328
Trump’s $175m fraud bond thrown into doubt as attorney general questions insurer
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
328 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2595 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Idk NY’s rules on surety bonds, but the general rule in insurance is, if you can’t find coverage in the admitted market then you go to the surplus market—which KSIC is a surplus lines insurance company (and not regulated by the state). Dodd-Frank even prohibits states from denying that these companies can be regulated by the states.
Short answer: this is normal insurance procedure. If you can’t find an admitted company to cover you, then you go to the surplus/excess lines market, which is not regulated by the state.
This hinges on New York’s laws regarding surety bonds, which I have no idea about. Some coverages, of course, have to be written in the admitted market, like your car insurance.
I am not an expert and this is not my area.
Another article this morning (I'll link if I can find it) said that a normal bond (construction surety etc.) follows the rules you laid out. There is specific language in NY legislation with extra requirements for court bonds.
eta: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/
"For court bonds, as regulated by the CPLR, the law is clear about in-state license requirement," said Pollock, who noted that there are surety bonds used in other industries like construction that would not be subject to that rule.
But that's exactly the issue. The bond company is pretending that they don't have to follow any law/regulation because they're out of state. While AG is objecting based upon the NY law regarding the bond.
Meaning, need to show financials. Need to have enough assets. The AG said that their assets are lower than the bond amount. While the bond should be 10% of the assets at most.
The bond company added the financials of another company that's not involved with the bond. Pretty shady behaviour.
Honestly the whole lawsuit sounds kind of ridiculous to me. Isn't it up to the lender to audit the property of the one who asks for money to assure that they are able to pay it? After all, the one asking for money may (out of ignorance, or malice) overvalue their property, and they may be right, should there be someone who actually is willing to buy it for that price. The confidential documents lawsuit sounds to me like a waaaay easier and clearer win. (if only the democrats hadn't decided to "forget" about it after similar claims were found regarding Biden)
Go lie about your assets on a mortgage or other loan application and falsify some paperwork. See what happens to you. Why should Trump get to do that?
All this lawsuit is doing is making him pay back all the money he gained by lying. The profits he made from his lies and falsifications were calculated by an independent auditor and used to calculate the amount he has to pay back. New York state law says you cannot benefit financially from fraud, the profits must get pulled back.
It feels like you are pushing the burden of finding out a person is lying to the lender, but the law says you have to tell the truth (and you sign saying the presentation is the truth) when presenting collateral. Lying about valuations is part of the root of the 2008 financial collapse, and it’s disheartening to hear people say “so what” less then a generation later. The government is fulfilling its role of oversight the way it would have been great to see in the 2000’s before the collapse.
The claims were not very similar lol
What do Democrats have to do with the documents lawsuit? The special prosecutor is on it.
Are you suggesting that maybe we let the free-market figure his bond out without oversight?
This was a weird comment.