Discussion: Prosecutors Challenge Judge's Ideas About Banker's Awareness of Alleged Manafort Fraud

1 Like

WTF? If I’m aware I’m being held up and say “Sure, here, yeah, take my wallet,” then it’s no longer robbery?

68 Likes

So now we live in a world where as long as there’s fraud on both sides of the crime, there’s no crime. Just shoot me.

74 Likes

The fraud comes from the knowingly false representations made by the loan applicant.

Not from whether the bank CEO is or isn’t a scumbag, too.

81 Likes

I am surprised that the Judge would think in such terms. A bank loan is not made by employee’s personal money, but rather with customers money. What is really happening is they both are defrauding the customers and both should be prosecuted.

81 Likes

Moral of the story: If you’re going to defraud a bank, make sure you’ve got someone on the inside to help you.

39 Likes

“Picking up on the Court’s comments, the defense suggested that Manafort could not have defrauded the bank if Calk knew Manafort’s representations were false. …The Court agreed that it did not ‘see the materiality.’”

Um, no. Fraud is an intent crime.

29 Likes

There’s something really wrong with this judge, to even consider this line of reasoning. He’s setting himself up to be overturned on appeal and maybe even sanctioned.

28 Likes

Most judges are careful not to have their decisions go to an appellate court, this judge seems to be going out of his way for this to end up in appellate court.

13 Likes

The judge is right. As long as you have an inside man helping you commit your fraud for his own personal benefit, is it really fraud? It’s the same as if Manafort brought a gun to rob the bank knowing that the bank president was in on it and would give him the money regardless. Is it really an armed robbery if the gun was just for show to make the insider look innocent?

Seriously though, the judge seems to imagine this was a personal loan from Calk and not that Calk was complicit in the fraud.

26 Likes

But if Manafort is acquitted because this judge misstates the law to the jury, there is no possibility of appeal. That’s what’s so alarming about his increasing confusion.

36 Likes

It is not the banker who was defrauded. It is the bank. If the banker was an active participant in the fraud it was still a fraud.

36 Likes

So the defendant couldn’t have committed fraud, because some else conspired to commit fraud with him.

13 Likes

The judge seems to be confusing criminal fraud and civil fraud. In a civil case, the victim’s knowledge that you are lying would prevent recovery for the tort because an essential element is “reasonable reliance” by the victim. But that’s not the case in criminal fraud. See, e.g., https://www.pbwt.com/second-circuit-blog/court-dispenses-with-fraud-defense-based-on-gumball-victims-disclaimers

Given the nature of the allegations, the basic level of the issue, the experience level of the judge, and the high-profile of the case, I find it hard to believe that the Judge is making an innocent mistake.

59 Likes

If we get a guilty verdict, I’m not going to hold my breath for a harsh punishment.

17 Likes

I read that asking for a mistrial is not in the prosecutors interests, but how many times do they need to slap the judge around before it becomes necessary?

22 Likes

The Jury Instructions are going to be a hoot. This “very experienced” judge doesn’t begin to understand the law. Does he have a competent clerk?

I have to admit that what the judge apparently blurted in the bench conference crossed my mind when I first heard of the banker’s active involvement, but I thought about it for a second and realized the passing thought was wrong. The problem with this judge is he doesn’t think before he talks. He needs to slow down and actually think.

9 Likes

I thought from the beginning this judge had his thumb on the scales of justice…even wrote a comment here about it before it became more and more obvious. Everyone on TV was talking about how helpful he was keeping the prosecution from potential overreach. I thought he was intrusive and wanted to prejudice the jury from the beginning. He was literally telling the prosecution how to try their case. I still feel that way. I don’t care how many TV prosecutors show pretend respect for the old Reagan-appointed coot. He’s acting like a partisan hack in this case. Either that or he’s simply getting too old to do his job without being a fucking butinski.

31 Likes

WITCH hunt. SocialiST deMS upset that Rich PEOPLE LIKE nice thiNGS like jackets MADE out of Big birds and ugly suits.

17 Likes

Is there any question why folks hold the whole judicial system in such contempt? Remember, our institutions are not saving us from the destruction of our nation. If we don’t take back congress in the fall we are all in for a very miserable time as the country moves into facism.

11 Likes