|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 6:06:01 GMT -5
Disclaimer: I'm not a Trump fan and I've never voted for him. But if politics can do this to a former POTUS, pure politics can be used to take down anybody. Let's start with this... There are no victims in this case. All the loans were paid back. The bankers did not initiate this case. This was motivated by pure politics. It seems more like something Xi or Maduro would do. And what happened to any sort of culpability being assigned to those that approved the loans? The bankers are the ones that ultimately decided to make the loans and the rates to be charged. Why were the bankers not prosecuted for massive gross negligence and near zero due diligence. Why is it gross negligence? Because according the case, the Trump organization valued Mar-a-Lago at $600,000,000 and the judge valued it at $27,000,000. How can both sides of that trade be so far off. If you want to get a loan for home there has to be an appraisal that compares 3 other similar properties. This case just reeks of political retribution rather than righting a wrong or breaking laws. I doubt a jury of his peers would have convicted him... and that's why he was denied a jury trial and instead got a directed verdict. And now this... Fact-checking Trump's claims about New York fraud trial 2 October 2023 - By Nada Tawfik, New York correspondent, reporting from court www.bbc.com/news/66989373Donald Trump made a passionate opening statement, of sorts, on the first day of his fraud trial in New York. The former president was not giving evidence - instead, he stopped just outside the courtroom to address reporters before the historic hearing began. After a few stern looks at the camera, he launched into a lengthy preview of what his lawyers are expected to argue during the civil case again him, his two adult sons and the Trump Organization. He also lobbed accusations against New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the fraud charges and is seeking a fine of $250m (£207m), and Judge Arthur Engoron who already ruled last week that Mr Trump and his business had committed fraud. Let's take a closer look at seven of Mr Trump's claims. 1. There were no victims This is very important to Mr Trump. He believes there should be no case because "there was no crime". "No bank was affected. No bank was hurt," he said moments before the start of the trial, noting that all his loans were paid back on time. Under this New York statute, however, the attorney general did not have to show that there were victims, only that Mr Trump committed ongoing fraud. 2. The case was timed to damage Trump's 2024 campaign "This trial was railroaded and fast-tracked," the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination said. "This trial could have been brought years ago, but they waited until I was right in the middle of my campaign." Mr Trump has cast this trial, as well as other lawsuits and indictments, as an attempt to hurt his bid to return to the White House next year. Courtroom tensions simmer as Trump trial kicks off But the investigation into these fraud claims began four and a half years ago, when Trump was still president, after his former fixer Michael Cohen went public with the Trump Organization's accounting practices. Judge Engoron reminded Mr Trump's lawyer on Monday that the judge has already dismissed claims the lawsuit was politically motivated. 3. Trump was denied a jury After the judge's ruling last week, Mr Trump made this claim in a social media post, suggesting to supporters that he had been denied a trial and a jury, and therefore robbed of justice. On Monday in court, the judge made a point to say that "nobody asked" for a jury trial. Watch: Trump's New York fraud case explained... in 60 seconds 4. The 'corrupt' justice department is behind this To fit the case into his wider "witch hunt" rhetoric, Mr Trump claimed that Ms James was corrupt, and that she was coordinating with and taking orders from the US Department of Justice. "It's all run by DOJ, which is corrupt, in Washington - everything goes through them," he alleged. He has shown no evidence of coordination. Also, this is a civil fraud case based on New York state laws, not a federal one. The Justice Department has no jurisdiction here. 5. The 'buyer beware clause' renders contracts useless Mr Trump pushed this rather unorthodox argument while speaking to reporters on Monday. His businesses' financial statements have a clause that Mr Trump calls a "buyer beware" warning, a disclaimer he said means "do not believe anything". Mr Trump says that putting a "full disclaimer" in financial statements, "immediately takes you out of any fraud situation and any litigation". But the judge was clear in his ruling last week that these are non-party disclaimers from his former accounting firm Mazars, and that they do not insulate him from liability. Those disclaimers also plainly state that "Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement…" 6. The judge undervalued Trump properties In an unusual step, the judge has already ruled that Trump properties were worth less than the former president and his company stated. That was part of a summary judgement delivered last week. "What he did - undervaluing these properties - is a disgrace to our nation," Mr Trump said on Monday. However, it was not Judge Engoron who came up with the valuations. The ones he cited in his ruling were from official assessors. Take Mar-a-Lago, for example, the former president's Florida resort. It was the Palm Beach County assessor - not the judge - that appraised the market value of Trump's primary residence at between $18m-$27.6m (£14.5m-£22.5m). Mr Trump continues to claim it is probably worth 50 to 100 times more. 7. Trump did not include his brand in his valuations Mr Trump is not usually shy about telling the world how much his brand is worth. In his comments before the trial, however, Mr Trump insisted it had not been factored into the valuations of various properties that are at the heart of this fraud case. "My brand is extremely valuable. I didn't even use it in my financials." The judge has refuted this, saying there is evidence that from 2013-2020 Trump's financial statements included a 15% or 30% premium based on the Trump brand for seven golf clubs. On top of that, the judge ruled that the statements "double dip", by also suggesting that "the goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement". The trial continues and is expected to last several weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 6:11:24 GMT -5
A history of real estate fraud in 8 scandals JUL 1, 2021, 5:00 PM - By Propmodo therealdeal.com/national/2021/07/01/a-history-of-real-estate-fraud-in-8-scandals/Real estate is rife with fraud. Over the years, regulators and lawmakers have honed tools aimed at catching criminality. From foreclosure fraud to title fraud, the modern landscape of impropriety in American real estate is shrinking. Major criminals have taught important lessons about how to protect ourselves from scams. Here we have compiled some important historical real estate scams, each with an important lesson. Greenland’s made of ice Anyone who’s been to Greenland can tell you it’s anything but green. Roughly 79 percent of the massive, isolated island is covered in an ice sheet. Originally called Kalaallit Nunaat in the indigenous Greenlandic language, the name Greenland was chosen to be intentionally misleading. According to Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder, taking his family and thralls to the arctic lands to the Northwest. The Saga of Erik the Red, written nearly 400 years after his death, claims “In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favorable name.” After an arduous journey across a deadly, frozen sea, settlers arrived to find an arctic tundra, not lush green lands. Erik conned hundreds, perhaps thousands of settlers to risk their lives to settle a barren tundra. Misled, Norse settlements across Greenland died out, unable to adapt to the harsh conditions. Few historical records have survived. While Erik the Red’s scam wasn’t profitable in a monetary sense, his fraudulent branding likely led to the death of hundreds. Erik was one of the first to use a name to brand a place as something it surely is not. He was not the last. If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Yazoo land scandal In an effort to shore up Georgia’s land claims after The American Revolutionary War, Georgia Governor Goerge Mathews and other Georgia politicians sold large tracts of territory in what is now Alabama and Mississippi to political insiders at bottom-dollar prices. In 1795 Mathews signed the Yazoo Act, authorizing the sale of 40,000,000 acres for just $500,000. Public outrage was immediate. Georgia Senator Jared Irwin was eventually elected Governor, singing a bill to nullify the Yazoo Act less than two months after taking office. The state offered refunds, but many buyers denied them, holding on to the land instead. Soon Georgia ceded all lands west of its present-day border to the federal government, making the Yazoo land owners someone else’s problem. Claims over Yazoo ownership reached the Supreme Court in 1810, leading to one of the first Court decisions overturning state law. In Fletcher v. Peck, SCOTUS ruled the original sale was binding. The Contracts Clause of the new U.S. Consitution prohibited voiding contracts for the transfer of land. The scandal and resulting case would have lasting impacts on a young country, establishing