New York State AG Leticia James has filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump

Because not reporting large cash transactions is a good way to launder money.

 

this doesn’t get repeated enough.

Trump while president had to shut down his foundation because it was defrauding Veterans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/nyregion/ny-ag-underwood-trump-foundation.html
Trump Foundation Will Dissolve, Accused of ‘Shocking Pattern of Illegality’

 

He wasn't convicted of murder, he was convicted of improperly storing ammunition in another man's chest cavity!

 

While it's a matter of public record, given that this information is part of the pretrial and judgment proceedings, I believe it's inappropriate for the Attorney General to comment on the case while it's ongoing. However, I understand her motivations as well. She's engaging in a media battle with Trump and not ceding the entire landscape to him.

I'm confident that you also consider Trump's behavior, which involves incessantly attacking judges, the Attorney General, and other officials, as significantly worse and highly inappropriate. Hypocrisy not at play.

 

Defraud veterans. Call those who sacrifice everything for America "losers" and "suckers". Defraud nearly everyone he deals with. Treat U.S. secrets like toilet paper. Failed at a self-coup.

But we have posters here thinking Trump is better because Joe is old, and he stands up to Russia.

 

I misunderstood what you wrote the first time. That being said other people not being able to get loans because they didn't over value has nothing to do with Trump. It's not even unfair. Trump has nothing to do with them

 

I understand that's the purpose of the law but he wasn't convicted of money laundering that's a fact.

Because you aren't reporting those transactions doesn't mean you're money laundering

 

Maybe... and stay with me for a second, not committing substantial and continuous fraud might have avoided all this?

 

Trump personally didn't approve or reject loans but this is the concept of indirect harm. This is why fraud whether there is a direct harm or not is still considered fraud.

 

No it doesn't but again it isn't but the reason for that law is to prevent things like money laundering. Again you seem to be hung up on direct harm while not considering indirect harm or why we have many of these laws in the first place. Many of your arguments regarding Trump business practices seem to boil down to, "well no one was directly harmed". If we accept that then we should accept that George Santos was perfectly fine to make up his whole background since no one was directly harmed by his actions. That ignores both the issue of ethics and also that lying to the voters of his district not only makes it harder for others who are truthful in their backgrounds to run for office but also that it sets a bad precedent for future violators.

Simply overlooking Trump inflating his worth by saying well the banks aren't complaining, besides possibly taking away resources from someone else it also sets the precedent that lying about your worth isn't a big deal so people should just do it if it helps them.

 

I'm not defending anything with the casino. I was simply stating a fact. Was he convicted of money laundering? This is what happened with the casino. they cashed out winings of over $10,000 and didn't report it

It's not money laundering. Money laundering is the reason for the rule but they weren't money laundering. It doesn't even help people clean money. It's more cash they got to clean

If you respond please start out by answering if my statement was a fact that the casino wasn't charged with money laundering. If so there is nothing to discuss further

 

for not reporting suspcious activity over 5K and for not keeping record of such activities

Still not sure what happened with that suspicious activity reported by the NYT (as related to Detuch bank) in 2019. Here is a more recent one:

Federal investigators examined Trump Media for possible money laundering, sources say | Donald Trump | The Guardian

Federal prosecutors in New York involved in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s social media company last year started examining whether it violated money laundering statutes in connection with the acceptance of $8m with suspected Russian ties, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The company – Trump Media, which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform – initially came under criminal investigation over its preparations for a potential merger with a blank check company called Digital World (DWAC) that was also the subject of an earlier investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Towards the end of last year, federal prosecutors started examining two loans totaling $8m wired to Trump Media, through the Caribbean, from two obscure entities that both appear to be controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, the sources said.

..

The extent of the exposure for Trump Media and its officers for money laundering remains unclear. The statutes broadly require prosecutors to show that defendants knew the money was the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and the transaction was designed to conceal its source.

But money laundering prosecutions are typically based on circumstantial evidence and can be based on materials that show that the money in question was unlikely to have legitimate origins, legal experts said.

The first $2m payment to Trump Media came in December 2021 when the company was on the brink of collapse after the planned merger with DWAC – that would have unlocked millions for the company – was delayed when the SEC opened an inquiry into whether the arrangement broke regulatory rules.

Trump Media needed a bridge loan to keep the company afloat. But it struggled to get financing until DWAC’s chief executive Patrick Orlando sourced a $2m loan wired from Paxum Bank registered in Dominica, according to the wire transfer receipt reviewed by the Guardian.

The wire transfer identified Paxum Bank as the beneficial owner, although the promissory note identified an entity called ES Family Trust as the lender. Two months later, an unexpected second $6m payment arrived in Trump Media’s account from ES Family Trust, the transfer receipt showed.

In both instances, Orlando declined to provide details about the true identity of the lenders or the origin of the money to Trump Media executives, Trump Media’s since-ousted co-founder turned whistleblower Will Wilkerson recounted in an interview.

Though the two payments to Trump Media ostensibly came from two separate entities – first Paxum Bank and second ES Family Trust – the trustee of ES Family Trust, a person called Angel Pacheco, appears to have simultaneously been a director of Paxum Bank.

The Russian connection, as being examined by prosecutors in the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York, centers on a part-owner of Paxum Bank – an individual named Anton Postolnikov, who appears to be a relation of Putin ally Aleksandr Smirnov.

Smirnov, who heads the Russia-controlled maritime company Rosmorport, worked in the Central Office of the Russian government until 2017. Before that, Smirnov was the first deputy minister of justice of Russia until 2014, and for most of Putin’s first two terms as president, Smirnov served in the executive office of the president.

 

So now we know why trump's defense team prevent mcconney from testifying...

 

Now... when weisselberg gets on the stand... does he save his own a$$ by pointing towards trump?

 

... "but but, there was no fraud" says trump and his maga defenders...

 

Yes I saw this, here is another article also fom The Guardian a couple of days earlier. It seems Trump company was worried about the source of the funds. The article isn't really clear what the issue is but it seems that ithe concern is accepting laundered money not laundering the money

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/17/trump-media-executives-worried-over-murky-8m-loan

Edit: it's 10K I was a bank teller

 

I guess we know why trump didn't stick around........they were about to speak under oath to FACTS and not lies and the orange man is allergic to the truth. Sad part is, his base doesn't care.

 

No I will agree with you the casino wasn't charge with money laundering. One of the reasons for the law is money laundering.

If you don't want to discuss it further you are under no obligation to do so. I wouldn't recommend though claiming that money laundering had nothing to do with it then.