Trump ordered to pay over $350M for business fraud

And here are the elements that have to met for "device, scheme, or artifice" to be fraudulent...

Under New York law, the five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff

 

Not under 63(12). You are talking about something else. Those five elements are not mentioned anywhere in the definition provided in 63(12).

 

And it's still wrong...lol.

This is the statutory definition of fraud...

Under New York law, the five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff

 

Not if the AG brings a claim under 63(12). The definition of fraud, for the purpose of claims under 63(12), is expressly set out in 63(12).


I’m guessing you didn’t go to law school.

Not for the purpose of 63(12). I don’t know where you dragged that quote from, but for the purpose of 63(12), the definition appears in 63(12).

 

So, you're telling me New York has two different statutory definitions of fraud?...lol

 

You mean like a criminal definition and a civil definition? . . . is today the day you learned that those can be different?

 

No, that is "common law fraud" and the standard of proof is "clear and convincing evidence".

Under Executive Law 63(12) fraud is defined as
The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device,
scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation,
concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or
unconscionable contractual provisions.

And under Laws of 1965 Chapter 666 ,
the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence"

 

No, you dudes have embarrassed the hell out of yourselves...lol

This ruling is so ****ed up, Hoschul had to hold a press conference to do damage control.

 

Show us New York statute that defines civil fraud and criminal fraud.

 

There are a lot of lawyers here on PF. But the funny thing is, that of anything any of these right wing lawyers said was true, the case would her been thrown out, and it wasn’t.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is

 

Only if the 5 elements exist.

 

63(12) provides a definition for civil fraud. This was a civil case. Criminal definitions and standards don't matter.

 

Thrown out by who? The judge? He's as corrupt as Lequita James is...lol

 

Show us where 63(12) says "civil fraud" and where it separates it from criminal fraud. Then, show us the statute that defines "criminal fraud".

 

Irrelevant.
Executive Law 63(12) made this prosecution possible and they followed the applicable law.
Go on quoting your "common law fraud" forever, it is irrelevant to this case.

 

The civil statue mentions nothing about those 5 elements. Which makes sense if you take a couple of seconds to think about the different standards there are in criminal and civil cases.

 

I'm not going to quote it for you yet again. If you couldn't read it the several times it was posted, you'll never read it.

 

Highlighted in red: Exactly, and that's what I said. The losses for the tax base in NY were real as the 'cheating' caused Trump to pay less to DB in interest, causing a lower amount reported by DB on their tax return, resulting in lower taxes collected by the state of NY.

The second part, no S Sherlock! That's why people usually avoid doing things illegally, unless they think they can get away with it. The example was meant to show how a fraudulent transaction could impact the tax base, and it would.
I think you're just arguing to argue.

 

That doesn't qualify it as fraud...lol

 

You don't have to. You'll still be wrong...lol

 

Id say with that first paragraph, DB should be being sued as well. Why aren’t they? It sounds like you’re saying because they didn’t make as much on the transaction as they could have, they didn’t pay enough taxes, and it’s Trumps fault, despite DB doing their due diligence and coming to terms that they themselves came up with, and were repaid with interest. Which to me, means no one can ever get favorable loan arrangements to them specifically because then the lender wouldn’t pay enough taxes, thereby defrauding the state of New York(in New Yorks eyes). And anyone who did has defrauded the state of New York.

 

Also @Wild Bill Kelsoe , if you are going to keep bringing up those 5 requirements, you are going to have to link to and quote the actual law. You got that quote from a law firm, not from a legal statute.

 

There is no "civil statute" concerning fraud... LMAO!!!

 

Those of us willing to read will continue to know otherwise. Have fun refusing to do so.

 

Here is the full video. Carlson is pointing out that the cart full of one weeks groceries in the US costs ~ $400. In Russia it costs ~ $100. That is a very heavy burden on middle and lower middle class Americans. He is radicalized against US leadership fir making the lives of middle class and lower middle class families miserable not only for grocery price inflation but also for crime on the street, millions of illegal aliens entering the US and receiving welfare, schools which don’t teach children how to think, …,

Of course the comedians had fun taking quotes out of context.