A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.
The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.
But as has been established, he shouldn’t have had this money in the first place. The fine is based on how much he over inflated the value of his property to get bigger loans. Had he not done so he may well have been bankrupt already.
True, the whole “victimless crime” stick is nonsense. Because if all the real estate world is lied together like this, the general population pays waaayyyy to much for their real estate and rent in addition to missing out on so much tax revenue.
It’s fraud. When money changed hands under false pretenses, harm’s been done. Somebody’s missing money that’s rightfully theirs.
I don’t know anything about this case. Didn’t know there was real estate stuff involved I thought this was the secret documents thing.
But that’s straightforward. Taking money that isn’t rightfully yours is not a victimless crime, in the way that owning pot is a victimless crime.
Agreed. This was the civil fraud trial, where trump and co where found liable of: fraudulently adjusting the evaluation of their holdings based on the audience. So for the IRS the valuation was low and for lenders it was high.
But in the case where banks are the victims I have trouble feeling for them.
But the appeal is what establishes if that is actually the case.
Think of it this way; someone gets the electric chair for a crime, but the appeal proves they were actually innocent. Can’t exactly unkill them can you? So you hold off the execution until after the appeals are exhausted (corporal punishment shouldn’t exist at all, for the record, I’m just using this as an easy way to illustrate my point).