No where did I say Trump was the one personally directing them to do that.
The summary judgement was because it was clear as day they were fraudulently inflating the assets, the only question left was intent. They paid for appraisals of their own properties and then hid them from Mazars. Even if they wanted to claim the value was higher than the appraisals they were obligated to turn those records over to the accounting firm. They signed representation that their values and calculations of assets were GAAP compliant which was a lie. They lied about the square footage of Trumps apartment despite having evidence of the correct amount and then when forced to correct it all of a sudden tripled the value per square foot so as to not lower their valuations of the apartment. They valued Maralago as a residence despite agreements not to do so for lower taxes and even at that Maralago was valued at 400% higher than any residence has ever sold for. These were all indisputable facts before the trial even took place.
Heres what the Judge had to say about the "expert witness" Bartov
Professor Bartov did not assess the valuations of any of the assets on Donald Trump’s SFCs. TT 6445. Yet, as this Court previously noted when denying defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, Bartov’s overarching point was that the subject statements of financial condition were accurate in every respect and that they were “100 percent consistent with GAAP.” TT 6537. As this Court discussed in excruciating detail in its September 26, 2023 Decision and Order, the SFCs contained numerous significant errors. By doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement, Professor Bartov lost all credibility in the eyes of the Court.45
Indeed, Bartov insisted that the misrepresentation of the Triplex, resulting in a $200 million overvaluation, was not intentional46 or material (leading the Court to wonder in what universe is $200 million immaterial). TT 6348-6356.
Bartov opined that “GAAP is not designed to give you the true economic value of an asset.” TT 6240. However, it is undisputed that the SFCs required, and Donald Trump represented, that the assets be presented at their estimated current value and be GAAP compliant, so Bartov’s statement is of no consequence. Bartov further attempted to opine on the disclaimer and “worthless clauses,” previously rejected as a defense by this Court in several decisions and orders (subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division), repeatedly referring to the clauses as “[j]ust like when you have the Surgeon General warning on the box of cigarettes, this warnings [sic] is not Phillip Morris. This warning
is for the smokers.”
Also as a footnote th
"5 As the Court previously observed, Dr. Bartov suffered essentially the same fate testifying before the Hon. Barry Ostrager in People v Exxon Mobil Corp., 65 Misc 3d 1233(A) (Sup Ct, NY County 2019) (“the Court rejects Dr Bartov’s expert testimony as unpersuasive and, in the case of his testimony about the Mobile Bay facility, finds Dr. Bartov’s testimony to be flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence”)."
