• CableMonster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    On each page it said that it was up to the lender to verify the information, you can claim its lying, but you would need to be very specific. I just mention direct harm because that is important to how much someone is penalized. And obviously the point of trumps penalty was not to stop him from breaking the law in the future… he is gonna die in the near future and is focused on politics.

    Literally everything you have to say falls apart under basic scrutiny. You are just a partisan person that doesnt want to admit.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      He specifically lied when he claimed an 11K square foot apartment had an area of 30K square feet.

      You cannot escape responsibility for obeying the law by acknowledging that you might not be obeying the law. Do you seriously think that you can fill out a false tax return and get away with it if you write “This might not be my actual income, it’s up to the IRS to verify”. Judge Engoron basically laughed that argument out of court.

      Trump will almost certainly apply for more loans before he dies. After this judgment, hopefully he will fill out those applications truthfully.

      • CableMonster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thank you for finally getting specific. The apartment probably included unfinished garage space, but why do you think that would change the valuation much? Why didnt the loan company verify the information which is literally part of their due diligence?

        Your whole case behind giving a fine of 400 million or so is based on a difference of about a million in appraised value change, which apparently the bank didnt even care about.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Are you suggesting that lying on a document is legal if others can figure out the truth? That’s not how the law works, at all.

          Try reporting an income of $0 on your taxes this year. An obvious lie, but the IRS probably already knows your income. They probably even already collected your taxes. Nevertheless, you will face consequences.

          • CableMonster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            If you claim a thing that is defensible and say that its up to the other person to verify it, then its just part of how things work. The real question is why do you care what agreement two parties come to and are happy about the outcome?

            The IRS is different than a bank, and income is different than appraised value.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Claiming an 11K sqft apartment as 30K sqft is not defensible.

              And no, that’s not “just how things work”. You imagine that we live in some libertarian dystopia, but we don’t. There are laws that prohibit lying in many circumstances, and you can’t disclaim your responsibility to tell the truth.

              If you sell bottles labeled “Aspirin” that contain no aspirin, you will face severe consequences. Even if nobody buys your bottles and nobody is harmed. Even if you write “User is responsible for verifying whether this bottle contains aspirin”.

              Because laws specifically outlaw lying on medication bottles, just as laws specifically outlaw lying on loan documents.

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                The real question is why do you care what agreement two parties come to and are happy about the outcome?

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I care about rule of law, which means that people face the consequences for breaking laws. It makes no difference whether people are happy.

                  When someone buys meth from a dealer, those two parties are also happy about the outcome of the agreement. I don’t care.

                  • CableMonster
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You dont care about actual rule of law, you care about partisan rule of law. You dont like trump, so you are happy he is being attacked, but dont understand how it can backfire. You are in the “fucking around” stage, and if you guys get what you want we will go to the “finding out” part.