Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Master.Palm
Om du inte har tid, då kan du läsa den utmärka sammanfattning som Glostrup postat tidigare i tråden. Den ger betydligt mer än att läsa på 4Chan som du uppenbarligen gör.
Detta handlar på INTET sätt om huruvida några banker förlorat pengar eller inte. Jag förstår inte heller hur du kan prata om bankerna i flertal, så vitt jag kunnat uppfatta så vittnade endast 1 person från 1 bank, Deutche Bank.
Vad målet handlade om var att Trump Org manipulerat fastighetsmarknaden och den finansiella marknaden i NY till skada för NY och dess invånare. Det är just detta som Glostrups sammanfattning också visar.
Har nu läst vad Flashbacks privatspanare Glostrup sammanfattat, framkommer inget väsentligt nytt som inte rapporterats i media, ser ganska ambitiöst ut. Men det är bankens uppgift att ta ställning till värderingarna, vilket de också gjort. De har heller inte ställt några som helst skadeståndskrav, de har fått lånen återbetalda.
Att använda postare på Flashback eller 4Chan som källa antar jag annars är tämligen likvärdigt, har aldrig besökt 4Chan som du tydligen sitter och blänger på.
Har tidigare postat några referenser till välmeriterade jurister ( Turley, Dershowitz och Calabresi ) som ifrågasätter domen - framförallt det orimligt höga skadeståndet. Just ett orimligt satt skadestånd kan tas upp av SCOTUS.
Här en annan analys som pekar på svagheterna i domen, och möjligheter vid en överklagan vid New Yorks appellationsdomstol:
Citat:
Professor Greg Germain of Syracuse University of Law told Newsweek that on appeal, Trump will have to show that the New York attorney general does not have the power to punish him "without showing the traditional elements of fraud: (1) scienter—basically intent to defraud, (2) false statements of fact rather than opinion or trade puffing, (3) reasonable reliance by the victims, (4) materiality, (5) causation, and (6) damages."
"I think he has a strong argument that when the attorney general seeks to punish for past use, rather than prevent future use, she would have to show all of the traditional elements of fraud," he added.
However, James' team will argue that, under New York executive order 63.12, which gives the attorney general her power to prosecute fraud, she doesn't have to show that all six elements are present.
Executive order 63.12 was established in 1956 and provides the attorney general with broad authority to issue subpoenas and pursue civil fraud allegations with relatively low legal hurdles.
"Judge Engoron ruled in the summary judgment order that, under 63.12, the attorney general does not have to show any of those elements—a showing of falsity is enough," Germain said.
He said that, had the court applied the full six-part definition of fraud, it would have found very little evidence that the banks had a "reasonable reliance" on Trump's statements.
"The evidence of reasonable reliance [on Trump's financial statements] by the 'victims' is very weak' and may be grounds of appeal," Germain said.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-judge-arthur-engoron-appeal-fraud-case-letitia-james-1871103
Lite om lagen som James åberopat, som egentligen är avsedd för att exempelvis skydda konsumenter:
Citat:
Donald Trump's planned appeal of a $355 million judgment against him in his civil fraud case may focus on the former president's contention that there were no actual victims from his conduct at issue in the case, which was brought under a New York anti-fraud law typically used to protect consumers.
----
James, a Democrat, brought her lawsuit in 2022 under New York Executive Law 63(12), which gives her office broad powers to file civil lawsuits for "repeated" or "persistent" fraud. This law historically has been used to protect consumers, investors and small businesses from scams, price-gouging and other predatory business practices.
These cases typically involve many victims who lost large sums of money to businesses that exploited their poor financial savvy, according to legal experts.
Defendants in those cases have run the gamut, from chicken suppliers to crypto exchanges and loan sharks. A common thread is often a large group of victims who were exploited because the did not know any better, according to legal experts.
----
"The attorney general's job is to protect people who can't protect themselves," Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain said. "Here, we're dealing with very sophisticated lenders who are fully capable of protecting themselves and haven't asked the attorney general for help."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trumps-civil-fraud-verdict-appeal-may-hinge-no-victims-defense-2024-02-16/
Det har alltså inte förekommit något bedrägeri som uppfyller kraven för att hanteras som ett brottsmål.
