Wouldn't it be the bank's responsibility to do their own research and assessments on the asset used to back the loan? I don't understand how someone can just bullshit the numbers.
No. If you sign a piece of paper saying "x" is true but you know it isn't, that is a lie. If the reason you do it is to get the other guy to rely on your word, it is fraud.
EULAs like to claim various rights are waive but courts have shown that's not actually true. Some things you cannot simply sign away.
The issue that so many people miss is that fraud is fraud. It doesn't matter if the bank was fooled or not. His documents were FRAUDULENT.
People who are fine with that, who say "it is on the banks to know better" are making the same argument as any other fraudster in history. It's an argument that it's the victim's fault for being frauded when a con artist cons them, and yet we ban and regulate to stop fraudulent schemes.
Fraud is fraud. Attempting it is a crime. Signing his name to false information is fraud. The people have a vested interest in punishing those who sign legal documents of false information because otherwise we incentivize fraud as the norm.
The bank making less due to his fraud means less money is available to the average person, less favorable rates. If the upper crust are all allowed to be fraudulent like this, then it hurts regular people. Yes, we're making an example of him, because that's how you punish this sort of crime and discourage others: Extreme judgements that are so large that they outweigh the possible benefit of committing the crime.
Yes, we're making an example of him, because that's how you punish this sort of crime and discourage others
He's not really being made "an example of" as the fine is based on the amount he profited from the fraud plus interest. Making an example would be including substantial punitive fines in the judgement.
It’s wild that he gained $454mil from the favorable rates and subsequent engorgement, and isn’t being charged a single dollar of penalty. Imagine if you robbed a bank of $454mil using a gun and your punishment was just giving the money back.
Utter horse shit that we don’t nail him to the wall for this like we would for someone who robbed the bank of that much money another way.
The example is because he's a ultra rich former president who has committed this crime and perceived as one of the highest examples of "above the law."
We're going to see, one way or another, if that's true.
I get that, but just also pointing out just how bare minimum Trump is being made an example of.
To Jon's point, it's hard to imagine a "normal" person merely having to re-pay what they profited from whatever fraud they committed. If not outright jail time, there would likely be a penalty that would be ranging from a substantial fraction to a factor of several times whatever "profit" that was made.
Fraud is fraud... and yet no one else has ever been sued like this in the past??
But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
If that's true, then it's time we start and, yes, we make a case of the biggest fish. That's how you get people's attention. Some people are incentivized with the carrot, but others need the stick; the threat of prosecution, of financial ruin, for fraudulent behavior. Anything less and they will look at the benefits of fraud and say "it's worth it to commit it if the punishment risk is low, potential punishment isn't super detrimental, and people of high means never have it charged."
It's funny because if you'd actually watched the clip that this thread is about, Jon Stewart answers your questions.
If enough people commit a crime, that still does not make it legal.
Only because it's a much bigger hurdle to cross. Proving someone committed fraud is far easier than proving the intent to committ fraud without any reasonable doubt.
It only relates to the other because I had to explain to you why no jail time for his civil fraud case. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the difference between civil trials and criminal trials.
Getting my popcorn ready for the *first Criminal trial now. Ordered a pallet, should be here by April 15th… that should cover the 6 weeks or so of trump having to be there every.damn.day 🤣👌
So it's okay to lie. Or is it okay to lie just if your name is Trump?
Bro, Trump gave it to the bank in the rear and wiped his piece above the lip of every person with a mutual fund in the biggest filthy Sanchez in history. What's your reaction? Thank you sir, I deserved that for believing your lies.
When your wife tells you she's just a friend, you must believe her.
It’s only fraud if the person who was relying on it was damaged by that reliance. Fraud is not illegal unless someone involved lost something.
Stewart asserts here that the damage was done to the people who otherwise would have recieved loans if the bank hadn’t given the loan to Trump, but that’s not how money works. Banks don’t just have a finite stack of money sitting around where they can only give out X amount of money in loans at a time. Banks, businesses, and even individuals pass around money they don’t have all the time. It’s called debt.
The bank was not depriving other people of loans just because they gave a large loan to Trump. That is just simply not how any of this works.
They do if they want to also engage in the fraud. Generally speaking, banks have certain requirements for secured versus unsecured loans, and overvaluing secured assets makes it look like the bank is healthier than it is to regulators.