the importance of property rights and the sanctity of legal contracts. Over the course of America’s history, the federal government has been both the victim and perpetrator of real estate fraud as the nation expanded and federal land holdings grew. Fletcher v Peck was the genesis of an argument fully formed in Johnson v M’Intosh 13 years later, legally articulating the idea that only the federal government could purchase Native American lands, effectively creating a monopoly on vast swaths of America that the U.S. Government would use to drive out the tribes and expand towards manifest destiny at the lowest possible price. While the original Yazzo land deal shows how important it is to stick to the contract, the legacy of the scandal shaped America’s westward expansion for decades, arguably the largest case of land fraud in human history, leading to the suffering of millions of Native Americans. Lou Blonger’s Denver underworld Few American conmen are as legendary are Lou Blonger. In his early days, Blonger operated as a small-time scammer, working his way through small towns and mining camps, crossing paths with other old West legends like Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp. Blonger got into the real estate game early, establishing saloons to operate rigged games, using his fast-talking nature to defraud people out of their mining rights, and investing his ill-gotten gains in ranches to breed racehorses. Eventually, Blonger settled in Denver, where he established lucrative fake betting houses. Partnering with the Soapy Smith Gang, Blonger took control of Denver, earning his cut from every deal, legal or otherwise. For nearly 30 years Blonger operated with impunity, lining the pockets of local officials to look the other way. To take him down, Colorado District Attorney Phillip Van Cise circumvented traditional law enforcement, all owned by Blonger. Van Cise solicited private donations to fund a secret force of private citizens, leading to the arrest of 33 men, including Blonger. His vast property empire quickly crumbled, leaving only one small ranch to his wife. The rest of his real estate was covered by federal and state government liens used to collect Blonger’s back taxes and cover the cost of his conviction. Blonger’s cons were too numerous to strictly define him as a real estate scammer, but property played a major role in his decades of fraud. Blonger’s misdeeds are an important reminder that often legal property holdings are used as cover for what’s really going on. Selling the Brooklyn Bridge “I’ve got a bridge to sell you” is a real estate and business idiom used when someone’s being gullible. It has its roots in one of real estate’s most infamous scams. George C. Parker made his living selling property he didn’t own to vulnerable immigrants who didn’t know better. Throughout his criminal career, Parker managed to sell the Statue of Liberty, Madison Square Garden, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Brooklyn Bridge. His fraud was backed by forgery, producing convincing legal documents and deeds for his hapless victims. Parker claimed he sold Brooklyn Bridge twice a week for 30 years. Authorities were tipped off to Parker’s illegal persuasions when one of the bridges ‘new owners’ attempted to start building new toll booths on the bridge. After more than one conviction and an escape attempt, Parker was eventually sentenced to mandatory life in prison based on his inability to stop his criminal activity. Decades after his death, George C. Parker’s fraud is still teaching people a valuable lesson about trust and gullibility in business. In the world of real estate, be wary of big promises, or someone might sell you a bridge. Swampland in Florida “Swampland in Florida” has also become a figure of speech, invoked when a deal isn’t above board. For decades conman after conman has sold freshwater swamps to unwitting investors as a slice of Florida paradise, sight unseen. Charles Ponzi, whose infamy is the namesake of the Ponzi scheme, was one of the first to sell Florida swamplands. After being convicted of mail fraud for other scams, Ponzi jumped bond and headed south, setting up the Charpon Land Syndicate in 1925. Ponzi bought 100 acres of swampland 65 miles west of Jacksonville for $16 an acre. Subdividing each acre into 23 plots, Ponzi launched national advertising campaigns selling plots of Florida’s prosperous land for $10 each. Ponzi’s real estate fraud wasn’t nearly as successful as his other scams, less than six months after founding his fraudulent property company, Ponzi was indicted for violating Flordia’s trust and securities law. Ponzu might have gotten away with it, but his ego couldn’t take anonymity. Already a well-known criminal by the time he started the scam in the Sunshine State, CHAR-les PON-zi’s shell company Charpon wasn’t a very clever cover, tipping off law enforcement. Florida’s legal system is still dealing with land sale scams nearly a century after Ponzi’s arrest. The lesson of the scheme should last just as long as its complication, if not longer: do your due diligence on a property. Not-so-crazy Eddie Turns out Crazy Eddie’s prices were crazy criminal. In wild commercials that bombarded New York’s Tri-State area, Crazy Eddie promised dramatically lower prices than his competition. When manufacturers stopped selling to Crazy Eddie’s because the company wasn’t abiding by the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, Eddie Antar found other ways to source electronics by turning to black market and grey market suppliers. Doing most business in cash, Crazy Eddie kept sales off the books and evaded the sales tax. Crazy Eddie was a pioneer in retail fraud, using register skimming to under-report revenue. He took an automatic 20 percent of all income, sending it to an offshore bank account, laundering much of it through overseas real estate holdings. Crazy Eddie’s retail empire grew, peaking at 43 stores reporting more than $300 million in sales. At such a scale, it was becoming increasingly difficult to hide the layers of crime propping up the business model. Crazy Eddie’s solution was to take the company public, slowly scaling back the skimming. Criminality only increased. Sales fraud, inventory fraud, accounting fraud, money laundering, securities fraud, insider trading, theft, and tax evasion all backed Crazy Eddie’s growing footprint in some of the country’s most prominent retail markets. Crazy Eddie was confident in his ability to get away with everything because he considered auditors to be feckless, he was more concerned with whistleblowers, so he kept the operation tight, employing family members. If Crazy Eddie had kept things in the family, his run may have continued. When going public drew the ire of the SEC, it was only a matter of time before Crazy Eddie’s criminal retail empire was undone. He was eventually sentenced to eight years in prison and more than $1 billion in civil judgments against him. The SEC was able to locate at least $60 million in offshore real estate holdings Antar was using to launder money. With a rap sheet like Eddie Antar’s, it’s a wonder how he got away with it for so long. Antar may have been crazy but he wasn’t dumb, for nearly a decade he used shrewd techniques to perpetrate the largest retail fraud in American history, keeping investigators guessing till the very end. Never underestimate the other party (especially the SEC), no matter how crazy they want you to think they are. Cendant one more time Founded as an affiliate of Blackstone Group, Hospitality Franchise Systems Inc was first used as an investment vehicle to acquire hotel franchises, buying up brands like Howard Johnson’s, Ramada, and Super 8 Motels. After running out of suitable hospitality acquisitions to satiate the firms’ investment appetite, HFS turned to real estate, buying up brokerage houses like Century 21 and Coldwell Banker for hundreds of millions. When HFS merged with CUC International in 1997, rebranding as Cendant, things started to go haywire. An audit done at the behest of the company’s new board of directors revealed CUC’s top executives, including CEO Walter Forbes, had been fraudulently inflating the companies income and assets for several years, to the tune of hundreds of millions in non-existent profits. When the report went public, Cendant’s market cap lost $14 billion, bringing one of the fastest-growing real estate investment firms to its knees. In March 2001, Forbes and other executives were indicted for their role in the massive accounting fraud, ordered to pay $3.2 billion in restitution. History books hardly remember Cendant, a few short months after being convicted of the largest accounting fraud in American history, a company called Enron took over the title and the headlines. Cendant is still around today, doing well in fact. If it hadn’t been for the board’s own audit, the scandal could’ve grown large enough to sink the company. It pays to find and report problems before the authorities do. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fight back Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are federally backed mortgage companies. With one foot in the world of public investment and another in the private sector, corporate responsibility gets fuzzy, conflicts of interest are common and critics have plenty of questions. Fannie and Freddie executives have been fending off accusations, lawsuits, and criminal charges of impropriety for years to varying effect. At the epicenter of the 2008 financial crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds as part of a bailout. Navigating choppy waters and widespread public criticism for its role in the crisis, in 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a conservatorship, one of the largest government interventions in private industry. Backed by federal authority, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac struck back against the firms that defrauded the agencies and fueled the financial crisis. In 2015 a Federal judge ruled Nomura Holding Inc was not truthful with Fannie Mae, paving the way for Fannie Mae to collect damages and penalties from entities that sold the agency subprime securities. The two agencies have collected an estimated $18 billion in penalties from settlements with 18 financial institutions that attempted to defraud the agencies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the targets of unprecedented levels of fraud. They managed not only to survive but thrive. Under conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been lucrative earners for the federal government, bringing in over $100 billion in profit for the U.S. Treasury since the federal takeover. Cooperating with authority has its benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 6:27:20 GMT -5
