Memes

Do you understand what underwriting is?

Yes, I do. Why do you keep asking this question? What is your point? And, more importantly, why aren't you looking up the question yourself? Is it because you don't want to see it has already been adressed?

Page 1, because I'm way too nice, and for the benefit of anyone who reads this later and is just as lazy as you:

Donald Trump and entities he controls own many valuable properties, including office buildings,hotels, and golf courses. Acquiring and developing such properties required huge amounts ofcash. Accordingly, the entities borrowed from banks and other lenders. The lenders required personal guarantees from Donald Trump, which were based on statements of financial conditioncompiled by accountants that Donald Trump engaged. The accountants created these “compilations” based on data submitted by the Trump entities. In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting infraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. As detailed herein, this Court now finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an Independent Monitor, orders the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance, and limits defendants’ right to conduct business in New York for a few years

And why is that a problem? the Law (page 2):

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegalacts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in thecarrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section fourhundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirtyof the general business law, and the court may award the reliefapplied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. 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. The term “persistent fraud”or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carryingon of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated”as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall besubject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

And the judge adds (page 4):

Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict onthe marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” isall the more reason tostrive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite thefalse financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments ontime; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.

And in the read, the judge specifically this bullshit series of "Where is the victim" that you're parroting, in addition to some other bullshit that you'll mostly find on Truth social, Fox news and similar nonsense-spewing media (and right here in this thread too)

Indeed, materiality under this statute is judged not by reference to reliance by or materialityto a particular victim, but rather on whether the financial statement “properly reflected the financial condition” of the person to which the statement pertains.People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d830, 835 (Sup Ct, NY County 1984) (“there need be no ‘victim,’ ergo, reliance is neither an element of the crime nor a valid yardstick with which to test the materiality of a false statement”).

Materiality has been one of the great red herrings of this case all along. Faced with clear evidence of a misstatement, a person can always shout that “it’s immaterial.” Absolute perfection, including with numbers, exists only in heaven. If fraud is insignificant, then, like most things in life, it just does not matter. As an ancient maxim has it , de minimis non curat lex, the law is not concerned with trifles. Neither is this Court.

But that is not what we have here. Whether viewed in relative (percentage) or absolute(numerical) terms, objectively (the governing standard) or subjectively (how the lenders viewed them), defendants’ misstatements were material. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously, or infamously, declared that he could not define pornography, but that heknew it when he saw it. Jacobellis v State of Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1964). The frauds foundhere leap off the page and shock the conscience.

Wisely, courts have refused to define “material” in a “one size fits all” fashion. At trial, thisCourt attempted to get the experts to go where Courts have dared not tread. Not surprisingly, afirm definition could not be found. But in the present context, this Court confidently declaresthat any number that is at least 10% off could be deemed “material,” and any number that is atleast 50% off would likely be deemed material. These numbers are probably conservative giventhat here, such deviations from truth represent hundreds of millions of dollars, and in the case ofMar-a-Lago, possibly a billion dollars or more.

Yet another great red herring in this case has been that different appraisers can legitimately andin good faith appraise the same property at different amounts. True enough, as appraising is anart as well as a science. However, the science part cannot be fraudulent. When two appraisalsrely on starkly different assumptions, that is not evidence of a difference of opinion, that is evidence of deceit.

Would you like to ask more questions where the answer is almost literally written out in the decission, instead of looking them up yourself?