'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case
Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News' calculations based on the judge's lengthy ruling in the case.
Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump's net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.
Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain -- with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction -- as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.
What’s unreasonable and excessive about any of this?
Because he did nothing wrong. The fact that the left side is celebrating this judgement (and the rape one) tells me they dont care about that justice system, they just want to use it.
If only there were some way to determine whether someone did something they were accused of. Maybe like an independent person to weigh up all the arguments and make a decision. You could have supporters and detractors make their cases.
Yeah, thats the part that is dangerous, I am telling you as a real estate person, he did nothing wrong, and there is not victim in the real estate case, but the person that decided he was guilty believes something wrong or is doing it for bad reasons. Do you understand the danger there?
I'm kind of astonished.
I'm telling you as an accounting person, fraudulent misrepresentation of one financial circumstances is an egregious crime.
This whole "victimless crime" thing is incredibly naive.
Cool, who was the victim? How were they victimized?
As you well know, there is no victim, as in no single person who was harmed. Yet Trump's actions are a crime nonetheless. The whole victimless crime angle is a derivative of a straw man fallacy.
As a society we prescribe a minimum acceptable level of behaviour through laws. When people contravene these laws we impose penalties. There is no requirement for someone to be harmed.
That said, I'm sure you can imagine what would happen if fraud was not a crime. It's just not possible to conduct business of any kind if there is no penalty for fraud.
The apologists are out and about it seems. The rich sycophants I get, wanting lower taxes and all. What I'll never get is being middle or lower class and being so cucked as to defend some bourgeois criminal like he was a friend.
"Temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
My parents are broke. They will always vote conservative despite the benefits going to the wealthy, because they feel like they ought to be wealthy.
There was no victim because he did nothing wrong. Should a person be able to list their house for more than its true value, have someone agree to the price and then apply for a loan?
Of course not.
Should a company be allowed to make up the numbers shown on its financial reports?
No, but that is not what happened. Do you actually understand what they did that was so wrong?
That's exactly what happened.
What specifically do you think they falsified?
The purported "fair value" of a range of assets supporting Trump's net worth.
Because it was literally a victimless crime.
I don't care how much you hate Trump, this is just plain dirty, like kicking your opponent in the nuts in a fist fight.
I dunno. Lying to the government/banks about your finances to the tune of billions of dollars is a huge waste of time and resources, which are paid for by the average taxpayer/bank customer who actually pays taxes and doesn't inflate their holdings. Victimless in the sense that no one was physically harmed, but not harmless.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/trump-fraud-168-million/index.html
You're literally cheering for big banks to make extra profit just because you want to stick it to someone you hate. And I'm sure you've also never inflated your skillset or exaggerated your past experience on a resume in order to get a job that would make you more money... right?
So your legal defence on behalf of Trump is, “your honour, who did my law-breaking hurt?”
You’re myopically fixated on a single case, too. Do the other 90 open cases against him somehow bolster your confidence in his innocence here? He’s being “attacked” because he’s a fucking crook. They will win some and lose others, but where he legally fucked up, he’ll face consequences. Period.
“Who’d he hurt?” Ri-goddamned-diculous.
No, that's literally his own defense, I just happen to agree with it.
Imagine you lie on your resume and inflate your experience in order to get a certain job. They hire you and pay you 20% over what you would have qualified for based on your actual experience, but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance, and when you leave, they give you a good recommendation for you next job. Five or ten years later, you're just about to make a downpayment for your first house, and suddenly, not your employer, but the government shows up and sues you because lying on your resume is illegal, and they demand you pay all the extra money you earned PLUS interest and fines.
That's sorta how petty this case is. And if you cheer for this kinda stuff, you deserve for it to happen to you.
Here is where the comparison falls apart
How so? The banks declined to sue and said they'd be happy to work with him again.
Who gives a toss what the banks say? They aren't the real victim, rules based society is.
Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain't bailing you out.
Being an average law abiding citizen and not an infamous, law breaking billionare, I'm not too worried. See, rules-based societies work great for people who can follow the rules.
Okay, let's do a little thought exercise here, shall we?
Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?
Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?
Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what's your point? Your 'lying on a resume' example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.
They made voting without an ID legal in some states. Isn’t that basically legalizing fraud, or at least inviting or enabling it?
Sorry, but I’m afraid “this would never happen” a bad excuse. This change would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
They key phrase is "they made it... legal."
Quick question: What are your thoughts on Hunter Biden?
He should probably be in jail, and definitely on some sort of drug rehab program.
Also, you gotta wonder what sort of shitty dad Joe was for his son to turn out the way he did.
So forgiving past crimes with no victims is only for Trump then?
So those underage prostitutes he filmed himself doing drugs and having sex with don’t count as victims then? Good to know.
How about Joe should be in jail for whatever he did to make Hunter this way, and Hunter should be in closed rehab. My guess is he probably IS a victim of his father in some way, so I’m willing to spare him from prison, but he probably shouldn’t have any access to drugs or unsupervised contact with children or teens.
Does that sound fair?
The party of personal responsibility everybody!