Anyone can pull up public records that show the actual size of Trump's NYC condo. How can bankers screw that up? An example of bankers' gross negligence: time.com/6696101/trump-ordered-to-pay-364-million-penalty-for-duping-banks-and-others-by-inflating-wealth/In that earlier ruling, the judge found that, among other tricks, Trump’s financial statements had wrongly claimed his Trump Tower penthouse was nearly three times its actual size and overvalued his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, based on the idea that the property could be developed for residential use, even though he had surrendered rights to develop it for any uses but a club. Here's the 'god-awful' and horrible result of his loans that could be called easily have been called 'too big to fail' instead of fraud worth a $350,000,000 verdict/fine... the banks got their money back with interest. People got paid. Government collected taxes. People got jobs. It was an overall win-win. Excerpt: By making himself seem richer, Trump qualified for better loan terms, saved on interest and was able to complete projects he might otherwise not have finished, state lawyers said. And now this... Trump Ordered to Pay $364 Million Penalty for Duping Banks and Others By Inflating Wealth 6 MINUTE READ Donald Trump Attends Pre-Trial Hearing In New York Hush Money Case Former President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City Steven Hirsch—Pool/Getty Images BY MICHAEL R. SISAK, JAKE OFFENHARTZ AND JENNIFER PELTZ/ASSOCIATED PRESSFEBRUARY 16, 2024 3:54 PM EST NEW YORK (AP) — A New York judge ruled Friday against Donald Trump, imposing a $364 million penalty over what the judge ruled was a yearslong scheme to dupe banks and others with financial statements that inflated the former president’s wealth. Trump also was barred from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation for three years. However, the judge backed away from an earlier ruling that would have dissolved the former president’s companies. Trump's lawyers vowed to appeal. Attorney Alina Habba called the verdict “manifest injustice" and “the culmination of a multi-year, politically fueled witch hunt." She and Trump lawyer Christopher Kise said the verdict, if upheld, would damage the business environment. Judge Arthur Engoron issued his decision after a 2½-month trial that saw the Republican presidential front-runner bristling under oath that he was the victim of a rigged legal system. Engoron concluded that Trump and his co-defendants “failed to accept responsibility” for their actions and that expert witnesses who testified for the defense “simply denied reality.” The judge called the civil fraud at the heart of the trial a “venial sin, not a mortal sin.” “They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways,” wrote Engoron, a Democrat. He said their “complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological.” The stiff penalty was a victory for New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, who sued Trump over what she said was not just harmless bragging but years of deceptive practices as he built the multinational collection of skyscrapers, golf courses and other properties that catapulted him to wealth, fame and the White House. Trump’s lawyers had said even before the verdict that they would appeal. James sued Trump in 2022 under a state law that authorizes her to investigate persistent fraud in business dealings. The suit accused Trump and his co-defendants of routinely puffing up his financial statements to create an illusion his properties were more valuable than they really were. State lawyers said Trump exaggerated his wealth by as much as $3.6 billion one year. By making himself seem richer, Trump qualified for better loan terms, saved on interest and was able to complete projects he might otherwise not have finished, state lawyers said. Even before the trial began, Engoron ruled that James had proven Trump’s financial statements were fraudulent. The judge ordered some of Trump’s companies removed from his control and dissolved. An appeals court put that decision on hold. In that earlier ruling, the judge found that, among other tricks, Trump’s financial statements had wrongly claimed his Trump Tower penthouse was nearly three times its actual size and overvalued his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, based on the idea that the property could be developed for residential use, even though he had surrendered rights to develop it for any uses but a club. Trump, one of 40 witnesses to testify at the trial, said his financial statements actually understated his net worth and that banks did their own research and were happy with his business. “There was no victim. There was no anything,” Trump testified in November. During the trial, Trump called the judge “extremely hostile” and the attorney general “a political hack.” In a six-minute diatribe during closing arguments in January, Trump proclaimed “I am an innocent man” and called the case a “fraud on me.” Trump and his lawyers have said the outside accountants that helped prepare the statements should’ve flagged any discrepancies and that the documents came with disclaimers that shielded him from liability. They also argued that some of the allegations were barred by the statute of limitations. The suit is one of many legal headaches for Trump as he campaigns for a return to the White House. He has been indicted four times in the last year — accused in Georgia and Washington, D.C., of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, in Florida of hoarding classified documents, and in Manhattan of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels on his behalf. On Thursday, a judge confirmed Trump’s hush-money trial will start on March 25 and a judge in Atlanta heard arguments on whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from his Georgia election interference case because she had a personal relationship with a special prosecutor she hired. Those criminal accusations haven’t appeared to undermine his march toward the Republican presidential nomination, but civil litigation has threatened him financially. On Jan. 26, a jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. That’s on top of the $5 million a jury awarded Carroll in a related trial last year. In 2022, the Trump Organization was convicted of tax fraud and fined $1.6 million in an unrelated criminal case for helping executives dodge taxes on extravagant perks such as Manhattan apartments and luxury cars. James had asked the judge to impose a penalty of at least $370 million. Engoron decided the case because neither side sought a jury and state law doesn’t allow for juries for this type of lawsuit. Because it was civil, not criminal in nature, the case did not carry the potential of prison time. James, who campaigned for office as a Trump critic and watchdog, started scrutinizing his business practices in March 2019 after his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that Trump exaggerated his wealth on financial statements provided to Deutsche Bank while trying to obtain financing to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills. James’ office previously sued Trump for misusing his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to an array of charities as a fine and the charity, the Trump Foundation, was shut down. Trump incorporated the Trump Organization in New York in 1981. He still owns it, but he put his assets into a revocable trust and gave up his positions as the company’s director, president and chairman when he became president, leaving management of the company to sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. Trump did not return to a stated leadership position upon leaving the White House in 2021, but his sons testified he’s been involved in some decision making. Engoron had already appointed a monitor, retired federal judge Barbara Jones, to keep an eye on the company. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 6:46:48 GMT -5
