morgan was 1/2500th of their market cap. You see the difference?
Underwriting has nothing to do with the fact that it’s illegal to lie on a loan document.
You are trying to make this about “direct harm”, which means you don’t understand how the law works. Just as there are “victimless crimes”, one can violate the law without directly harming someone. I gave you many examples, Trump is just one of them.
“Nobody was harmed” is like “I didn’t know it was illegal”. They are not a valid defense.
Finally, penalties partly depend on your pattern of conduct. If a judge thinks you are likely to break the same law again, the penalty will be greater in order to deter you. JPMorgan was wise enough to admit wrongdoing and proactively enacted measures to make sure it would never happen again. Trump, at sentencing, still thought everything he did was 100% cool and legal. Trump brought that huge fine upon himself.
On each page it said that it was up to the lender to verify the information, you can claim its lying, but you would need to be very specific. I just mention direct harm because that is important to how much someone is penalized. And obviously the point of trumps penalty was not to stop him from breaking the law in the future… he is gonna die in the near future and is focused on politics.
Literally everything you have to say falls apart under basic scrutiny. You are just a partisan person that doesnt want to admit.
He specifically lied when he claimed an 11K square foot apartment had an area of 30K square feet.
You cannot escape responsibility for obeying the law by acknowledging that you might not be obeying the law. Do you seriously think that you can fill out a false tax return and get away with it if you write “This might not be my actual income, it’s up to the IRS to verify”. Judge Engoron basically laughed that argument out of court.
Trump will almost certainly apply for more loans before he dies. After this judgment, hopefully he will fill out those applications truthfully.
Thank you for finally getting specific. The apartment probably included unfinished garage space, but why do you think that would change the valuation much? Why didnt the loan company verify the information which is literally part of their due diligence?
Your whole case behind giving a fine of 400 million or so is based on a difference of about a million in appraised value change, which apparently the bank didnt even care about.
Are you suggesting that lying on a document is legal if others can figure out the truth? That’s not how the law works, at all.
Try reporting an income of $0 on your taxes this year. An obvious lie, but the IRS probably already knows your income. They probably even already collected your taxes. Nevertheless, you will face consequences.
If you claim a thing that is defensible and say that its up to the other person to verify it, then its just part of how things work. The real question is why do you care what agreement two parties come to and are happy about the outcome?
The IRS is different than a bank, and income is different than appraised value.
Claiming an 11K sqft apartment as 30K sqft is not defensible.
And no, that’s not “just how things work”. You imagine that we live in some libertarian dystopia, but we don’t. There are laws that prohibit lying in many circumstances, and you can’t disclaim your responsibility to tell the truth.
If you sell bottles labeled “Aspirin” that contain no aspirin, you will face severe consequences. Even if nobody buys your bottles and nobody is harmed. Even if you write “User is responsible for verifying whether this bottle contains aspirin”.
Because laws specifically outlaw lying on medication bottles, just as laws specifically outlaw lying on loan documents.
He didnt commit a crime or break the law. The problem is that you dont know about underwriting, and you wont ask about it because it blows up your case.
Good point on JP morgan, now lets take a look at the penalty. Trumps penalty was nearly over 1/2 of his networth or so (I dont know what it really is), and JP morgan was 1/2500th of their market cap. You see the difference?
Underwriting has nothing to do with the fact that it’s illegal to lie on a loan document.
You are trying to make this about “direct harm”, which means you don’t understand how the law works. Just as there are “victimless crimes”, one can violate the law without directly harming someone. I gave you many examples, Trump is just one of them.
“Nobody was harmed” is like “I didn’t know it was illegal”. They are not a valid defense.
Finally, penalties partly depend on your pattern of conduct. If a judge thinks you are likely to break the same law again, the penalty will be greater in order to deter you. JPMorgan was wise enough to admit wrongdoing and proactively enacted measures to make sure it would never happen again. Trump, at sentencing, still thought everything he did was 100% cool and legal. Trump brought that huge fine upon himself.
On each page it said that it was up to the lender to verify the information, you can claim its lying, but you would need to be very specific. I just mention direct harm because that is important to how much someone is penalized. And obviously the point of trumps penalty was not to stop him from breaking the law in the future… he is gonna die in the near future and is focused on politics.
Literally everything you have to say falls apart under basic scrutiny. You are just a partisan person that doesnt want to admit.
He specifically lied when he claimed an 11K square foot apartment had an area of 30K square feet.
You cannot escape responsibility for obeying the law by acknowledging that you might not be obeying the law. Do you seriously think that you can fill out a false tax return and get away with it if you write “This might not be my actual income, it’s up to the IRS to verify”. Judge Engoron basically laughed that argument out of court.
Trump will almost certainly apply for more loans before he dies. After this judgment, hopefully he will fill out those applications truthfully.
Thank you for finally getting specific. The apartment probably included unfinished garage space, but why do you think that would change the valuation much? Why didnt the loan company verify the information which is literally part of their due diligence?
Your whole case behind giving a fine of 400 million or so is based on a difference of about a million in appraised value change, which apparently the bank didnt even care about.
Are you suggesting that lying on a document is legal if others can figure out the truth? That’s not how the law works, at all.
Try reporting an income of $0 on your taxes this year. An obvious lie, but the IRS probably already knows your income. They probably even already collected your taxes. Nevertheless, you will face consequences.
If you claim a thing that is defensible and say that its up to the other person to verify it, then its just part of how things work. The real question is why do you care what agreement two parties come to and are happy about the outcome?
The IRS is different than a bank, and income is different than appraised value.
Claiming an 11K sqft apartment as 30K sqft is not defensible.
And no, that’s not “just how things work”. You imagine that we live in some libertarian dystopia, but we don’t. There are laws that prohibit lying in many circumstances, and you can’t disclaim your responsibility to tell the truth.
If you sell bottles labeled “Aspirin” that contain no aspirin, you will face severe consequences. Even if nobody buys your bottles and nobody is harmed. Even if you write “User is responsible for verifying whether this bottle contains aspirin”.
Because laws specifically outlaw lying on medication bottles, just as laws specifically outlaw lying on loan documents.
The real question is why do you care what agreement two parties come to and are happy about the outcome?