According to this, James mostly claims that the existence of victims is irrelevant. The lack of clear existence of victims - none who’ve asked for legal remedy - is the unprecedented thing about this case. Along with the fact that none of the victims could be called unsophisticated.

So you’re left with the indirect concept of a fraud having to have benefitted someone. Thus harmed someone else. As in the assertion by the AG office (but not the lenders) that lenders might have charged more interest. Unsaid, but maybe they’d have demanded more collateral. If lenders asserted their loans weren’t satisfied because they didn’t secure sufficient collateral, this would be different. But they haven’t.

Like the Bragg case, this is an unprecedented case (according to experts quoted in the link), and the victim question may not go Trump’s way on appeal. But he should get to make his appeal(s) without losing his ability to conduct his business before they’re decided.

[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 03/23/2024 3:39PM]