DB has already started handing over documents to the New York State AG, who is carrying out a separate investigation.
The German lender has already begun the process of giving documents related to loans made to Trump or some of his businesses to the New York state attorney general, who is conducting her own probe, said a person familiar with the matter. The bank hasn’t yet handed over any client-related records to the House committees and will wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings, said the person, asking not to be identified in disclosing internal information.
"The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses, and the private information of the President and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage," Trump’s lawyers wrote in the introduction to the 13-page complaint filed Monday in Manhattan federal court.
A
bank generally cannot turn over client records without a court order,
unless the demand comes from law enforcement - ie bank regulators.
Congress is not a bank regulator under law. That would generally be the
Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, or possibly the Federal Reserve
and SEC.
I can see an argument for any records pertaining to Trump’s business while actually in office under the emoluments clause. But, I don’t see how Trump’s banking records would expose any “money laundering.” Unless the Bank was acting directly as a middle man between a source money launderer and Trump, with Trump’s knowledge and agreement, funds for a loan would come from an undifferentiated pool of money in the Bank’s accounts. Even if the Bank were laundering money for someone, there is no reason Trump would know this unless it was by agreement, and the funds would still likely come from an undifferentiated pool.
Now, if the Bank SOLD Trump’s loan to a third party, THAT could be money laundering, but again, unless it was pre-arranged with Trump’s knowledge, he would not be aware of it, particularly if the bank stayed on as servicer. His financial disclosure shows the debt is to DB, so they must still either own the loans or be servicing them, which means he would likely not be aware of any third party funding.
This does seem like a witch hunt to me. They should be looking at DB’s books. Trump’s are irrelevant to money laundering. If the money for Trump’s loans come from a discrete pool, and that is funded by foreign mystery money, then they might have something. But Trump’s records arent going to show anything.
I can see an argument for any records pertaining to Trump’s business while actually in office under the emoluments clause. But, I don’t see how Trump’s banking records would expose any “money laundering.” Unless the Bank was acting directly as a middle man between a source money launderer and Trump, with Trump’s knowledge and agreement, funds for a loan would come from an undifferentiated pool of money in the Bank’s accounts. Even if the Bank were laundering money for someone, there is no reason Trump would know this unless it was by agreement, and the funds would still likely come from an undifferentiated pool.
Now, if the Bank SOLD Trump’s loan to a third party, THAT could be money laundering, but again, unless it was pre-arranged with Trump’s knowledge, he would not be aware of it, particularly if the bank stayed on as servicer. His financial disclosure shows the debt is to DB, so they must still either own the loans or be servicing them, which means he would likely not be aware of any third party funding.
This does seem like a witch hunt to me. They should be looking at DB’s books. Trump’s are irrelevant to money laundering. If the money for Trump’s loans come from a discrete pool, and that is funded by foreign mystery money, then they might have something. But Trump’s records arent going to show anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment