LogFAQs > #978956671

hungrymike posted...

He didn't lie about what it was worth.

He objectively did, bro.

hungrymike posted...

Its worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If the banks evaluators accepted it as collateral than that's what it worth

If I claim that I own 10 tonnes of solid gold bullion and I use that as collateral for a loan, but it's actually just some cardboard cutouts painted to look like gold, I have committed fraud, regardless of if I pay the loan back or not. I claimed to have more value to my name in order to secure the loan than I actually did, thereby exposing the bank to substantially higher risk than they were willing to take on; that they ultimately didn't suffer for taking on that risk doesn't mean that I acted honestly or ethically, nor does it mean I didn't commit a crime.

And this is doubly true if, for instance, my local government passed a law that adjusted taxes based on your personal wealth and I stated in my claim, "Oh, I don't have any gold, just cardboard", which shows that I am knowingly and willfully deceiving the bank (and if, hypothetically, a couple of those bullion *were* actually gold, I'm also defrauding the government, much like Trump did when he highballed his property evaluations when trying to secure loans, then lowballed them when the tax assessors came around).

hungrymike posted...

When I go take out a second mortgage on my house, the bank just doesn't take my word on it that its worth infinitibillion dollars. They do their own evaluation.

Which does not give you the right to deliberately try and deceive them. That the bank should have caught Trump out in his lies (and would have, had they done better due diligence) does not mean his attempts at defrauding them are A-OK.

This is like suggesting that it's not battery unless the other person fights back.