By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
Trump's attorneys should know they will not get any favorable ruling from this judge. Just let the judge go ahead and give his decision and skip this pretense of a fair trial.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
Trump committed both tax and bank fraud. The victims are the good people of New York who carried the crooked deadbeats water for decades.
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
Trump is the only victim in James' campaigned promised outrageous prosecution. How exactly have the citizens of NY been harmed? What are the actual damages?
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
Bankers in NY can be understood to have a legal duty to make independent assessment of properties involved in t***sactions like getting loans and credit based upon the properties value, even the square footage of the property in question/at least documentation of it NOT from the owners.
Basically it means they cannot rely of the potential fraudster. But with out reliance, there can be no fraud.
Elements of fraud:
1. A party made a material representation;
2. That representation was false;
3. The party who made the false representation acted knowingly or recklessly;
4. The party intended to induce you to act (or not act) in some way upon their representation; and
5. You justifiably relied on their representation, which caused you injury.
Absence of any single element means there is no fraud; victim or not.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
How come they didn't go after him for this YEARS ago? Why, if he's been doing this all those years, are they after him now? Did you ever try to break through the fog of "I h**e Trump", and look at this whole picture realistically?
Why didn't they tag him with this before he got into politics if it's that big of a deal?
What I see with my own eyes, and hear with my own ears REEKS of political persecution.
He was, and would have been fine had he not run, and Won for President as a republican. Had he not done that, he would be carrying on with his obnoxious life. But, he did, and now must be destroyed at any cost, and in any way possible.
I never could stand him, personally. I bit my tongue, and v**ed for him, and he did a damn good job of it in my opinion.
But, he upset the American left. So, now him, his family, and everyone who v**ed for him MUST be either destroyed, or brought into compliance.
I won't comply.
archie bunker wrote:
How come they didn't go after him for this YEARS ago? Why, if he's been doing this all those years, are they after him now? Did you ever try to break through the fog of "I h**e Trump", and look at this whole picture realistically?
Why didn't they tag him with this before he got into politics if it's that big of a deal?
What I see with my own eyes, and hear with my own ears REEKS of political persecution.
He was, and would have been fine had he not run, and Won for President as a republican. Had he not done that, he would be carrying on with his obnoxious life. But, he did, and now must be destroyed at any cost, and in any way possible.
How come they didn't go after him for this YEARS a... (
show quote)
I didn’t v**e for him (or Biden) but see that this is of course political. It was never about justice.
Rose42 wrote:
I didn’t v**e for him (or Biden) but see that this is of course political. It was never about justice.
It's more than obvious if you take a step back, and look at it.
archie bunker wrote:
It's more than obvious if you take a step back, and look at it.
But people aren’t doing that - including the ones who have called themselves critical thinkers. People have been manipulated into how and what to think without realizing it.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
The American people, as well as Trump, were s**mmed again by the deep state, corrupt l*****t D.A.'s, corrupt l*****t judges appointed by the Clinton's and ovommit, and the s**ms will continue until people like you wise up to what this demorat corrupted party has done to our once great country.
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
The "*VICTIM'S HERE"....The American V**ers, & the American System of Justice!
I would like to see Trump, fill all the court dockets, with lawsuits, *challenging the *validity of these ~BASELESS
accusations, America deserves Justice, & ~re-instituting of *Integrity in our Legal system!
Let the pieces fall where they may! :O}}}
Criminal *Demoncraps, must be held accountable for obstruction of the e******n process!
There are way too many *Demoncrap justices, [ sans integrity]...in America's courts!
Kevyn wrote:
Trump committed both tax and bank fraud. The victims are the good people of New York who carried the crooked deadbeats water for decades.
Says you...& it is plain aa & clear that you are suffering from gross bias, & prejudice!
[ To say nothing of a severe case of "H**E TRUMP"...With *no basis for that unwarranted h**e! :O}}}
[ Poor boy, is it something you "et"?....Perhaps "youse needs" an Enema?]
slatten49 wrote:
By Richard Cochran
There is none, and there doesn’t need to be one.
Trump was charged with violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12), which is a law passed in 1956 to deter fraudsters from enriching themselves through fraud. This law provides for fraudsters to be “disgorged” of their gains obtained through illegal fraud, regardless of whether a particular victim of the fraud has been identified. The objective of the law isn’t just to provide restitution to victims; it is to deter anyone from enriching themselves by committing illegal fraud.
Suppose someone applies for a loan to use for a business venture, and suppose they use fraudulent means to overvalue collateral, and thereby convince a bank to loan more money than they otherwise would. If their business venture makes a profit, and they repay the loan, you might say the fraudster shouldn’t be punished, since there’s no victim. But if the business venture fails, and the loan is not repaid, the bank cannot go back to the fraudster to get the money. That’s because the fraudster has no money, since the fraudster committed fraud, and never had sufficient assets to cover the loan. So, the fraudster has turned the game into “heads the fraudster wins, tails the bank loses”. In this sort of legal environment, the fraudster can only win from fraud. He t***sfers all the downside risk of his business to the bank he defrauded, while he keeps all the upside potential for himself.
New York Executive Law § 63(12) was written to avoid this very problem. It says that if you commit fraud, and profit from the commission of that fraud, the state can take the profits you gained from your fraud, even if no victim is identified and nobody needs restitution. It was written that way because, often, by the time a business venture collapses to the point of someone suffering damages and needing restitution, the responsible fraudulent party doesn’t have sufficient assets left to provide restitution.
So, the question of “who’s the victim” is not relevant to enforcement of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
From page 8 of the recently published court ruling of September 26:
Where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
Disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”
It’s worth noting that Trump’s lawyers filed motions on three occasions saying the suit should be dismissed because there’s no victim. The first time, the judge said the argument was borderline frivolous as he explained the legal reasons why it’s totally irrelevant whether there is a victim. The second time, the judge repeated his explanation, and said that “sophisticated counsel should have known better” than to repeat frivolous motions. The third time, he sanctioned each of the attorneys $7,500 for wasting the court’s time by filing motions that had already been twice identified as frivolous.
By Richard Cochran br br There is none, and there... (
show quote)
So by what percentage of over estimate of value is the fraud defined?? Value is a relevant term. Is there a law that states the taxable value is the value to determine an amount of a loan?? Or, is there some other specific source of the assessment of the value to be gotten?
Kevyn wrote:
Trump committed both tax and bank fraud. The victims are the good people of New York who carried the crooked deadbeats water for decades.
No convictions, of course, things like that don't matter to people like you.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
