This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Donald Trump - Business and tax stories

Jump to new
Yeah Trump has been hard done by. It's all lies, Finicky manages to pull every, single, Trump talking point into one paragraph.
Every single one is a lie but who cares.
Bravo.

Meanwhile Trump is now up on a criminal trial for the systemic fraud around paying off the various women he banged (who of course he hadn't ) to stop them telling all before his first coming . I came across the time line of the Hush Money story. It's a great factual summary of who and how and when things happened.

Timeline: Manhattan DA's Stormy Daniels hush money case against Donald Trump​

Trump is facing 34 counts of falsifying business documents in New York.
ByAaron Katersky and Nadine El-Bawab
November 18, 2023, 4:36 AM


Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to all 34 counts of falsifying business records after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

Former President Donald Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
In court documents unsealed April 4, prosecutors alleged Trump engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments made by others and the falsification of New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.

In a statement of facts accompanying the indictment, Manhattan prosecutors allege Trump made payments to his lawyer to reimburse him for a payment the lawyer made to one woman.


Lawyers of former President Donald Trump, Todd Blanche and Joe Tacopina leave the Manhattan Crimi...
Andrew Caballero-reynolds/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts.

Here is a timeline of the case, dating back to Trump's initial declaration as a candidate for president:

Timeline: Manhattan DA's Stormy Daniels hush money case against Donald Trump

Here's a look at a timeline of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation into former President Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
abcnews.go.com
 

Attachments

  • 1708049881502.gif
    35 bytes · Views: 2
Now if we want to talk about LIES, really BIG, BIG, lies about political leaders how about this one for a start.

The Republicians have been running stories about the $5million paid to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden from Burisma. Its been the centre of all their BS about corruption.

And now ?

(I wonder if Fox News will carry this story ? Or how they will spin it ..)

FBI informant charged with lying about Joe and Hunter Biden's ties to Ukrainian energy company​

Posted 29m ago29 minutes ago

Hunter Biden's lawyer says he had long warned the probe was based on lies and political agendas.(AP Photo: Jose Luis Magana, File)

Link copied
  • In short: Prosecutors say the FBI informant falsely reported executives from Ukranian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $US5 million for protection.
  • The informant's claims have been central to the Republican effort to investigate the president and his family, helping to spark a House impeachment inquiry.
  • What's next? The informant is expected to appear in court in Las Vegas charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record.
An FBI informant has been charged with lying to authorities about a multi-million-dollar bribery scheme involving Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company, a claim that is central to the Republican impeachment inquiry of the US president.

Alexander Smirnov falsely reported in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $US5 million ($7.66 million) each in 2015 or 2016, prosecutors said.

An executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems," prosecutors said.

Mr Smirnov in fact had only routine business dealings with the company and made the bribery allegations after he "expressed bias" against the president, prosecutors said in court documents.

Mr Smirnov, 43, was indicted on Wednesday (local time) on charges of making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record.
No lawyer was immediately listed for him in court records.

He was expected to make a first court appearance in Las Vegas, where he was arrested after arriving from overseas, prosecutors said.
The informant's claims have been central to the Republican effort in Congress to investigate Joe Biden and his family and helped spark what is now a House impeachment inquiry into the president.


The impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden has lagged in the House.(AP Photo: Stephanie Scarbrough)
A lawyer for Hunter Biden, who is expected to give a deposition later this month, said the charges show the probe is "based on dishonest, uncredible [sic] allegations and witnesses".

Prosecutors say that Mr Smirnov had contact with Burisma executives, but it was routine and actually took place in 2017, after president Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his vice-president, had left office — when the older Biden would have had no ability to influence US policy.

Mr Smirnov "transformed his routine and unextraordinary [sic] business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later into bribery allegations against Public Official 1, the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties for President, after expressing bias against Public Official 1 and his candidacy," the indictment said.

He repeated some of the false claims when he was interviewed by FBI agents in September 2023, changed his story about others and "promoted a new false narrative after he said he met with Russian officials," prosecutors said.

If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

The charges were filed by Justice Department special counsel David Weiss, who has separately charged Hunter Biden with firearm and tax violations.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02...-claim-becomes-political-ammunition/103446326
The Burisma allegations became a flashpoint in Congress as Republicans pursuing investigations of the president and his family demanded the FBI release the non-redacted form documenting the allegations. They acknowledged they couldn't confirm if the allegations were true.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, had subpoenaed the FBI last year for the so-called FD-1023 document as Republicans deepened their probe of the president and his son ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Working alongside Comer, Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa released an unclassified document that Republicans at the time claimed was significant in their investigation of Hunter Biden.

It added to information that had been widely aired during Donald Trump's first impeachment trial involving Mr Trump lawyer's Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election.

The White House said at the time that the claims had been debunked for years.

The impeachment inquiry into the president over his son's business dealings has lagged in the House, but the panel is pushing ahead with its work.

Hunter Biden's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said he had long warned the probe was based on "lies told by people with political agendas, not facts. We were right and the air is out of their balloon".

FBI informant charged with lying about Joe and Hunter Biden's ties to Ukrainian energy company

Prosecutors claim the informant only had routine business dealings with the company and made the bribery allegations after he "expressed bias" against Joe Biden.
www.abc.net.au
 
If he is found innocent then the democrats are committing a form of voter fraud through the weaponization of the legal system.
 
moXJO said:
If he is found innocent then the democrats are committing a form of voter fraud through the weaponization of the legal system.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Moxjo. And if he is found guilty then What the Xuck were the Republicians crapping on about with this corruption that never happened ?

Lets get it clear. What the guy said didn't happen. That's what will come out in the trial. The story outlines the whole confabulation. And it will be really interesting to see what else comes out in this trial. Like who was pushing for a story, any story

So I wonder when the Republicans knew that their star witness was full of xhite ? Yesterday ? A month ago ? Six months ago ? I think that question should be asked and answered. Because if Comer and co became aware the story did not stack up but still charged ahead with their allegations of fraud.. there should be hell to pay.
 
He was being pressured by authorities over previous crimes and probably copped a plea deal.
What would you do: go to jail or roll over and say what they want to hear?

You don't really know until the whole things over. He wasn't the only source that said Biden was corrupt. Hunter is pretty much knee deep in it.
 

The statement from special counsel didn't just announce the guy was going to be charged. They went into quite substantial detail on why the entire story was a fabrication. I'm reminded now that when the allegations of $5m dollar payments to Joe Biden were made no one could find any evidence of such funds coming into his accounts. The conspiracy argument was that "that just showed how clever Biden was in hiding the paper trail".

Other sources that say Biden was corrupt ? Let's see how they pan out. Do they come via Rudy Guilani ?

I'll be very interested to hear why Smirnov ran this story. Just big noting himself ? Or was their collusion with Rudy and others to just make it stick. If you want to see a plea deal that scenario may be on the cards.

And as I said earlier "When did the Republicans become aware this story would not fly ?"
 
The damages verdict is in on the Trump organisation fraud charges. Apart from the $350M + damages for fraud Trump has been barred from running any business New York for 3 years and an independent monitor was appointed to supervise the running of all Trump businesses. The good news was the Judge rescinded his earlier direction close down all Trump business in New York.

The judgement was scathing.

Donald Trump ordered to pay over $350m in New York financial fraud case​

Trump also banned from running any New York corporation or entity for three years in devastating blow for ex-president
Lauren Aratani in New York
Sat 17 Feb 2024 09.03 AEDTFirst published on Sat 17 Feb 2024 07.11 AEDT

Donald Trump, his eldest sons and associates have been ordered to pay over $350m by a New York judge who found them guilty of intentionally committing financial fraud over the course of a decade.

“The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience,” Judge Arthur Engoron wrote in his decision. In a devastating blow for the former president who had built his reputation as a successful real estate developer, Engoron barred Trump and two other executives from serving as officers or directors of any corporation or entity in New York for three years. His sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr, were banned for two years.


Trump Organization civil fraud trial: five key moments
Read more
The three-month hearing was an often heated affair with Trump attacking Engoron in and out of the courtroom. The former president’s decision to take on the judge appeared to backfire.

“Overall, Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility,” Engoron wrote.

In his decision Engoron said the defendants’ “fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences” adding the defendants “complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological”.

Donald Trump ordered to pay over $350m in New York financial fraud case

Trump also banned from running any New York corporation or entity for three years in devastating blow for ex-president
www.theguardian.com
 
Judge Engoren has written a very powerful piece of work in his judgement of Trump and his business enterprise.
Should such a person be President of the United States ? In any other time such an indictment would spell the end of someones political credibility. Nowadays Trump just continues to deny he did anything wrong and his supporters echo his chant.

‘A lack of contrition that borders on pathological’: what the Trump fraud verdict says​

Judge Arthur Engoron gave prosecutors the fine they asked for and admonished the former president for showing no remorse

A ‘pathological’ lack of contrition​

“Absolute perfection, including with numbers, exists only in heaven,” Engoron wrote. “If fraud is insignificant, then, like most things in life, it just does not matter.”

But these frauds were not merely significant: they “leap off the page and shock the conscience,” he continued.

In the face of this, what truly rankled Engoron was Trump and his allies’ refusal to acknowledge almost all the errors at the heart of this case. “Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” the judge wrote. “They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money.

“The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not [the late fraudster] Bernard Madoff.

“Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ posture that the evidence belies.”

Donald Trump ordered to pay over $350m in New York financial fraud case

Trump also banned from running any New York corporation or entity for three years in devastating blow for ex-president
www.theguardian.com
 
I got a bit bored.. So I decided to read Judge Engorens judgement and think about how Donald Trump might construct a successful appeal in another court.
Frankly I think he would be laughed out of court. This caught my eye though in the description of the various witnesses and their contribution to the trial.

Page 59 of 92
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs.
Eli Bartov

Eli Bartov is a tenured professor at New York University, whom defendants offered as an expert in “financial accounting, credit analysis, and valuation.”44 TT 6181, 6206-6215.

Professor Bartov did not assess the valuations of any of the assets on Donald Trump’s SFCs. TT 6445. Yet, as this Court previously noted when denying defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, Bartov’s overarching point was that the subject statements of financial condition were accurate in every respect and that they were “100 percent consistent with GAAP.” TT 6537. As this Court discussed in excruciating detail in its September 26, 2023 Decision and Order, the SFCs contained numerous significant errors. By doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement, Professor Bartov lost all credibility in the eyes of the Court.45

Indeed, Bartov insisted that the misrepresentation of the Triplex, resulting in a $200 million overvaluation, was not intentional46 or material (leading the Court to wonder in what universe is $200 million immaterial). TT 6348-6356.

Bartov opined that “GAAP is not designed to give you the true economic value of an asset.” TT 6240. However, it is undisputed that the SFCs required, and Donald Trump represented, that the assets be presented at their estimated current value and be GAAP compliant, so Bartov’s statement is of no consequence.

Bartov further attempted to opine on the disclaimer and “worthless clauses,” previously rejected as a defense by this Court in several decisions and orders (subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division), repeatedly referring to the clauses as “[j]ust like when you have the Surgeon General warning on the box of cigarettes, this warnings [sic] is not Phillip Morris. This warning
is for the smokers.” TT 6252-6256, 6259-6262, 6265-6267.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 Professor Bartov bills at the rate of $1,350 per hour and has billed approximately 650 hours in this engagement. TT 6443.

45 As the Court previously observed, Dr. Bartov suffered essentially the same fate testifying before the Hon. Barry Ostrager in People v Exxon Mobil Corp., 65 Misc 3d 1233(A) (Sup Ct, NY County 2019) (“the Court rejects Dr Bartov’s expert testimony as unpersuasive and, in the case of his testimony about the Mobile Bay facility, finds Dr. Bartov’s testimony to be flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence”).
 

Attachments

  • ny-state-trump-fraud-trial-verdict.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 6
Regarding the valuation of the Triplex apartment.
Q How many times did Weisselberg lie about teh size of teh Triples Apartment ?


Specific Assets on the SFCs

The Triplex
On October 1, 1994, Donald Trump consented to the “First Amendment to the Declaration of Trump Tower Condominium” (“First Amendment”) which documented that the Triplex at Trump Tower, in which Donald Trump resided for decades, was 10,996 square feet. PX 633.

Since at least 2012, copies of the First Amendment showing the square footage of the Triplex were in Allen Weisselberg’s email inbox (multiple times over) and in the physical filing cabinet immediately outside his office. PX 633; TT 805-809.

Since at least as early as 2012, Jeffrey McConney was valuing Donald Trump’s Triplex apartment, in which he resided, as if it were 30,000 square feet, not 10,996 square feet, resulting in an annual overvaluation of between $114-207 million dollars. PX 1052; NYSCEF Doc. No.
1531 at 21.

In 2012, Weisselberg asked Trump International Realty employee Kevin Sneddon to value the Triplex. Sneddon asked to inspect the apartment or review the floorplan, and Weisselberg told him that both requests were “not possible” and advised Sneddon that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet. TT 6618-6621. Sneddon thereafter provided McConney a valuation using the incorrect 30,000 number from Weisselberg. PX 1052.

On February 22, 2017, Dan Alexander from Forbes emailed Weisselberg and McConney with data indicating that Forbes believed the Triplex to be 10,996 square feet. PX 1324. On March 3, 2017, Noack Kirsch from Forbes emailed Alan Garten with many questions about Donald Trump’s assets, one of which reads: “President Trump has told Forbes in the past that his penthouse occupies 33,000 square feet, comprising the entirety of 66-68 of Trump Tower. Property records (notably the latest amended condo declaration, dated October 11, 1994) [sic]. Is the 1994 declaration accurate and up-to-date? It shows President Trump’s apartment is 10,996.39 square feet.” PX 1345.

Alan Garten then forwarded the email chain to Weisselberg, Eric Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Amanda Miller (who was responsible for press relations). PX 1344. This resulted in a conversation between Miller and Weisselberg and culminated in Miller sending an email to
Garten on March 6, 2017, stating that “I spoke to Allen W. re: [Trump World Tower] + [Trump Tower] – we are going to leave these alone.” PX 1345; TT 821-823. Notwithstanding the size of the Triplex being brought to his attention, on March 10, 2017, a mere four days after telling Miller to “leave it alone,” Weisselberg certified to Mazars the accuracy and truthfulness of the 2016 SFC, which included valuing the Triplex as if it were 30,000 square feet. PX 741. Indeed, Weisselberg “[was] comfortable certifying that nothing occurred subsequent to the date of the statement that would require adjustment.” TT 831. Despite this email, Weisselberg declined to review the First Amendment or take any other steps to confirm the actual size of the Triplex. TT 819.

When examined about how this violated the Trump Organization’s responsibilities under the Management Representation Letters to Mazars, Weisselberg said he was not obligated to adjust the SFCs to reflect that change because he didn’t think it was “material.” TT 854-859.

It was not until Forbes made the issue public, by publishing an article in May of 2017 indicating that Donald Trump had been misrepresenting the size of his Triplex,48 that the Trump Organization “began to do our investigation, as to, you know, what the number really was at that point.” TT 833-834. Weisselberg admitted that “it was only after this article was published and the information became public that the Trump Organization corrected the square footage for Mr. Trump’s triplex.” TT 834.

When asked about his understanding of the events that led to the change in the square footage used in the 2017 SFC, Birney stated that he was never informed about the actual square footage of the Triplex before issuing the 2016 SFC, and that it was not until Forbes published the article revealing the true square footage that they adjusted the 30,000 square foot basis upon which they had been relying since at least 2012. TT 1234-1238.

In an effort to cover up the decrease in the reported value of the Triplex, Allen Weisselberg instructed Birney to draft a version of the SFC that added a 35% “ex-president premium” to the value of the Triplex, although the idea was ultimately scrapped.49 TT 1288-1290; 1298-1299. To maintain an inflated value for the Triplex despite correcting the square footage, Weisselberg told Birney to use the “most expensive” and “record shattering” penthouse sales when calculating price per square foot. TT 1241-1247; PX 767, 2530.

Donald Trump testified that he personally determined that the Triplex’s reported value was too high and directed Weisselberg and McConney to correct it. TT 3524. In reality, the Triplex’s reported size was not corrected until 2017, months after Trump was inaugurated as president and ceased having any involvement in the preparation of the SFCs.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Footnote 49

Indeed, there was such an effort to conceal the loss in value from the accurately reported Triplex that in a draft version of the 2017 SFC, dated October 10, 2017, Birney had added a 15-25% premiums to many of Donald Trump’s properties, calling them “premium for presidential personal residence”; “premium for presidential property”; “premium for presidential winter residence”; and “premium for presidential summer residence.” In total these various versions of “presidential premiums” amounted to an extra $144,680,601 for the year. PX 1290; TT 1290-1292.
 
I suppose most posters would have just skimmed over the last two posts which I copied from Judge Engoron findings and final ruling. It's probably the case that many ASF members think Donald Trump was unfairly targeted and that whatever he did was just "sharp business practice". Stuff that most businesses do and usually get away with. So the theme is "Why was Trump picked on ? " And Trump will fill in the spaces with his usual hyperbole and misdirection.

But I suggest that one should take the time to read the judgement in full. This wasn't "sharp business practice" in any way shape or form. The Judge readily acknowledged that appraisals can be different and that's ok on the margins. He gave a nod to small scale fraud.

Materiality has been one of the great red herrings of this case all along. Faced with clear evidence of a misstatement, a person can always shout that “it’s immaterial.” Absolute perfection, including with numbers, exists only in heaven. If fraud is insignificant, then, like most things in life, it just does not matter. As an ancient maxim has it, de minimis non curat lex, the law is not concerned with trifles. Neither is this Court.

But this was not the case here. The systematic lying about property valuations underpinned the whole Trump business model. The systematic lying about cash at hand inflated the alleged cash position of group as a whole. The fictitious assumptions about developments that never happened, about property values based on known lies were overwhelming.

I thought it was a masterful legal analysis of the participants, their evidence and the consequences of the fraud. Judge Engeron clearly knew there would be careful reading of his judgement. I think any Court of Appeal would find it impossible to question the legal basis of his rulings or the way in which he came to his findings. Indeed if he hadn't come to his conclusions based on the evidence presented, that would have been the biggest miscarriage of justice ever seen in a courtroom.
 

Attachments

  • ny-state-trump-fraud-trial-verdict.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 4
If this stands then every developer in New York will be done. New York is proving its just weaponised the legal system. A lot of these rulings will eat it on appeal. But I honestly haven't gone in depth for a while. I just bet on the opposite of what the democrats are pushing for as they have consistently failed in the long run.
 

If every developer in New York has a business model as wildly fraudulent as Donald Trump then yep they might be gone.

Frankly I couldn't believe that is possible. He is truly unique. Balls of steel. Completely ruthless. Charming and a sociopath to boot.

As I said Judge Engoren has followed the intent and letter of New York law very closely in his judgement. I struggle to see how appeal courts would overturn his case on evidence or interpretation. His decision to rescind the notice to wind up the Trump businesses is clever. He has just appointed an official minder to make sure the company stays honest. The fact is, the company cannot survive as an honest entity. The figures just aren't right. And returning all the profits from the corrupt deals plus interest is going to make things tough.

On top of that he can't get any finance from New York based banks for at least three years. I suppose he will have to dial up his good mate Putin for a strategic investment.
 
Every developer did do what Trump did. That's just it. There's no victims in this crime. The developer overstates the value of an asset to lend a certain amount.
Banks then offer $X after they assess asset.
The banks have to send a valuer out.
The developers have always done it like this in New York.

Exactly who was the fraud committed against?
The banks were happy, a building was put up, hundreds of workers get played. I'll have to look at it again, but to me it smells like another bullsht ruling that's going to get overturned. I actually thought this was thrown out before.
 
Nothing like what you suggest MoXjo. Why not just read the judgement and understand what the law was that Trump trashed and the scores of ways the Trump organisation manufactured financial statements that had no basis in reality.

This has always been Trumps way. I came across a story that was written in 1991 that went into great detail on how Trump screwed investors and banks in his business dealings.

There is a more recent analysis that outlines the politics that enabled Trump to get away with fraud in New York in the 80's

Spy

Smart. Funny. Fearless."It's pretty safe to say that Spy was the most influential magazine of the 1980s. It might have remade New York's cultural landscape; it definitely changed the whole tone of magazine journalism. It was cruel, brilliant, beautifully written and perfectly designed, and...
books.google.com.au

Trump’s hubris has brought about the downfall of his family’s business empire | Sidney Blumenthal

Even the fortune Trump inherited from his father did not stop him from steering the family’s dynasty on to the rocks
www.theguardian.com
 
basilio said:
Nothing like what you suggest MoXjo. Why not just read the judgement and understand what the law was that Trump trashed and the scores of ways the Trump organisation manufactured financial statements that had no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
Supplying false statements, overstating earnings and assett values.
Isn't that what borrowers here were doing? Which lead to a Royal Commission into banking and the banks were blamed for not checking the details were accurate and lending money to people who couldn't afford it.

Guess it depends on the narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why Donald Trump's Companies Went Bankrupt
Replies
3
Views
2K
noirua
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...