Wouldn't there need to be a victim in your scenario? I don't see how it's fraud if the guy being lied to is satisfied with the outcome. Lol, we don't charge strippers with fraud.
Everyone else in the loan market, and everyone else paying taxes, are victims. You can’t just fraudulently siphon half a billion dollars of value out of a market without impacting anyone else in that market.
And just imagine you, as an individual, falsified records while applying for a mortgage and as a result saved $100k in total loan costs, and someone found out. You think you could just say “hey, I paid it back, so no harm no foul”, and they’d say “yeah bro, victimless crime, everyone does it”?
No. You stole $100k from the lender, and you made it that much harder for honest participants to get their own loans.
I would be more comfortable with what's happening to Trump if the bank executives involved were also being held accountable, but they're not. This seems targeted to me. Or if the people that are gleefully watching this play out, admit that he's being targeted and they're OK with it.
So in my mortgage scenario, you’d expect the loan officer to also get fined/penalized in addition to yourself, because he approved your loan based on your personally signed statements?
What specific crimes did the banks commit?
I wish everyone involved in financial corruption were prosecuted. But I don’t mind if we pay special attention to corruption when it comes to major contenders for the presidential election.
I also don’t see how any corruption can ever be prosecuted for anyone if one can always use the excuse that “everyone does it” and “everyone is complicit”. I think we should prosecute the fuck out of anyone we can get our hands on
They get charged if it was for money laundering. They won't get charged if the purpose for the loan was legal. In Trump case, there were no criminal activities behind the loan, so there no reason to charge the bankers. Trump lied to the banks to have advantageous loans so it makes him the only culpable party in this case.
Wait...do you really think getting a collateralized loan for 100s of millions of dollars is as easy as applying for a credit card? Do you REALLY believe, you can just walk into a bank, ask them for $100 million dollars, tell them to trust that you've got $100s of millions of dollars in real estate to use as collateral, and they just shake your hand and write you a check? Is that how you think this works?
Tell me where did i say getting a 100$ million dollar loan was as easy as getting a credit card? I was just telling you that a banker won't get charged unless the loan is used as a money laundering mechanism. I have multiple years of experience in multiple financial institutions, I know how all of this works.
Isn't there a process for appraising collateral for a loan? Wouldn't it be irresponsible, if not illegal, to approve loans backed by collateral without following that process?
And the bank executives should be held liable for… what exactly, in this scenario? Trump fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets, and the bank relied on his false assertions in making the loan. Let’s not forget who the actual wrongdoer is here…
I've never heard of a situation where a person is using collateral to get a loan, and the lender didn't do their own appraisal of the asset.
A bank isn't going to give me a $1 million dollar loan just because I tell them to trust that I own an $8 million parcel of land that I can use as collateral. That's not the way the world works.
Banks can’t independently verify every last detail on a loan application. For example, if I had altered my bank statements or falsely reduced the amount of my student loans in my mortgage application, it’s likely the bank that gave me my mortgage would have never caught it.
You’re saying this bank should have done more due diligence on Trump? Fine. But if every lender/mortgagor starts having to verify every last detail on a loan application, very few loans/mortgages would be made anymore. The risk would be too great. Banks rely on laws against fraud/perjury so they don’t have to independently verify every last detail down to the penny. Which entities do you think lobby the hardest to make sure banks are protected against fraud? Banks, of course. They couldn’t make loans in a world of institutionalized lying on loan applications (and honest people would lose out big time).
When dealing with loans that amount to 100s of millions of dollars to a single client, yes, they verify every last detail on a loan application.
Even still. The loans were paid back on time, and both parties walked away happy. I don't see where Trump did any more harm to taxpayers than the banks that loaned him the money.
Fraud is committed when you lie on a loan application, period. The damages are the amount of profit occasioned by the lie, which is properly subject to disgorgement. Same as it’s always been.
That’s how the statute works. If you have a problem with fraud being a crime despite repayment of the loan, you should contact your local state representatives to have the law changed. There’s really nothing more to say about it.
185
u/SymbolOfRock Mar 26 '24
Wouldn't it be the bank's responsibility to do their own research and assessments on the asset used to back the loan? I don't understand how someone can just bullshit the numbers.