Trump Org. fined $1.6 million after conviction for 17 felonies, including tax fraud By Kara Scannell and Nicki Brown, CNN, Updated 2:16 PM EST, Fri January 13, 2023 www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics/trump-org-sentencing/index.htmlNEW YORK, NY - FEBRUARY 15: Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City. Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records last year, which prosecutors say was an effort to hide a potential sex scandal, both before and after the 2016 presidential election. Judge Juan Manuel Merchan is expected to rule whether the trial will begin as scheduled on March 25. (Photo by Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images) — The Trump Organization was fined $1.6 million – the maximum possible penalty – by a New York judge Friday for running a decade-long tax fraud scheme, a symbolic moment because it is the only judgment for a criminal conviction that has come close to former President Donald Trump. Two Trump entities, The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp., were convicted last month of 17 felonies, including tax fraud and falsifying business records. Under New York law, the most the companies can be fined is about $1.6 million, a penalty the Trump Organization can easily afford. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 17: Former CFO Allen Weisselberg leaves the courtroom for a lunch recess during a trial at the New York Supreme Court on November 17, 2022 in New York City. The Trump Organization is charged with criminal tax fraud, falsifying business records, and filing false tax returns in a scheme to defraud the state. Former CFO Weisselberg, who is on his second day of testimony, has pleaded guilty to 15 criminal charges as part of the probe and is expected to testify against his former employer. The case is unrelated to the civil case being brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James against the Trump Organization. Allen Weisselberg, former Trump Org. CFO, sentenced to 5 months in jail Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Judge Juan Merchan to make the Trump Org. pay the maximum fine, though he admitted that it will have a “minimal impact” on a multibillion-dollar company. “We all know that these corporations cannot go to jail as Allen Weisselberg has,” Steinglass said Friday, referring to the Trump Organization’s long-time chief financial officer who was sentenced to five months in jail earlier this week as part of a deal he reached with prosecutors. “The only way to effectively deter such conduct is to make it as expensive as possible.” New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, told CNN that the fine against the Trump Org. is important but he also wants lawmakers to raise the fines for companies that break the law. “It’s important regardless of who the defendant is, because it’s cheating and greed and cheating the taxpayers,” Bragg said. “It obviously becomes more consequential given that it involved the former president’s corporation and CFO. It sends a message – I hope it sends a message to New Yorkers that you know we’re one system of justice and that this kind of conduct, regardless of who you are, won’t be countenanced in Manhattan.” But, Bragg said, the fine isn’t enough of a penalty. “It isn’t sufficient. Plain and simple,” Bragg said, saying the law should “reflect what I think many of us see, particularly those who sat through the trial and saw the 13 year you know pattern of deep greed and misconduct laid bare, we should have stiffer penalties for conduct like that.” The Trump Org. entities have 14 days to pay the fine. The real estate business is not at risk of being dismantled because there is no mechanism under the law to dissolve the company. No individual will go to jail based on the jury’s verdict. However, a felony conviction could impact the Trump Organization’s reputation and ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts. Trump and his family were not charged in this case, but the former president was mentioned repeatedly during the trial by prosecutors about his connection to the un-taxed benefits doled out to certain executives, including company-funded apartments, car leases and personal expenses. One prosecutor said Trump “explicitly sanctioned” tax fraud. One of the jurors told CNN that the jury saw a “culture of fraud,” at the Trump Organization, but referred to Trump as a nondescript “Bob Smith” at times when talking about the company owner’s awareness of the crimes in relation to the charges. Weisselberg last year pleaded guilty to 15 felonies related to the tax fraud scheme and agreed to testify truthfully against the company at trial. The entrance to Trump Tower on 5th Avenue is pictured in the Manhattan borough of New York City, U.S., June 30, 2021. Trump Org. fraud trial juror tells CNN the panel was 'serious' and didn't focus on Donald Trump He remained on paid leave at the Trump Organization, where he was compensated a little more than $1 million a year, until Tuesday when he was sentenced. Weisselberg received a severance package that one person familiar with the deal called “generous.” Merchan, who sentenced Weisselberg, said at the time that but for the deal he would have given Weisselberg more time in jail after listening to the evidence at trial. Merchan said he found most “offensive” a $6,000 payroll check Weisselberg had made out to his wife, who never worked for Trump, so she could become eligible for Social Security benefits. A Trump Org. spokesperson said that Weisselberg “is a victim,” as is the company and former president. “New York has become the crime and murder capital of the world, yet these politically motivated prosecutors will stop at nothing to get President Trump and continue the never ending witch-hunt which began the day he announced his presidency,” the spokesperson said. “We did nothing wrong and we will appeal this verdict.” Not over yet The Manhattan district attorney’s office continues to investigate the company’s business practices. Prosecutors are conducting a wide-ranging investigation and in recent months their focus has returned to the company’s involvement in hush-money payments made to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels from going public with an affair with Trump just before the 2016 election, people familiar with the matter said. Trump has denied the affair. Prosecutors are also looking into potential insurance fraud after new material came to light from the New York attorney general’s civil investigation into the accuracy of the Trump Organization’s financial statements, the people said. The biggest threat currently facing the company could be New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil lawsuit, which has alleged Trump, his three eldest children, Weisselberg and others defrauded lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of multiple Trump Org. properties for more than a decade. Copies of former President Donald Trump and former first lady Melania Trump individual tax returns for 2017, released by the Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee, are photographed Friday, Dec. 30, 2022. The returns, which include redactions of some personal sensitive information such as Social Security and bank account numbers, span nearly 6,000 pages, including more than 2,700 pages of individual returns, and more than 3,000 pages in returns for Trump's business entities. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick) Unanswered questions about Trump's tax returns In addition to money, James, a Democrat, is seeking to permanently bar Trump and the children named in the lawsuit from serving as a director of a business registered in New York state. She is also seeking to cancel the Trump Organization’s corporate certificate, which if granted by a judge, could effectively force the company to cease operations in New York state. The judge overseeing the lawsuit put an independent monitor in place to review the Trump Organization’s financial statements and business decisions. He recently denied motions to dismiss the case and said he considered sanctioning Trump’s attorneys. The trial is set for October. Trump has denied wrongdoing and said the lawsuit is politically motivated. This story has been updated with additional details. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 7:28:14 GMT -5
