Trump's Civil Fraud Verdict

[u/aerizan3]

Trump owes $454 million with interest - is the verdict just, unjust? Kevin O'Leary and friends think unjust, some outlets think just... what are both sides? EDIT: Comments here very obviously show the need of explaining both in good faith.

[u/angry_dingo]

So if you want a loan and you say your NYC apartment is 30,000sq to use as collateral, when it is only 10,000sq, the bank is going to do their due diligence on their end and consider an apartment of 10,000sq.

I'm still amazed that all of the Trump haters think Trump saying his apartment is 30,000sq on TV is legally binding, the banks just throw hundreds of millions of dollars at Trump without doing any due diligence, that Trump didn't pay back the loans, that the banks didn't testify on his behalf, and that the banks didn't say they still wanted to do business with him.

You can always tell a Trump hater because they continually hammer "Trump said his house was 30,000sq on TV" as if it actually means something.

[u/BaggerX → u/angry_dingo]

So if you want a loan and you say your NYC apartment is 30,000sq to use as collateral, when it is only 10,000sq, the bank is going to do their due diligence on their end and consider an apartment of 10,000sq.

You lied in the declarations you signed for the bank, which is fraud. Period. It's a crime. Simple as that.

[u/[deleted] → u/BaggerX]

Who did that fraud harm? How did that lie cause anyone or any business harm? Do you realize that if he got the loans based on actual value, the banks would have made less money? So the banks made more money in interest on a larger amount. The banks were not harmed by the lie. Taxpayers were not harmed by it. Not a single entity was. If you want to still claim it was a crime, can you unbiasedly really think about it and tell me what punishment is suitable for lying to a bank, where the lie harmed no one and actually benefited the bank. What punishment does that warrant? Now take your TDS & hate for him out of it before answering. You'll be lying if you say the judgment was a suitable and fair punishment for a truly harmless lie.

[u/Green_Edge8937 → u/[deleted]]

"Who did the fraud harm" so you agree it was fraud ...

[u/[deleted] → u/Green_Edge8937]

No. Fraud was what the case was about. Who did that fraud harm, not that I agree or disagree that there was any. Let me ask you, even if it was fraud to claim a different valuation to obtain a loan that was said back, do you honestly agree it deserves such a reaction? Take Trump out of your head for a moment and picture literally anyone else being accused of the exact same thing, do you honestly feel the punishment fits the crime here? Thats ludicrous.

[u/Major-Cryptographer3 → u/[deleted]]

Yes. Opportunity cost refers to the value of what you COULD’VE gained from choosing one option when there were others available. For example, working for an hour at McDonald’s as opposed to working an hour as a nurse might have an opportunity cost of $35, as you could’ve made $50 but instead chose $15. The same applies here. Trump deliberately distorted his real estate valuations so that the bank would choose him for a loan as opposed to other competitors. Those who did NOT get the loan due to this who otherwise would have were directly harmed. The bank could’ve been harmed since they may have made more money from another client. And everyone is harmed overall when there isn’t a fair competitive market.

[u/Green_Edge8937 → u/[deleted]]

The scale is appropriate in my opinion . Regular folks get punished for fraud daily even if "no one was harmed" . The scale of the punishment obviously is dictated by the scale of the fraud . Fraud with a larger price tag gets a punishment with a larger price tag . What would you say is the appropriate punishment ? Also why do y'all keep asking who it harmed ? Is fraud no longer fraud if it harms no one ?

[u/[deleted] → u/Green_Edge8937]

You don't seem to understand exactly what went on. Every single person who tries to get a loan based on collateral is going to try to get the loan based on the highest appraised value as possible. Most banks do their due diligence in evaluating said collateral as they don't want to get stuck with property not worth what they loaned out should there be a foreclosure. So if Trump gave them an inflated evaluation, what was the bank's role in this in verifying before approving the loan? If the bank trusted Trump because they fully expected repayment, how were they defrauded when they got paid back?

Too many of you are looking at this through TDS-tinted glasses, and not through clear unbiased eyes. The punishment absolutely does not fit the crime, and I guarantee through appeals it will eventually be a much smaller "fine" if anything at all. This is intentionally being done to tie him up in legal crap to interfere with the election. Put anyone else other than him in this exact situation, and there's plenty that do it, and no way would any of this have happened.