The purpose of the law is consumer protection. It's meant to keep unscrupulous businesses from operating in New York in an attempt to protect the
people of New York from swindlers and conmen.
That is how I understand it as well. But that needs to be focused on just how the consumers of New York have been injured by Trump's monetary
evaluations. I"m just trying to understand this, cuz I don't.
I know that that is the case it is said that the prosecution is using. That is how I have understood it however there are so many insistent that a
specific injury must be established.
We hear a lot about ''look at all the others that have been doing this kind of stuff for years'' so why only try Trump and not them. I'm thinking
this could be a preventative law, to help prevent those who would attempt fraud in the future.
The law isn't that uncommon for prosecutors to use. Some of the bigger names it's been wielded against are Exxon, AIG, UBS, and Martin Shkreli. It's
the same law that was used to fine Trump University and shut down Trump Foundation.
New York's Supreme Court has ruled previously that the prosecution does not need to show any injury. They just have to show a history of persistent
attempts at fraud.