Countrywide Gave Lawmakers, Officials Hundreds Of Discount Loans JULY 5, 2012 - By Mark Memmott www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/07/05/156286960/countrywide-gave-lawmakers-officials-hundreds-of-discount-loansCountrywide Financial Corp., the one-time mortgage giant, may have "skirted the federal bribery statute," but nonetheless used a VIP discount program to gain influence in Washington, a report from the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee concludes. We first posted on this news, broken earlier by The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal, at 9 a.m. ET. Since then, the committee's report has been released. Read through to see our original post and the update with links and excerpts from the committee's work: Our original post. Today's scoop from The Associated Press: "The former Countrywide Financial Corp., whose subprime loans helped start the nation's foreclosure crisis, made hundreds of discount loans to buy influence with members of Congress, congressional staff, top government officials and executives of troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, according to a House report." The Wall Street Journal has a piece of the story as well: "A controversial program at Countrywide Financial Corp., offering loans to 'VIPs' on favorable terms, spread to Congress in part because congressional staffers complained about their Countrywide mortgages to the company's lobbyist, according to a new report by a House committee." The Journal adds that "the findings are part of a final report on the VIP program issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, headed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). ... The House report, expected to be released publicly Thursday, said the VIP program was used to 'build goodwill with lawmakers and other individuals positioned to benefit the company.' " The AP says Democrats and Republicans are among those cited in the report as having received the discounts in recent years. The House committee's website is here. We'll update after the report appears. Update at 10:30 a.m. ET. The Report Is Out. Did Countrywide "Skirt" The Law? In a statement now posted on his committee's website, Issa says "the committe's investigation found Countrywide lobbyists and CEO Angelo Mozilo used discounted loans as a tool to ingratiate itself with policymakers in an effort to benefit the company's business interests." The report goes on to state that Countrywide, which has since by absorbed by Bank of America, may not have broken any laws because it may have "skirted the federal bribery statute": "According to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), 'whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official . . . with intent to influence an official act' shall be fined, imprisoned, or both. The Justice Department has not prosecuted any Countrywide official for actions related to the VIP loan program. Documents and testimony show that Angelo Mozilo and Countrywide's lobbyists may have skirted the federal bribery statute by keeping conversations about discounts and other forms of preferential treatment internal. Rather than making quid pro quo arrangements with lawmakers and staff, Countrywide used the VIP loan program to cast a wide net of influence." Mozilo, as the committee adds, responded to its questions in writing. He said he did not recall discussing the VIP loan program with any lawmakers who took advantage of it. Also, he wrote that "it was not the purpose of the VIP program to establish relationships with borrowers who had the potential to influence policy, law and public image. I did believe that high-profile borrowers could enhance the company's public image." In another response, Mozilo says he "was proud to have people of prominence select Countrywide to be their lender of choice." Today's report also notes that in March 2009, committee Republicans (then in the minority) issued a report describing: "Countrywide's effort to establish and develop relationships with potentially influential borrowers in government and industry. Of the 32 people named in the report, 16 had not been previously reported. They included industry lobbyists, law enforcement officials, and employees of Fannie Mae, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Los Angeles Times. "The report also thoroughly examined the loans given to the politically influential borrowers previously reported by Portfolio and other media outlets. In addition to [former Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin] Raines, this group contained notable Democrats such as Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Richard Holbrooke. The report also examined the VIP loans given to Republicans John Potter, Alphonso Jackson, and California State Appellate Judge Richard Aldrich." |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 7:29:16 GMT -5
Excerpt: Bankers who disagree with the president charge more for loans Partisanship is hitting American companies in the pocket, according to new research  Oct 26th 2020 www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/26/bankers-who-disagree-with-the-president-charge-more-for-loansIT IS NO secret that bipartisanship has fallen out of favour in America in recent decades. In the mid-1900s swing voters comprised about a tenth of the electorate; these days just one voter in 20 considers both Democratic and Republican candidates. Such political polarisation has been blamed for many of society’s ills—from an erosion of trust in government to an increase in quarrels at family gatherings. But less attention has been paid to the economic impact of political discord. According to a new working paper, partisanship makes borrowing more expensive for American firms—and the effect gets worse around elections. Researchers from Indiana University and the University of Rochester examined almost 3,000 syndicated loans, with a combined value of nearly $2.5trn, issued between 1998 and 2019. They then matched the bankers in charge of underwriting the loans—who were identified using information contained in SEC filings—with voting records from LexisNexis, a subscription database service, to determine their political party affiliations at the time the loans were issued. The researchers found that bankers whose political beliefs differed from those of the president charged companies more to borrow money than those who supported the party in control of the White House, levying 7% higher spreads (the rate of interest compared with the cost of the money) on average. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 7:39:10 GMT -5
The Celebrity Effect: How Stars Increase a Property’s Profile and Add Air of Exclusivity Star endorsements lead to publicity, but not necessarily a premium sales price BY ANNE MACHALINSKI - ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 18, 2017 www.mansionglobal.com/articles/the-celebrity-effect-how-stars-increase-a-property-s-profile-and-add-air-of-exclusivity-71821 MANSION GLOBAL An exterior view of the oceanfront Malibu villa that Drake and Rihanna stayed COURTESY OF THE AGENCY In the final days of last summer, Drake and Rihanna made waves when they hunkered down for some R&R in what TMZ called "an oceanfront villa fit for honeymoonin’." While that relationship didn’t last long (and Drake is now linked to Young Money label mate Nicki Minaj), the press had a lasting effect on the other stunner in that story: the $29 million Malibu love nest where they stayed. "When news broke of Drake and Rihanna vacationing at one of my listings in Malibu, interest shot up," said The Agency’s Angel Kou in an email, noting that the property rents for $5,000 per day. "People like to experience what A-listers experience, to get a glimpse of that glitz and glam." An interior view of the beach front villa that Drake and Rihanna stayed in September 2016. Courtesy of The Agency The same desire to either get close to celebrities or live how they live also drives interest to luxury real estate listings when a celebrity has lived there; currently lives there, in the case of apartment buildings or vacation communities; or has endorsed a property in some way, either by looking at real estate in a new development or throwing a party at an existing listing. But does this increased interest in luxury property listings translate to an increased sales price or shorter sales timeline? Not necessarily, experts say. Although when a property is priced right, some celebrity attachment might help it stand out from the competition so that the right buyer sees it that may not otherwise have done so. More: What Luxury Buyers Need to Know About the Appraisal Process Douglas Elliman brokers Tom Postilio and Mickey Conlon, who are based in Manhattan, call this the "halo effect," in which people hear about a listing, sometimes many months after some press about a celebrity owner or celebrity-fronted event runs, which eventually translates into a sale. "Sometimes people catch little snippets about a property as they’re doing their research," Mr. Conlon said, "and together, it creates some cache for a property, and some urgency about the need to move quickly because everyone else has access to this information too." When celebrities lived in a property The type of celebrity connection that seems to have the smallest impact on property sales is when a celebrity used to live somewhere. For instance, Rick Pretsfelder, a partner at Manhattan-based real estate firm Leslie J. Garfield & Co. said that when he sold Dustin Hoffman’s apartment about five years ago in the San Remo, a building that sits on Central Park between West 74th and 75th streets, it didn’t factor at all into the purchaser’s decision. "This was a high-quality piece of real estate in a beautiful building," Mr. Pretsfelder said, "but the fact that a celebrity lived in the unit did not make any difference to the buyers." The same was generally true when the former townhouses of Martin Scorsese and Katharine Hepburn sold without any discernable premium. "This is info that a buyer may share at a cocktail party, but the celebrity connection wasn’t a huge factor," Mr. Pretsfelder said. More:Staging’s a Necessary Expense When Selling Luxury Real Estate Part of the reason a past celebrity owner doesn’t make a big impact is that their names don’t often get out there; they’re often having brokers and other real estate pros sign non-disclosure agreements. "When we have someone who’s famous attached to our projects, it helps us do our job," Mr. Pretsfelder said, "but in most cases, the more well known the person is, the more likely he or she will be to expect discretion." When a celebrity endorses a property An event with a celebrity host or guest, where they’re game for the press, can sometimes lead to more industry interest, experts say. That was certainly the case when Heidi Klum and her entourage used the 94 Thompson St. penthouse in Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood as their dressing room and pre-party locale before a Halloween party, bringing a tremendous amount of visibility to the $15.95 million listing, Mr. Postilio and Mr. Conlon said. "The press was epic, and included coverage in at least 25 or 30 different publications, from Page Six to Architectural Digest," Mr. Postilio said. With that visibility, Heidi Klum’s name also added an air of sex appeal and exclusivity. "Of all the places she could have chosen to get ready, she chose this one," he continued, "and this led to increased interest in the property." But 10 months later, the apartment remains unsold, and no celebrity endorsement would change that, Mr. Conlon added. "Unless the celebrity is included in the sale, I don’t think anybody really cares to pay more because of a celebrity connection," he said, noting that much of the increased interest after the event came from people who were just trying to get closer to Ms. Klum, and weren’t deemed serious buyers after preliminary interviews. More:How to Spot a Good Investment in a Changing Neighborhood RELATED STORIES Buyers Can Finally Snag a Deal in the World’s Most Expensive Housing Market House on Stilts That Hosted John Lennon, Stevie Nicks and Other Stars Lists in L.A. for $2 Million Cate Blanchett Is Selling Her Leafy Melbourne Home The duo had slightly more luck when they were the fourth brokers enlisted to sell Joan Collins’s midtown Manhattan apartment in August 2012. When coming up with their marketing strategy, they called in the "Dynasty" star herself to host a party for industry folks, friends and other influencers. Within a short while after that party, the team had multiple bids over the asking price, which they weren’t expecting. "That’s when you know this sort of event has an effect," Mr. Conlon said. "People were paying attention, and it was worth the effort." A similar event with a charity spin also led to increased interest and an eventual sale—albeit one about six months after the celeb-sponsored event—when Grammy Award-winning jazz saxophonist David Sanborn sold his Upper West Side townhouse a few years ago. While he didn’t want to be paraded around to sell his house, he agreed to host an event benefitting the March of Dimes—a charity that he has a personal connection to—in which he talked about the property. "The proof in the pudding is that the eventual buyer mentioned some of that coverage and that story," Mr. Postilio said. "It was clear that it had reached them in some way and had a lasting impression." More: A Magnet for A-List Buyers, Downtown Manhattan Building Puts Privacy First Big names to position brands Within the same category but of a different ilk are celebrity events tied to a property, but not meant to necessarily promote sales. This was the case when Alicia Keys performed at Miami’s Porsche Design Tower launch in March, and when Andrea Bocelli performed at an April benefit for the children of Haiti tied to the Residences by Armani/Casa, set to open in 2019. Both private events were held by the buildings’ developer, Gil Dezer, the president of Miami-based Dezer Development. "The goal of both these parties was to give back to our owners," Mr. Dezer said, "and to show them what it’s like to live in our buildings." Rendering of the penthouse at Porsche Tower in Miami. METROSTUDIO.COM Whether these events lead to any additional sales isn’t the point, he said, which is a good thing, because there’s no way to track if they did, he said. "It’s all about the product positioning at the end of the day," Mr. Dezer said, "and creating an aura about the building that people want to be a part of." "We’re dealing with wealthy people who aren’t necessarily star struck, and have likely lived by celebrities in the past," he said. "This is par for the course for them at this point." More:Pricing a Property Based on Comps is Still the Rule—Unless It’s Incomparable When a celebrity currently lives in a property or neighborhood Celebrities buying in a new development or living in a building where there are additional units available is another way buyers might be enticed to purchase there too. But oftentimes, it seems that this sort of set up attracts more celebrities than it does lay people, Mr. Pretsfelder said. "Celebrities are often looking to buy a home where there’s privacy and other residents with common interests," he said. "Purchasing in a building where there are other celebrity tenants provides that stamp of approval." A perfect example of this is 443 Greenwich, a converted warehouse in Manhattan’s Tribeca that’s also a hot bed of celebrity activity, where Jake Gyllenhaal, Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, Jennifer Lawrence, and Harry Styles all have reportedly purchased apartments. One of the big draws in this building is a gated, 24/7-monitored basement garage that offers complete privacy. "This is probably the most beautiful underground parking lot that you’ll see in your life," Mr. Postilio said, noting that it also allows celebrities to float under the radar a bit without paparazzi hanging outside their front door. "At this point, all you need to have is the cash and the Oscar or Emmy to gain admission to that club," he added. 443 Greenwich is billed as “paparazzi proof” and has a main lobby, pictured here, and an ultra-secure garage-level lobby. COURTESY OF METRO LOFT More:Star-Studded Tribeca Building Defies Trend by Raising Prices Although on a much larger scale, celebrity property owners can also impact a neighborhood’s profile and contribute to increased prices, according to the Leslie J. Garfield New York City Townhouse Report. The report notes that specific blocks, like East 10th Street, where Mary-Kate Olsen, David Schwimmer and Molly Ringwald live, and the Greenwich Village area between Fifth Avenue and University Place, where Sarah Jessica Parker and Leonardo DiCaprio own properties, have townhouses that sell at double digit premiums compared to other similar areas, perhaps due to their association with or proximity to these known personalities. "When a big-name celebrity moves into a neighborhood, it gives the neighborhood some credibility and tells buyers that this must be a nice place to live if this well-known person lives here too," Mr. Pretsfelder said. But, like anything related to celebrities and real estate, you can’t prove causation between big name residents and improved sales, Mr. Pretsfelder said, noting that there are many other factors at play. Mr. Conlon agreed. "There isn’t any direct correlation between a celebrity living in a neighborhood and increased prices," he said, "but if you live by someone famous, inevitably you’ll bump into them on the street and see them at your favorite coffee shop. It’s like being a member of a club." In Los Angeles, Mr. Kou said foreign buyers are the ones who seem the most drawn to celebrities and want to know where they live. "They see them in the media and on the big screen, but rarely in person," he said, which can easily change if they live in the same neighborhood. More: Blocks with Michelin and A-list Stars Command Higher Prices Within exclusive communities, mentioning who currently lives there or previously lived there adds an extra level of exclusivity that appeals to some buyers, he said. A final way celebrities are connected to luxury real estate is when they’re just spotted looking at a listing, or rumored to be moving into a new development, like George and Amal Clooney were rumored to be moving into the development at 100 E. 53rd Street in Midtown Manhattan. "Sometimes just looking is interesting enough to garner some press," Mr. Conlon said. "People may think, ‘if they’re looking there, why aren’t I looking there, too?’" he said. But buyer beware: these tales aren’t always true. "This is often just the way of marketing a building," Mr. Pretsfelder said, and "especially in the world of condos, it can be a very effective way of increasing interest." |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 7:57:09 GMT -5
Compare a real crime responsible for billions of dollars worth of real-world losses that created a world financial crisis crime in which there had to 100's of culpable accomplices and only one person in the USA was convicted and he admitted it. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that inflated bonds backed by inflated property valuations have been responsible for $542 billion in write-downs at financial institutions since the beginning of the credit crisis. And now this... Former Credit Suisse Managing Director Pleads Guilty In Connection With Scheme To Hide Losses In Mortgage-Backed Securities Trading Book Friday, April 12, 2013 Shareright caret For Immediate Release U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York Kareem Serageldin And His Co-Conspirators Concealed As Much As A Half-Billion Dollars From Subprime Mortgage-Related Losses Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, today announced the guilty plea of KAREEM SERAGELDIN, the former Managing Director/Global Head of Structured Credit in the Investment Banking Division of Credit Suisse Group (“Credit Suisse”). SERAGELDIN was extradited from the United Kingdom on Friday, April 5, 2013, to face charges that he fraudulently inflated the prices of asset-backed bonds in Credit Suisse’s trading book in late 2007 and early 2008. The bonds were comprised of subprime residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) and commercial mortgage backed securities (“CMBS”). Once discovered, SERAGELDIN’s manipulation of these bond prices contributed to Credit Suisse taking a $2.65 billion write-down of its 2007 year-end financial result. He pled guilty to conspiring to falsify the books and records of Credit Suisse before U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. As a result of his manipulation, SERAGELDIN was able to secure significant year-end bonuses since the trading book’s profitability was one of the factors in determining bonus amounts. His 2007 bonus was over $1.7 million and his Incentive Share Unit Award was more than $5.2 million. The latter was rescinded after Credit Suisse discovered the alleged fraud. SERAGELDIN’s co-conspirators, David Higgs and Salmaan Siddiqui, previously pled guilty and are cooperating with the government’s investigation. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “While the real estate market was imploding and the financial crisis emerging, Kareem Serageldin and his co-conspirators concealed significant subprime mortgage-related losses in order to secure multi-million dollar paydays. Serageldin’s extradition to face charges for his role in this conspiracy and the guilty plea he entered today demonstrate, once again, that no one is above the law.” The following allegations are based on the Indictment filed against SERAGELDIN and the Informations to which Higgs and Siddiqui pled guilty: SERAGELDIN was employed at Credit Suisse as a Managing Director. He held the position of Global Head of the Structured Credit Group in the Securities Department of Credit Suisse’s Investment Banking Division, and divided his time between the company’s New York and London offices. The Structured Credit Group held and traded ABS (“Asset Backed Security”) cash bonds, which included RMBS and CMBS. SERAGELDIN oversaw and managed a number of trading books, including a trading book known as “ABN1.” The ABN1 book was comprised primarily of several thousand individual long and short subprime-related positions, and also included other securities. The long positions consisted of, among other things, various types of cash securities, including AAA-rated and non-AAA-rated cash bonds. Until March 2008, ABN1 had a net asset value of approximately $5.35 billion, approximately $3.71 billion of which consisted of ABS cash bonds, including RMBS and CMBS positions. Pricing of Mortgage-Backed Securities Credit Suisse traders were required at all relevant times to price securities they held at their fair value, that is, on a “mark-to-market” basis, which was determined by reference to either the current market price of the asset or liability, or the current price for a similar asset or liability. In the absence of a liquid market, Credit Suisse traders were required to look to other indicia in order to determine the fair value of the assets on their books. During this time, the ABX Index served as a benchmark for certain securities backed by home loans. It was widely understood within Credit Suisse that traders were to consult the corresponding ABX indices when pricing RMBS bonds and related products. The Bond Pricing Scheme The deterioration throughout 2007 of the real estate market in the United States, including the subprime housing market, led to significant reductions in valuations of mortgage-backed securities. As mortgage delinquencies increased across the country, the value of the securities backed by these mortgages decreased and the market for them became increasingly illiquid. By late November 2007, SERAGELDIN was aware that the market for mortgage-backed securities had declined enormously. On November 28, 2007, SERAGELDIN told Higgs, Siddiqui, and a co-conspirator (“CC-1”) that “the housing market [was] going down the tubes” and that they had to “find a way to sell these bonds,” i.e., mortgage-backed bonds in ABN1. As SERAGELDIN recognized, “[t]hose bonds are going to start trading worse than the [ABX] Index.” SERAGELDIN and his co-conspirators did not sell the bonds because the market prices for the bonds were substantially below the inflated value at which they marked the bonds. From August 2007 through February 2008, SERAGELDIN, Higgs, Siddiqui, and their co-conspirators artificially increased the price of bonds in order to create the false appearance of profitability in the ABN1 trading book. Specifically, SERAGELDIN directed Higgs on numerous occasions to reach specific Profit & Loss (“P&L”) targets on a daily and month-end basis. Higgs, in turn, instructed Siddiqui and another unnamed co-conspirator to mark the books so as to achieve the particular P&L targets specified by SERAGELDIN, rather than to reflect the fair value of the bonds. In order to reach specific P&L targets, SERAGELDIN, Higgs, Siddiqui, and their co-conspirators marked up bond prices without regard to fair market value; improperly offset mark-downs with gains realized in other parts of the book to avoid a P&L impact; and engaged in the practice of “reversing out,” which involved freezing marks at a favorable point in time to achieve a desired P&L result. In addition, as part of their scheme, SERAGELDIN, Higgs, Siddiqui, and their co-conspirators concealed their manipulation of bond marks from internal control personnel within Credit Suisse who were charged with independently ensuring the accuracy of bond prices, and they devised other ways to avoid detection of their fraud. Credit Suisse’s ABN1 Trading Book Was Falsely Inflated as a Result of the Scheme As a result of the scheme, there was a growing disparity between the values ascribed to the marks in the ABN1 book and the available external benchmarks, such as the ABX Index. From August 2007 through the end of that year, as ABX Index prices fell, bond prices in ABN1 that were supposed to reflect the ABX Index remained effectively stable, thereby giving the false impression to Credit Suisse senior management that the ABN1 book was profitable. On one occasion in January 2008, SERAGELDIN expressed concern to Higgs that the overpriced bonds were at risk of being discovered: “We should mark these down because someone is going to spot this,” he said. The February 2008 Mark-Down On March 20, 2008, Credit Suisse issued a press release which announced completion of its internal review and stated that the fair value reduction, or write-down, of the ABS positions – which included but was not limited to the ABNl book – was approximately $2.65 billion. Approximately $540 million of this write-down was attributable to the ABN1 trading book and included ABS cash bonds for the fourth quarter 2007 that SERAGELDIN manipulated and inflated in connection with his scheme. SERAGELDIN, 39, a citizen of the United Kingdom, faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. He is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Hellerstein on August, 2, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Bharara praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance in the investigation of this case. This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorney Eugene Ingoglia is in charge of the prosecution. This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, please visit www.stopfraud.gov. |
|
|
|
Post by bjspokanimal on Feb 18, 2024 13:03:28 GMT -5
All of the Trump trials are being launched by the left so they are timed precisely with the election campaign season. This is essentially the way they intend to win the election... in the most liberal courtroom jurisdictions they can sue the hell out of the guy in between now and November, for any kind of case they can dream up. They are essentially creating a whole new, un-democratic way of determining who the next president will be with as little voter influence as possible. The democrat-socialists have been trending this way toward less democracy for years via "super delegates" and other such authoritarian tactics. Just ask Bernie Sanders about how they rail-roaded Biden right past him 4 years ago. Ironically, the democrat-socialists brand Republicans as un-democratic, just as they're now trying to say that the GOP is anti southern border control. With the mainstream media behind them, a lot of low-information voters will likely swallow all of this B.S.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 18, 2024 15:55:04 GMT -5
Ironically, the democrat-socialists brand Republicans as un-democratic, just as they're now trying to say that the GOP is anti southern border control. With the mainstream media behind them, a lot low-information voters will likely swallow all of this B.S. I’m hearing more and more people voice their displeasure with Joe Biden regarding our insecure borders and overwhelmed medical, schools, welfare systems, and budgets. They are blaming Joe. |
|
|
|
Post by bjspokanimal on Feb 18, 2024 21:58:48 GMT -5
@ blitz; re: they are blaming Joe... and the media is increasingly, but in halting fashion, more willing to report news about Biden that is not favorable to him as the democrat-socialist party begins to voice pockets of doubt about him. Democrat voters favor him over all other potential democrats even though when posed the question of age, they say he's too old. To field another candidate, the democrat-socialist authoritarian apparatus will have to do what it did to Bernie 4 years ago and what it is doing to Trump now, and that is to eliminate him in an extremely un-democratic, authoritarian way. It would be as effective as what Putin just did to his political opponent, short of murdering him. Like Putin, however, they seek to imprison Trump, just as Putin did his opponent, to ensure that they defeat him with whatever candidate they choose to run, without interference from the voters that they seek to render powerless in the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjspokanimal on Feb 19, 2024 12:06:11 GMT -5
