Trump ordered to pay over $350M for business fraud

I've already quoted one. So have several others. The law you refuse to read provides a definition and clearly in a civil context. Just like the website you quoted and pretended to be directly quoting the law makes it clear that it is talking about criminal law. You haven't read either.

 

Just as an thought exercise to those thoughtful members of this thread:

Suppose we ignore the "fraud" language in 63(12) and delete some words

Under Executive Law 63(12) a crime is defined as
The word “ripoff” or “conjob” as used herein shall include any
<deleted section>
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"

Would the complaint filed by the DA still be valid and legal ?
(My answer, Yes, because the SFC's represented both a deception and misrepresentation, which is sufficient to sustain the complaint)

 

I've already posted, but I'll take it easy on you because you're getting your butt kicked...lol

https://laninlaw.com/fraud/#:~:text=Under New York law, the,5) resulting damage to the

 

No you didn't.

"Civil context"?...lol.

 

The tax base effect is a wash. One party paid less and the other party paid more. Think it through. The losers ard the taxpayers who paid for the trial and will lose future taxpayers as businesses leave NY and new businesses start up elsewhere.

 

Lol, Tucker is the one who took it out of context. You could have learned something from watching the John Stewart video. For example, that Tucker Carlson can't do math for ****. He didn't even stop to consider that maybe incomes in Russia are a lot lower than in the US. You willing to shop at one of those Russian grocery stores in exchange for reducing your salary to $200 a week? Or would you now prefer your regular grocery shopping and see Carlson for the lying fraud he is. No one is actually dumb enough to think that the middle class in Russia is as large as it is here or that they have it better in Russia.

 

I can't help you when you won't even read two paragraphs. Maybe If I just keep it to one sentence you will read. "In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the ***CIVIL*** practice law and rules."

 

That seems to be a common law definition rather than a statutory definition.

I’m guessing you don’t understand the difference.

Seriously dude - it’s time to stop embarrassing yourself.

 

Actually it's New York state law...lol

 

*Sigh* Again: You got that quote from a law firm, not from a legal statute. And it's talking about criminal stuff, not civil.

 

No, it is a quote from a law firm talking about criminal fraud, and this isn't a criminal case.

 

It says fraud. It makes no distinction between civil fraud and criminal fraud...lol

 

I'll take a law firm's word over some anonymous rando on the Internet...lol

 

Yeah … seems to be common law unless you can post the statute.

But executive law 63(12) IS a statute. And it contains a definition of fraud - for the purpose of that section.

 

Don’t take our word for it. Look up 63(12) for yourself.

 

Still not going to quote the law, huh? Figures. Yes, it does make a distinction.

Lol, but not the word of, you know, an actual judge. And I'll take the actual letter of the law over the equivalent of a law firm ad.

 

I was speculating on the question of "who was defrauded"
I am not a lawyer, nor tax expert, nor do I want to pretend to be, just answering a post as to the previous question.
But, that is a good point about DB! My guess, which is what you will get from me, is that DB is a lot more difficult to nail down on legal matters. First off, they are probably a lot smarter than Trump at doing business. IMO, DB may have been laundering Russian or other sanctioned money, using it for loans, and the person bringing charges may not have enough evidence of it to bring charges.
Just because I don't know the five w's in situation doesn't mean there is no validity to it. If it is so clearly a cut and dry non case against Trump, how did they get away with this? His lawyers couldn't make an argument that random posters on the internet make?
No. But he can appeal, and then we'll see I suppose. But all this speculation on this board is just that-speculation. Most, if not all, of it should probably not be used to form an opinion, or reinforce one that is pushed, like Trump does all the time.
Trump is a scam artist, has been for a long time. Anyone who argues he isn't is just is ignoring it. There are dozens of cases where he is been held liable for scams and dishonest business practices, but I'm sure it's different this time!

 

Nevertheless groceries are 4X as expensive in the US than in Russia. Median income in the US is ~ 2X that of Russia. So on a median income basis we pay double what Russians pay. That was his point.

 

Then he's an idiot. Because income is more than 4x lower there. And you have the nerve to talk about inflation? And, no, that isn't even what he's saying. He's saying that the $400 he was spending there is Russia is the equivalent of a little over $100 in USD. He was impressed in only spending about $100 USD on groceries . . . while travelling. I've never spent $400 on groceries. Ever. And I can't remember the last time I spent more than about $100 on groceries while travelling in the US.

 

That is not true.

Nevertheless groceries are 4X as expensive in the US than in Russia. Median income in the US is ~ 2X that of Russia. So on a median income basis we pay double whatRussians pay. That was his point.

 

Lol, dude, no.

"According to the latest figures available from Russia's Federal State Statistics Service, the average monthly wage in Russia was about $787 in November.

By comparison, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the last quarter of 2023, the median weekly earnings of Americans was $1,142."

Tucker is acting like we should be impressed with how cheap things are . . . in a much poorer country.

And what the hell are you buying at the grocery store that's costing you $400 per week?

 

It would be helpful for you to read it. The article is about conspiracy to defraud, not fraud itself. But I appreciate a good attempt. This is the first time in history that a fraud tort has been tried without a victim. Unless, of course, you can find an instance of it in the past.

 

Median. $400 for a family.

 

There is no statute that provides for trying someone for fraud when there was no victim or complainant. The decision to do that is not covered by statute. It is covered by the definition of evil.

 

How is the USA defending China?

Our courts are strictly following the rule of law. If that's not true, then there can be appeals. I've heard NO grounds for appeal from any who know the law.

Republicans blocked the border bill negotiated by Republicans and Democrats.

"Wokism" is a matter of freedom, equality, education, and learning to live together.

Nobody believes in Marxism.