That he made fraudulent misrepresentations for personal gain at the expense of the banks is established. The banks feelings are irrelevant.

The standard here is not "the banks lose money". The standard is "the banks have less money than if the fraudulent statements weren't made". If the fraudulent statementes were accurate, the banks would be better off now, and therefore they count as a victim.

I did work for a bank. And that's the reason I know there was no fraud.



1. Sure, there was inaccurate information. Whether it was a misrepresentation or not is up for debate. Or omission, for that matter. Once again, it doesn't matter. The applicant doesn't have to enter what they think the values or footage or or building restrictions or anything else are at all. The bank relies on it's on valuation, not that of the applicant.
2. Now you're talking intent, and there's no evidence of intent to do anything. He put down some numbers, or his accountant did. If some were inaccurate, who cares?
3. He had no intent to defraud. He was a Billion dollar client. He wanted a loan and banks COMPETED to give him the loans he requested, and all were repaid in good faith. Where's the intent to defraud?
4. The "plaintiff" is the State of New York, who was not part of the transaction at all and has neither cause nor concern in the matter. There is no reliance on the plaintiff, they were not part of the transaction and are not bankers.
5. There was no damage to the "plaintiff". The State of New York did not suffer any damages from Trump receiving loans that banks competed to give him.

You are missing 4 out of 5 necessary factors for fraud to in fact have occurred. Which is, once again, why the BANKS testified on Trumps behalf that the valuations were their OWN valuations, nothing Trump put on the form was relevant.

Once again, you should stop lying. You don't know what you're talking about. I get it, "orange man bad" and all. That's fine. You hate Trump and want to see him get it raw. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. There is no fraud here, no banks were harmed. What SHOULD be of EXTREME concern to you, however, is what I've already stated:

It’s not the DA’s job to state the bank is the victim. That would be like you running up to me and screaming you’re the victim, I must defend you! Where I would be like no… I had my lawyers look through the paper work. I did my due diligence and came to a deal that I was happy with

Trump built his apartment and was the only one who lived there. There is no world where misrepresenting that as 30k sqft instead of 11k is not intentional.

Similarly, his organization was the one that signed the Mar a lago contract, and therefore they knew for a fact it could not be broken apart for residential development as they represented on their appraisals.

There is no world where you can possibly think these things were not intentional. All of the "mistakes" just so happened to increase the value and be well documented within the organization.

So unless you can accept that at least these two were intentional misrepresentations, there's very little we can discuss.



That's actually the exact job of a DA. Like, literally the thing they are designed to do.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 3 2024 03:52pm

How does the DA know the bank lost money? It doesn’t. The bank is the one to decide the value of the loan. The DA has no economical background to argue either way. The DA can scream victim all they want. Maybe the DA should be suing the bank instead of Trump. I think Trump is obviously the victim now. The interest rates on the loan was obviously too high and Trump is the victim.





“Banks are generally free to determine their own interest rates that they pay for deposits and charges for loans”




This post was edited by Landmine on Feb 3 2024 03:57pm

Look back at my previous post. I already addressed why this doesn't matter.

Banks are free to determine their own interest rates. You are not free to lie to the bank to get them to give you a better interest rate.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 3 2024 04:01pm

11K square feet or 30K square feet, who cares? It's immaterial. The bank conducted their own valuations, and indeed, they testified that THEIR valuations had the correct square footage. No fraud, sorry.

As to Mar A Lago, market worth on Mar A Lago is well over a billion. It's been well over a billion for a long time. A quarter acre lot with a McMansion nearby runs $18m+. The #1 fraud in this entire thing is the claim of the prosecutor that Mar-A-Lago was or is only worth $16M. Whether he or his accountant or whatever said it could have residences built on it isn't particularly material. And the actual residence can be added onto, and one room or one suite means more residences. So even technically speaking, you're simply being stupid, with this line of thought.

Once again, NONE of what you're claiming is evidence of "fraud" is in fact fraud. It's perfectly legal to exaggerate on loan application forms specifically BECAUSE the banks do their own valuations. That you don't understand this is what makes it clear you've never worked for a bank. The banks COMPETED for Trump's business, they COMPETED to give him the lowest interest rate. Because he was a high end customer who worked land development and real-estate, with the backing of a father worth (at the time) a hundred million or two.

Again, focus on the precedent here, one day it WILL be used against property owners on the left, if it is allowed to stand:

It does matter, because the bank didn’t base the interest rates off the size or value of the application. The bank did its own due diligence and based the loan off the banks evaluation.


This is truly sad Thor I know you know better than to keep up a fabricated argument on the side of the DA.

No point in talking then. You aren't even honest enough to acknowledge that a 300% increase in square footage is a material misrepresentation.

Man if I were you I'd be way to embarrased to know so little after working within 10 miles of a bank, much less actually working within one.


So anyway, now that that's over. How's your home life? Last time we talked you told me how you drank like a liter of vodka a day. That's not good and I hope you're doing better. I know alcoholism can be difficult, and it makes being honest with yourself very hard. So I hope your life is going better than last time you were posting regularly.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 3 2024 04:14pm

Argue that the bank took that into consideration? I’m sorry I buy property and this is one of the most ignorant arguments that has been put forward. Every property I’ve had to go through I’ve had to get an appraisal which is what the bank uses. Which guess what! The appraisal states the size of the property.

This post was edited by Landmine on Feb 3 2024 04:18pm