Just read another article today slamming the GOP as undemocratic even though the democrat-socialist party is the party that "demonstrates" authoritarianism over democracy on a regular basis (see above). It's interesting how the left always takes their worst attributes and tries to pin them in the right, rather than emphasizing their own plans and initiatives. It's a sign that they're worried most about their worst attributes. My democrat-socialist Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, harp on and on about the "undemocratic right" and "abortion", even though they're fully on board with their party's authoritarianism and abortion couldn't be more legal than it is in Washington State.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 19, 2024 12:36:06 GMT -5
@ blitz; re: they are blaming Joe... and the media is increasingly, but in halting fashion, more willing to report news about Biden that is not favorable to him as the democrat-socialist party begins to voice pockets of doubt about him. Democrat voters favor him over all other potential democrats even though when posed the question of age, they say he's too old. To field another candidate, the democrat-socialist authoritarian apparatus will have to do what it did to Bernie 4 years ago and what it is doing to Trump now, and that is to eliminate him in an extremely un-democratic, authoritarian way. It would be as effective as what Putin just did to his political opponent, short of murdering him. Like Putin, however, they seek to imprison Trump, just as Putin did his opponent, to ensure that they defeat him with whatever candidate they choose to run, without interference from the voters that they seek to render powerless in the matter. Bob Costas Says If Biden’s ‘Hubris’ Won’t Let Him Step Aside Then He Must ‘Be Shown The Door’ By Dems Caleb Howe - Feb 10th, 2024, 3:50 pm www.mediaite.com/tv/bob-costas-says-if-bidens-hubris-wont-let-him-step-aside-then-he-must-be-shown-the-door-by-dems/Emmy-winning sportscaster and journalist Bob Costas believes that if President Joe Biden can’t put aside his “hubris” and step away as the Democratic nominee for 2024, then he needs to be “shown the door” by the party, or else the American people will suffer. The legendary sportscaster was joined by author and Atlantic writer Caitlin Flanagan as guests on the most recent episode of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher Friday, during which they discussed among other topics the damning report from Special Counsel Robert Hur that has, according to Democrat strategist Paul Begala and CNN’s Audie Cornish, sent the Biden camp into a bed-wetting sleeplessness and panic over the report’s conclusions about the president and his competence and fitness. Maher brought up the topic by mentioning how he’s previously editorialized about “Ruth Bader Biden” having “stayed too long,” and mentioned recent gaffes and the fact that Biden is skipping the Super Bowl interview (something that had Jake Tapper asking what Biden’s “afraid of” this week), but then criticizing the report for noting those mental acuity issues. Maher said that Republicans are using the report “brilliantly” to continue raising those issues that voters have consistently shown trouble them in poll after poll. Costas pointed out that just because Fox News and Republicans take advantage of that, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. “when it comes to Biden, this is like the truth that no one, until very recently wants to say out loud,” said Costas. “But my friends will tell you, I’ve been saying it for four years. This is Emperor’s New Clothes stuff.” “Joe Biden should have run on a firm promise that he would be a one term president. The only reason he is president is that he’s not Donald Trump,” Costas said. “Then the Dems could have gotten a lot of people up in the bullpen, and they could have sorted through those people.” Costas then laid it out with a hard line. “If Biden’s hubris is such that he doesn’t understand the best interests of his party and more important, his country, then he has to be shown the door.” he stated as the crowd applauded. “Period.” Maher noted that while Bided did not explicitly state he would only serve one term, it seemed heavily implied, and added that there’s still time to replace Biden on the ticket, even up to the day before the election. COSTAS: But just. Just because the Republicans and Fox News and all the tributaries that come off of that will overstate it, turn a blind out of the fact that Trump, who has always been an unprincipled and reprehensible person, is now a ranting lunatic who has mental gaffes of his own. So it’s it’s a selective truth, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Right? And when it comes to Biden, this is like the truth that no one, until very recently wants to say out loud. But my friends will tell you, I’ve been saying it for four years. This is Emperor’s New Clothes stuff. Joe Biden should have run on a firm promise that he would be a one term president. The only reason he is president is that he’s not Donald Trump. Then the Dems could have gotten a lot of people up in the bullpen, and they could have sorted through those people. If Biden’s hubris is such that he doesn’t understand the best interests of his party and more important, his country, then he has to be shown the door. Period. Because if Trump is a threat to democracy, and in many ways he is, so too are the Dems who are in danger of being as feckless as the Republicans have long been shameless. If they’re going to send this guy out there, if Trump is a monster, and in many ways he is, you’re going to send this guy out to slay the dragon? I don’t think so. MAHER: And by the way, he did not run on a promise. He did not run on a promise not to run again, but he did run on a big hint. He said, I see myself as a bridge. COSTAS: Right? MAHER: That’s collapsing. COSTAS: Yeah. MAHER: No, but I see myself as a bridge. I read that as one term. Okay. And I guess the question now is, is it too late? And I don’t think it is, because I still think you can do it at the convention. I don’t — and people have said to me, ‘oh, that’s ridiculous they’ll look like’ — they’ll look like nothing. Nobody gives a damn what you do at the convention. MAHER: They’d be thrilled if they did it the day before the election. You could switch him out at the convention. COSTAS: You could. MAHER: And he could say, well, look, you know, I’ve had a health issue or whatever I want to spend more… FLANAGAN: he – because he didn’t really have to run much in the primaries. He doesn’t have delegates to give to someone else that the party would come together and say. MAHER: Well, if a guy says, I can’t run, then you have to do it, then it has to be somebody else, that it’s an open convention. We’ve had open conventions many times. COSTAS: Different scenario a long time ago. But when Johnson in March, after a close primary with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire, when Johnson said, I’m not going to run for another term, then Humphrey stepped up. MAHER: Yes,. COSTAS: RFK, a tragedy ensued. He stepped up. There’s plenty of time. MAHER: Yes. They make it up as they go along anyway, it’s politics. Watch the clip above via Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 22, 2024 7:24:13 GMT -5
I'm aligned with most voters on this point... And now this... Most voters say Biden, Trump both mentally unfit for 2nd term, poll finds Tim Balk, New York Daily News - Wed, February 21, 2024 news.yahoo.com/most-voters-biden-trump-both-225000542.html American voters are broadly skeptical that President Joe Biden is mentally fit to serve a second term, and most do not think his potential general election rival Donald Trump is mentally fit either, according to a Quinnipiac University poll published Wednesday. Sixty-four percent of respondents in the poll said Biden was mentally unfit for another term, a bleak data point for the president in a survey where he nonetheless outperformed his topline numbers in many other polls. Fifty-one percent of voters told the pollster they did not think Trump was mentally fit for a second term on Pennsylvania Ave. The 81-year-old Biden, whose mental acuity has been under heightened scrutiny after Special Counsel Robert Hur‘s report this month characterized him as an“elderly man with a poor memory,” has pushed back on concerns about his memory and has shown no public signs of pulling back from his reelection campaign. As Biden marches toward the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the 77-year-old Trump has been gliding to the Republican nomination while holding leads over the current president in public opinion polls. Quinnipiac’s national poll was an outlier: Biden led Trump by 4 points, even as two-thirds of voters said they judged Biden to be too old to serve another full term in the White House, according to the pollster. Separately, an Economist/YouGov poll published Wednesday showed Biden a point behind Trump. Both Quinnipiac and YouGov are respected pollsters. Many other surveys have shown Trump with larger leads over Biden. But the election is more than 250 days away, and public opinion on both candidates may shift markedly between now and November. |
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 22, 2024 12:26:49 GMT -5
|
|
