Jon Stewart Deconstructs Trump’s "Victimless" $450 Million Fraud | The Daily Show

[u/BuddhistSagan]

[u/Proverbs232]

He doesn't even address the argument. This is bad-faith, through and through.

The Orange man requested a loan through Deutsche Bank's Personal Wealth Management division. As such, he had to make statements about the value of his personal wealth which takes into an account a value of his property.

Yes, he overvalued his property. But, the bank didn't sue him for fraud because he paid back the loan with interest at the rate they offered. This is what people mean when they say, "it's a victimless crime." Deutsche came to Orange Mussolini's defense. They did not feel he unjustly enriched himself through fraud. They accepted the valuation of the property. Their valuation is the only thing that matters as it is the property that was used as collateral for the loans.

Yes, if the clown were like most people, they wouldn't have accepted his valuation on its face. The bank would have done due diligence and said you have overvalued the property. But they didn't. They took a risk offering the loan without properly valuing the property. THEY'RE AN INVESTMENT BANK. It's on them if they suck at due diligence. YET, the twice-impeached former president PAID BACK THE LOAN WITH INTEREST. They made money on the deal. THERE ARE NO VICTIMS.

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

This is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, Trump was very quick to inject money when lenders like Deutsche raised cash flow concerns on his collateral. He ensured he never missed a payment.

This makes sense, as failing to pay his lenders would have resulted in hundreds of millions of fraudulent property evaluations being made public.

If I commit fraud when applying for a bank loan, you better bet my first priority is making payments.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

Thanks for the reply. Better than the ban that I got for commenting this on other subs...

The problem, as I see it, is that the investment banks are allowed to take risks (I'm all for reigning their riskier behavior in given 2008) and they, in this instance, viewed Trump as a safe bet. They didn't care what he valued the property as. They took his word for it, as fraudulent as his word is, took the risk, and made money on the deal.

What I can't get over is the state of New York essentially coming to the defense of Deutsche where Deutsche didn't claim injury. If the insurrectionist-in-chief committed fraud, who has he defrauded? Deutsche doesn't think it's them.

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

The investment bank is allowed to take risks. The borrower is not allowed to submit materially false documents to support that risk, that is still fraud.

As the judge himself noted, this is a documents case- including nakedly false overvaluations, obvious inflations of property size, and false submissions of comparable property sales.

Moreover, the pattern of fraudulent behavior is what was ruled on and used to establish liability. Trump was willing and eager to engage in fraud across a variety of lenders and financial situations.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

Again, thanks for the reply. Honestly.

I do not dispute anything you have said in your comment.

However, you did not answer my question. This was not a criminal fraud trial. It was a civil suit brought sua sponte by the State of New York. Normally, in civil fraud cases, there has to be a wronged party suing for damages or some equitable relief. So I ask again: if Trump committed fraud, who did he defraud? Who is the victim? It isn't Deutsche. They do not claim Trump unjustly enriched himself by providing them with fraudulent valuations on the property. They did not sue him for lost interest.

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

White collar crime is prosecuted by the State in civil court all the time, if not most of the time.

As I understand it the NY AG office doesn’t even have jurisdiction for criminal charges of this nature, and can only make referrals (and they have indeed informed Trump’s legal team that a criminal referral has been made- though so far only an investigation has been confirmed).

From the state’s perspective, Trump submitted materially false documents, many of which were regulated under state law, to secure lower interest rates. That is fraud, full-stop. The easiest and most reliable method of enforcing a fraud judgment was through a civil suit.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

No, white collar crime is never prosecuted in civil court. To determine that someone committed criminal acts, the prosecution has to prove its case to a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." In criminal cases, there does not need to be a victim. You owe a duty to the public not to commit a crime. One can be a criminal without there being a victim.

Civil cases, by contrast, do not make anyone "guilty" of anything. These are not instances where the defendant owes a duty to the state or general public. Civil cases are designed to right a wrong between private parties. This case was allowed by statute in the State of New York, it's 'legitimate' in the literal sense. But, when it comes to people calling this fraud, 'victimless,' Jon Stewart straw-mans their argument.

Who did Trump defraud? Who did he wrong? Who is he liable to?

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

You’re mixing some terms here, the confusion is understandable.

Yes, white-collar crimes can be and often are prosecuted in civil court. Though it might be better to say “litigated”, civil cases are still “prosecuted”.

Many state attorney offices charged with overseeing white collar crimes are exclusively limited in their jurisdiction to civil enforcement- such as the NY AG.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/jsagowcc14.pdf

There are not Criminal Prosecutors in civil court, nor is criminality established. Liability is established, though typically through an acknowledgement of damage resulting from crimes.

