You're viewing part of a thread.
Obviously, a loan provider is harmed. Interest rates are calculated based on the radio of debt to assets. If you put a 10k mortgage on a 500k asset, you're paying far less interest than if you take a 450k mortgage on the same.
That's such a basic question, anyone who is into real estate shouldn't have to ask this.
Are you aware that mortgage companies do their own due diligence to determine the value of the property? Do you know what the underwriting process is?
Just so we're clear, your excuse for fraud is "but the other party has to check it too?"
Buddy, where do you think half the evidence is from?
You can read the decision for yourself. I don't need to defend the judge. https://www.scribd.com/document/706231478/452564-2022-People-of-the-State-of-v-People-of-the-State-of-Decision-After-Trial-1688#1fullscreen=1
For the explanation or damages, check the expert witnesses especially.
So then its fraud to claim or believe that your property is worth more than it is?
I am just explaining how the process works. Its like if I am selling a car and claim its worth $20k, its up to the buyer to agree or disagree, its not fraud for me to claim its worth $20k and the kbb value is $10k.
Look, you obviously haven't even briefly looked into the case if you're saying "it's just someones opinion", or that might be what fox news is saying.
I buy a Ferrari that can go 400mph and is worth 10 million because of it. But then I have a limiter installed that caps it speed at 90mph. Then I go to an accountant and say "hey, could you value the Ferrari I bought?", and they say "based on the info you gave us, we say it's worth 10,120,000".
Then I go to the bank and say "hey bank, could you loan me a million bucks, and if I don't pay you back, you can have this car that independent accounts say is worth 10,120,00". The bank agree, charging you all of 0.5% interest, because you agreed to give them a car worth 10 times the loan.
But because of the limiter you had installed, the actual value is more like 430,000, because it can't do what you claimed. So you intentionally lied to the accountant, and took that false info to a bank with the express purpose of benefiting financially of off those lies.
And you then repeat this by asking for a valuation of a 30,000 square foot apartment, which is actually only 11,000 square foot, and going to a different bank with another fake valuation.
And you just keep doing it, over and over.
So the one things you claim he lied about was the size of the apartment, which is misleading because of how you calculate square footage. The value is in the property not the building. But again, the bank verifies what you are saying, they will literally send someone there to look at everything, its part of the underwriting. Can you show me where they bank said they were defrauded?
So the one things you claim he lied about was the size of the apartment, which is misleading because of how you calculate square footage.
From the documents you didn't read:
in opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1293 at 20. Well yes , perhaps , if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, itis possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error . Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20% , not 200%
Seriously, if you didn't look at the documents, I'm not going to copy paste it piecemeal. The court wrote it all down in very clear language.
Sigh, I am talking about the inclusion of "finished" vs "unfinished" space. But that doesnt even matter the important part of my comment is that that value is in the land, and they will verify all of the information they care about. Can you show me where they bank said they were defrauded?
No. Read the decision yourself, the motivation is in the first 5 pages.
I am aware that a judge wrote a thing, who I know is poltically motivated. The supreme court voted 9-0 against what the court did in colorado, so just because a thing was done, doesnt mean its just.
Who was defrauded and how?
The answer as to why the state is charging him is on page 3. The fact that you don't care enough to look it up says that this discussion is entirely pointless. There are witness statements from the lenders spelling out they wouldn't have granted the terms based on accurate valuations further on in document.
If you can't even be arsed to open the document and read 1.5 pages, then I don't see why I should bother.