What did Joe do? Or should Joe be in jail for the crimes you imagine he did, while Trump shouldn't be fined for the crimes he definitely did?
You must see how your scenario differs… It isn’t illegal to lie on a resume, and in this case Trump’s not being asked to give back anywhere near the amount his lies earned him.
Perhaps, but it's morally objectionable in the same way and for the same reasons as what Trump did. You're basically just saying "my crime isn't a crime because it's technically not illegal".
Oh and you're flat out wrong about the last part, because Trump was fined not only the amount of interest the banks lost out on, but additionally also all of the profit he made from transactions that the money helped facilitate. Plus 9% interest.
https://fortune.com/2024/02/19/donald-trumps-355-million-civil-fraud-verdict-what-next/
I mean the definition of crime is literally "an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government". So it being "technically illegal" is the basis for it being a crime or not.
Cool, I hope you never get caught doing something that’s technically illegal, such as running a red light on an empty intersection.
Either way, don’t expect my sympathy when you get caught.
You run red on 'empty' intersections? Why not just follow the rules...
Not usually, but I’d be lying if I said I’ve never done it.
The fraudulent valuations went both ways. He artificially inflated the values for lines of credit and loans, and artificially deflated the values for the purpose of tax evasion. Letitia James pulled an Elliot Ness on him with this case.
As far as I can tell, this case was only about him inflating the value of his properties in order to obtain more favorable terms on his loan.
If he did also undervalue them for the purpose of paying less taxes, that would be a separate case. And in that case, I wouldn't argue that it was a victimless crime.
The case was about all the fraud involved in the financial statements alongside disingenuous valuations and deed restrictions on his properties.
Why don't you read it yourself?
It says nothing about any alleged tax fraud, only fraudulent financial statements used to obtain a lower interest rate on a loan.
Like I said, if he DID cheat on taxes, that's a different case, and I wouldn't be claiming that there were no victims.
He cheated on his taxes by having the deed to Mar-a-lago restricted to commercial use only while using it and valuing it as if it were a single family residence. It's a massive difference in value when it comes to taxes and that isn't the only property he had deed restrictions or easements on.
Okay, perhaps he did, but that's not what this case is about, is it?
His tax evasion is a significant piece of his fraud. Even if you insist on discounting it, the laws and regulations violated in this case are set up to allow enforcement of fair business practices in New York, and in large part were enacted in the 60's because of how easily businesses were evading the common law fraud regulations. It's less about whether or not there is a victim, but rather about whether or not outside businesses and interests can rely on fair practices and enforcement in New York as a whole.
Again, that may be the case, but this lawsuit wasn't about that.
By insisting that he deserves this ruling because of something else he did, you're only proving that this has nothing to do with justice, and you simply want to see him punished in any way possible.
The point of the laws he broke is to limit corruption and fraud in business in New York. What he did is exactly and explicitly what the laws are in place to try to prevent.
Who says lying on your resume is illegal? If it was illegal then you broke the law and face the consequences of your actions, the most "conservative" thing you can do: own up to your life choices.
All that said, I personally am "stuck" in the position I'm in because I don't lie on my resume. I don't want to suffer the consequences of my lie.
I didn’t say it was. To be honest, I don’t know if it is, I was just trying to draw a comparison that would be easier to relate to for the average person.
But in doing so you illustrate how you miss the point.
We don’t drag Trump through the courts because we hate him. We hate him for his crimes, and the courts are where we prove them.
Do you hate Biden for his crimes as well? Should he be brought to justice too, or is that different?
If he committed crimes and is found to be guilty then toss him in with the rest of the criminals. I don't think anyone here has an issue with that. The only issue would be with "crimes" that only seem to have evidence in the hands of political actors that never seem to end up in the hands of the justice system so they can actually do something about it, the mysterious hunter laptop that UPS magically lost from the blind repair guy who decided to look into it comes to mind.
Unfortunately in our society we are the only ones that face justice. If you're rich or in politics you get to point the finger elsewhere and cry "unfair bias!" or for the wealthy, just pay a lawyer to make it all go away.
The laptop was authentic, even the FBI has admitted that by now. Stop spreading misinformation.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-knew-the-hunter-biden-laptop-was-real-in-2019-irs-whistleblowers-say/ar-AA1cUoyd
The 51 intelligence officials who signed a letter saying that it was "Russian disinformation" have since been identified as part of a Biden campaign operation to help get him elected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html
According to some polls, almost 20% of Biden voters said they would have changed their vote to Trump if they had known that the laptop was authentic (disregard the "false" rating here, that applies to the 53% that was originally claimed. I'm referring to the 19.6% figure they say is accurate, because it likely would have still been enough to change the outcome).
So, now that you know this, what should be done about this? Biden clearly lied to the public and obtained his victory under false pretenses. Seems far more serious of a crime than cheating a bank out of a few million dollars in interest, no?
How about we do Trump first, and then Biden?
Yeah, right.
By "technically" you mean legally. In accordance with the law.
Prove it. And then send that proof to Trump, in sure whatever ambulance chaser is representing him now would interested to have that proof .
It's also legally not allowed to cross an intersection on a red light in order to get to work faster when you're running late, but who's keeping track?
And if fined by a cop nobody would disagree with it.
Yeah, right.
And Trump was caught and fined for his "running of the red light". Stop making mental gymnastics to cover for this rapist.
The police, so by extension tge government
So no proof the judge acted out of malice? Just more bullshit you made up? I'll try to contain my surprise.
I don't know if the judge did, but the AG likely acted out of malice. Just ask yourself who benefits from this ruling? As far as I can tell, the bank doesn't even get any of the money, it all goes to the state. And the Democrat party, of which Letitia James is a member, gets to hurt a political rival in the upcoming federal elections at a critical time in their campaign.
Yes, I know that's not proof, but there's certainly motive.
So now you're saying politicians should only be prosecuted by members of their own party. Go to a doctor, tell them your brain fell out, ask for help.
It's not just the party affiliation, it's also the timing.
Perhaps you should take your own advice there.
Why didn't Trump just not break the law? Why is that too much to ask?
If you rob a bank, then later return the cash... you still robbed a bank, and it's still a crime regardless.
The bank chose to overlook that crime because it made them money, and they want more business. You don't see anything wrong with overlooking a crime for money?
LMAO, I just love how everyone on this site is like “fuck corporations”, “yay communism”, “eat the rich” and “piracy isn’t stealing”, but the moment someone you hate gets caught doing it, everyone’s like “off with his head! How dare he cheat big business like that!”
Hypocritical much?
Not once have I said any of those things. You just see what you want to see and think it's ok to break the rules as long as no one got hurt... but profiting from fraud is a crime. That's the facts and that's why he's paying.
"Yes your honor, my client tried to hire a Hitman to kill his wife. But since the Hitman was an undercover cop, and the wife says she still loves him, there was no victim here and therefore my client is completely innocent."
I think you’re getting a little carried away with your analogy here.
It’s more like, say, you decide to pirate some movies or software because you can’t afford them right now. But over time you become proficient in using the software, and you manage to land a well paying job with your skills. Now you can afford to pay for it, so you decide to clean up your act and pay for a license, and you also buy all the movies you watched for free. None of the movie studios or software companies had to shut down or went out of business because of lost revenue.
Suddenly, there’s a knock on your door. It’s the FBI. “Sir, we’ve been going over BitTorrent logs from five years ago and found a number of movies and software that was downloaded from an IP address we traced to you. Piracy is a federal crime as you know, and we decided we’re going to press charges.” And then they fine you not only the total amount that those items would have cost if you had bought them back then, but also all of the salary you’ve earned up to this date, plus interest.
Oh, and none of that money goes to the movie studies or software companies you stole from, it all goes to the government. Still cool?
I love how in your made up analogy you introduce unnecessary details to make the fictional scenario sound more innocent. "If the fictional analogy is innocent then the thing that actually happened is innocent too" right? Are you actually trying to suggest that self proclaimed billionaire Donald Trump couldn't afford loans?
It's more like, say, you decided physically rob local businesses. Over time you become proficient and thievery and fencing and manage to land a well paying job doing technically legal work. You decide to white wash your past by sending money to all the businesses your previously robbed. Do you think it would be inappropriate for you to be charged for the crimes you very much did commit just because you "paid it back"?
Also, during the trial, you kept insisting that you didn't do anything illegal. Yes, you took things that belonged to other people, but it's perfectly legal because {Insert made up reason here].
Okay, so maybe you CAN afford it but you’d rather use the money for something else. The rest of the analogy stays.
He invested the money legally into real estate, he didn’t buy drugs and sold them or anything like that.
Your analogy still doesn’t make sense, you’re doing the same thing you accuse me of: making it worse than it is in order or imply guilt. And no, he didn’t physically rob anybody, the profits the bank missed out on are purely theoretical, just like the profits a software company misses out on when you don’t buy an app you wouldn’t have bought anyways if you couldn’t have pirated it.
"there was no victim" is not a legal defense. You're trying to compare it to piracy because you're trying to change the argument from "no one was hurt" to "this shouldn't be illegal."
People will argue that piracy shouldn't be illegal, nobody is arguing that fraud shouldn't be illegal. As the judge said: just because it worked out for the bank this time, doesn't mean it will work out okay next time. He did a crime, everyone agrees that it should be a crime, and he needs to face consequences so he and other people don't do it again in the future. It's not only a crime if it doesn't work out for you.
As for no one being harmed: he also undervalued his property to avoid taxes, so the American public was harmed. Hence the DA pressing charges on their behalf.
The bankers testified that they did their own due diligence and did not rely on Trump's exaggerated claims. They knew the figures he gave them were broad estimates and not necessarily correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html
He didn't default on the loan and paid it back in its entirety, with interest. I fail to see who the victim is? Yes, perhaps the bank could have made more money but if they aren't interested, who got hurt?
That's why I think the piracy analogy holds up, because if you DO end up paying for the stuff you consumed for free at some point, the studios or software companies only have a temporary loss, but they are missing out on potential interest or investment return they could have earned in the meantime, and whatever amount inflation has devalued the money in the meantime.
Also:
If you can pay the fine, don't do the crime.