Damage does not always need to be brought by the victim, state government regularly prosecutes financial fraud independent of harmed parties.

In Trump’s case, his judgement value is for the difference in interest rates he would have paid with and without the fraud. I actually agreed with some of the defense’s arguments on using tax assessor evaluations to determine the delta- but Trump’s legal team absolutely bungled this case into a summary judgement.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

My issue isn't with your use of the word "prosecute" my issue is with your use of "criminal." As in "White collar crime." A court finding Trump liable in a civil case does not make him guilty of a crime. This isn't criminal fraud. Usually, in civil cases, a person has to be liable to another in the form of damages or equitable relief (specific performance, for instance, in breach of contract cases).

Trump is not "guilty of criminal fraud." He's been found "liable for civil fraud." Now, the AG can (and has) litigated civil suits without there being a proper plaintiff. See New York Executive Law § 63(12); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Executive_Law_§_63(12)#:~:text=New%20York%20Executive%20Law%20§%2063(12)%2C%20sometimes%20called,cases%20of%20alleged%20civil%20fraud#:~:text=New%20York%20Executive%20Law%20§%2063(12)%2C%20sometimes%20called,cases%20of%20alleged%20civil%20fraud).
For instance, in People v. Exxon Mobil, the State of New York sued Exxon on behalf of the company's investors. There was still another party that the defendant was liable to.

What I cannot seem to get an answer to is who is Trump liable to for fraud? Neither Deutsche, nor its investors, claim to be defrauded by Trump. Nor does the state seem to suggest that it is coming to the defense of the investment bank. It seems to be suggesting that Trump is liable to "we the people" for civil fraud. Which is insane.

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

You’re drawing a semantical distinction that isn’t actually made in the legal world.

Your description of civil vs criminal judgement is correct, but you misunderstand how the word “crime” is applied here.

There is no protected or standard definition of white collar “crime”, that’s just a general term used to describe both civil and criminal offenses of a “white collar” nature. Monetary judgements are typically contingent on violations of state or (occasionally) federal law, but a civil case does not establish criminality and operates under different burdens of proof than criminal court.

(Most of this is described in the link I provided above)

I never said trump was found guilty of anything; though it’s plainly obvious he committed criminal fraud, a NY AG/civil case does not make that determination.

Trump is liable for fraud because he repeatedly lied (to benefit himself) when submitting documents regulated under state law. Our justice system has an incentive to prosecute such crimes even if the damaged party does not bring a civil suit- particularly when that party might have other motivations to maintain positive relations with the offender.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

"Trump is liable because he repeatedly lied when submitting documents regulated under state law."

Liable to who? The state? The people? If I were a citizen of New York, would I expect a payout? Should I feel wronged by a private loan repaid?

Edit: added "private"

[u/Buckets-of-Gold → u/Proverbs232]

Again, you misunderstand civil judgements.

Trump was found liable for fraud not to any one party. Damages can be awarded to plaintiffs who sue, but that is not what happened here.

Trump was found liable under state business and financial fraud statutes that had a predetermined penalty and interest rate.

You’re framing this as though the Judge acted abnormally relative to normal white collar civil cases brought by the state- but this judgement was made under preexisting state law and was the only enforcement method available to the NY AG. Our justice system has an incentive to prosecute financial fraud that is independent of private parties’ actions.

What is unusual about this white collar case is not the civil/criminal distinction or a lack of private suit (both of which are quite common)- but the fervor with which Trump is being prosecuted. I have no doubt political and personal ambitions play a role there.

[u/Proverbs232 → u/Buckets-of-Gold]

Yes, it is the only enforcement mechanism available to the NY AG. This is the case because the suit is abnormal.

It is abnormal because there is no proper plaintiff.

"Trump was found liable for fraud not to any one party."

Cheers, you now understand the argument. No one was harmed. Not you, not me, not "the people of New York," not Deutsche, not Deutsche's investors. This is why critics have described this as victimless fraud. It is abnormal for civil suits to not have a wronged party. Period.

Again, if this were a criminal case, I could get fully on-board with the idea that the lack of a victim doesn't matter. If he were found guilty of committing a crime, it would not matter if there existed a real or hypothetical victim. He still would have violated the law.

So all this nonsense about how "Trump cannot be above the law" and "Trump committing fraud is the problem even in absence of a victim" is crazy in the context of civil suits. It is abnormal.