Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The powerful NY law used to convict Trump of FRAUD was written by a Republican!
***"Section 63(12) does not require the government to prove that financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention to defraud."***
Given that the judgment could bar Trump from doing business in New York and force him to cede control of some of his prized business assets in the state—including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street—it’s not surprising that he’s enraged. But at least some of his fury should be directed at a fellow-Republican who died more than thirty-five years ago and is now best known for a convention center named after him: Jacob Javits.
From 1957 to 1981, Javits served as a U.S. senator for New York, but before that he held the office that is currently occupied by James. As the New York attorney general, he earned a reputation as a liberal prosecutor who was willing to take on powerful interests. In 1956, his final year in office, he urged the state legislature to pass a new law that would give his office the power to investigate and bring actions against businesses that engage in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” Invoking this broad statute, Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law, the attorney general’s office has brought cases ranging from accusing three bus companies of violating New York City regulations on idling to accusing ExxonMobil of misleading investors about the business risks presented by climate change. “The statute gives the attorney general authority to pursue any kind of conduct that she or he considers to be fraudulent,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, who served as special counsel for public integrity to Andrew Cuomo when he was New York attorney general, told me."
(SNIP)
Trump’s lawyers tried to get the case dismissed, arguing that the statutes of limitation had expired and that James didn’t have standing to sue because the financial institutions to which Trump had sent his valuation statements had never complained or suffered any losses. In his deposition, Trump claimed that the valuation statements were “worthless,” and everybody knew it, because they were accompanied by a qualifying statement that said his assets wouldn’t necessarily fetch the valuations listed if they were put on the market.
Engoron, in his thirty-five page judgment, which was released on Tuesday, eviscerated these arguments. He pointed out that Section 63(12) does not require the government to prove that financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention to defraud. The persistent submission of exaggerated financial statements itself satisfied the statute’s definition of fraud, and the inclusion of vague, unenforceable disclaimers “cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge, even vis-à-vis sophisticated recipients,” Engoron wrote.
(SNIP)
From 1957 to 1981, Javits served as a U.S. senator for New York, but before that he held the office that is currently occupied by James. As the New York attorney general, he earned a reputation as a liberal prosecutor who was willing to take on powerful interests. In 1956, his final year in office, he urged the state legislature to pass a new law that would give his office the power to investigate and bring actions against businesses that engage in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” Invoking this broad statute, Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law, the attorney general’s office has brought cases ranging from accusing three bus companies of violating New York City regulations on idling to accusing ExxonMobil of misleading investors about the business risks presented by climate change. “The statute gives the attorney general authority to pursue any kind of conduct that she or he considers to be fraudulent,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, who served as special counsel for public integrity to Andrew Cuomo when he was New York attorney general, told me."
(SNIP)
Trump’s lawyers tried to get the case dismissed, arguing that the statutes of limitation had expired and that James didn’t have standing to sue because the financial institutions to which Trump had sent his valuation statements had never complained or suffered any losses. In his deposition, Trump claimed that the valuation statements were “worthless,” and everybody knew it, because they were accompanied by a qualifying statement that said his assets wouldn’t necessarily fetch the valuations listed if they were put on the market.
Engoron, in his thirty-five page judgment, which was released on Tuesday, eviscerated these arguments. He pointed out that Section 63(12) does not require the government to prove that financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention to defraud. The persistent submission of exaggerated financial statements itself satisfied the statute’s definition of fraud, and the inclusion of vague, unenforceable disclaimers “cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge, even vis-à-vis sophisticated recipients,” Engoron wrote.
(SNIP)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-powerful-new-york-law-that-finally-brought-trump-to-book?fbclid=IwAR062jwDogY8ske7pPjSCS902Kfhusk0nYLczlDIbRzfsauj01uh-9Uswmk