Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ438 | |
| 2 | Ṁ115 | |
| 3 | Ṁ91 | |
| 4 | Ṁ44 | |
| 5 | Ṁ41 |
more conditions on the bond but it was accepted by the judge so this looks to resolve NO now
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-175-million-bond-goes-101103777.html
Edit: deleted
“"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."
On appeal to a five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division - a mid-level state appeals court - Trump's lawyers are expected to reiterate arguments they made to no avail during the trial. They told the judge that lenders at Deutsche Bank were finance experts who were obligated to do their own due diligence and were savvy enough to know that Trump was probably exaggerating his property values.
Trump admitted on the witness stand in November that his company did not always provide accurate estimates of the value of some of his trophy properties to banks. Trump said the discrepancies did not matter because his estimates bore disclaimers and that he had plenty of cash to back up his loans.
A former Trump banker at Deutsche Bank, David Williams, testified in November that conducting due diligence on information clients provided was standard practice. In one instance, the bank adjusted Trump's net worth down to $2.6 billion from the $4.9 billion he reported, Williams said, adding that such a revision was "not unusual or atypical."
Severe penalties in a novel case like this one could potentially be met with skepticism on appeal, legal experts said. They could also prompt appellate judges to consider whether the attorney general overstepped her authority, according to Germain.
"I think the judges are going to have to look carefully at what the powers of the attorney general are here," Germain said. "Are they so broad that any lie can put you out of business, even if nobody believed it?"”
the bankers knew exactly what they were doing when they made the loan, and they got repaid in full. A half billion fine seems ridiculously disproportionate. Value estimates for very illiquid assets that haven’t been sold recently are pretty subjective anyway. If he hadn’t run in 2016 there’s a 90% chance this case never would have been pursued - it’s a politically motivated persecution.