The day after Paul Manafort was fired as Trump's campaign manager it is alleged that he got a mortgage from a company owned by a Russian business associate of Trump's for USD 3.5 million. The beneficiary of the loan was a 'shell company' whose name I cannot recall.
I am a simple man with a naive interest in hard work. I do not understand the schemes of the people who make real money. (Some years ago a receptionist explained to me a scheme she devised to outsmart the credit union and I was truly amazed how 'smart' she was and made painfully aware on the other hand how naive I was.)
Can someone explain to me how Manafort would have benefited from the mortgage transaction?
I can only see two possibilities:
1. He was getting a deal where the loan conditions were ridiculously soft. For example - no
interest and 30 yrs repayment; or
2. It was a sham and he would not be required to repay.
It is also possible that the mortgage was the first step in a longer scheme. Can a financially adept poster explain what I am missing?
Message Board Archives
The Manafort Story
In reply to Headley
Here comes Courtesy ...!
In reply to Headley
Washing Machine. Put dirty laundry in, a wash here, a spin there and by time it comes out the dryer - even the lint is gone.
Poof.
That is only one load of laundry. The big crooks use shell companies - and the transactions (even "loans")- as laundromats.
In reply to pelon
I get the money laundering angle but it only seems to make sense if you accept item 1 or 2 in my post above or am I still missing something.
It could also be a first step in a longer scheme. For example, someone (or a shell company) could purchase the mortgage from Manafort for USD 1 million. Such a transaction would be perfectly legal.
In reply to Headley
As Pelon mentioned, it could very well be a money laundering scheme which the borrower/mortgagor had knowledge of. Or put it another way, he had knowledge that the proceeds of the mortgage loan were from ill gotten gains (even from crime). The borrower is now in a position where he/she/it are now in possession of the proceeds of crime.
It would be interesting to know which property was secured as the mortgage collateral. Does the property belong to Manafort, to the shell company, or one of the PussyGrabber-in-Chief's corporations?
In reply to Headley
Ask yourself why a Russian tycoon would buy a 40M house from Trump for 100M? As Pelon would say, even the lint was washed. Poof. 
In reply to SnoopDog
Thanks. Did I mention my naivete?
The report I saw on MSNBC said the property was a Long Island residence allegedly owned by Manafort.
In reply to Headley
there are agreed standards for loans, property conditions, loan to value,,,, income etc, the lender could overlook any or all theses conditions which increases the risk for the lender but lessen them for the buyer, that would be a huge favor.
In reply to ProWI
No one has ever accused Trump of subtlety. 
In reply to camos
Agreed. Most of us see a mortgage as a residential transaction. The super-rich know you can legally use a mortgage and a shell company to convert lead into gold.
In reply to Headley
In most common law jurisdictions prudent lenders wouldn't agree to advance mortgage funds to any person or entity other than the mortgagor registered on title. So in this instance, the prudent lender would only advance the mortgage funds to Manafort if he was the mortgagor on title and he also is on title as the owner of the collateral property. If it was the shell company on title as the mortgagor then the prudent lender would only advance funds to that entity.
Ask yourself why would you as a lender advance funds under a mortgage to a third party who isn't on title? That third party could easily run away with the mortgage funds and you as the lender would have no right of action against that third party if the mortgage went into default.
In reply to SnoopDog
most commercial loans are "nonrecourse loans" so the individual won't be personal liable if default occurs.
In reply to camos
But a lot of commercial loans ask for the individual to be the guarantor though.
In this case if the shell company was the mortgagor then the prudent lender will require the director of the company to be the individual guarantor and also ask for the company's assets and rents general to be registered and assigned to the charge.
In reply to SnoopDog
these conditions only apply to loans that have to meet regulators standards, if the lender is not going to resell the loan then they will do a lot of customizing ,charging .25 point or so for each variation.
In reply to camos
But this isn't an unsecured loan. It a mortgage. It's backed up by a registration on the title of real property as collateral.
If I was acting as the solicitor for a prudent lender I would require as minimum the director as the guarantor, an assignment of all assets, receivables, and rents general, and a sworn affidavit by the director as to the intended use for the mortgage funds.
In reply to SnoopDog
you looking at the transaction as a straight up arms lent transaction, the guy no doubt has banking relationships, why you think he looking at private money?
In reply to camos
But that's my point. Because it's a mortgage, and not an unsecured loan, you would expect all the usual and minimum due diligence from the prudent lender.
In this case it appears that something was rotten in Denmark however.
The "mortgage" reeks of laundering, and at minimum he got caught being "out of power" holding cash he had to quickly convert.
On August 19, 2016, Manafort left the Trump campaign amid media reports about his previous work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, including allegations he received millions of dollars in payments.
That same day, Manafort created a holding company called Summerbreeze LLC. Several weeks later, a document called a UCC filed with the state of New York shows that Summerbreeze took out a $3.5 million loan on Manafort's home in the tony beach enclave of Bridgehampton.
Manafort's name does not appear on the UCC filing, but Summerbreeze LLC gives his Florida address as a contact, and lists his Bridgehampton home as collateral.
In reply to pelon
That's it right there.
These transactions are not arms length, and they certainly don't past the "prudent lender" smell test.
In reply to Pelon
Questions that have to be asked and answered on the original $3.5 Mil mortgage transaction:
1. What is the appraised value of the property which the mortgage was registered upon?
2. What was the amount of the net mortgage advance and when was the mortgage registered on title? Was there a individual guarantor and if so, who?
3. Who was the lender and who was the mortgage advance to? The mortgagor or a third party? If a third party, whom?
4. What are the terms of the mortgage? No interest rate, prime lending rate, or criminal lending rate? 1 year term, 5 year term etc.
Only in court could one really get all these types of question answered, and answered truthfully.
I read somewhere that he doesn't have to repay the loan
In reply to Chrissy
Unless I'm reading Pelon's post above incorrectly, the loan has already been paid back by his other shell corporation Summerbreeze LLC.
It is money laundering. Look up Russians with contacts to Putin vastly over paying for Trump properties.
In reply to pelon
THE FACTS
The facts suggest that Manafort was the mortgagor. He clearly was the owner of the property at Bridgehampton used as colateral for the mortgage. Summerbreeze LLC. was the shell company and the beneficiary of the mortgage transaction. In effect this was the first laundry.
CONJECTURE
What Summerbreeze LLC. did with the funds is unknown but we can conjecture that was the second laundry. In similar cases the laundry is repeated 3 or more times and if a diligent investigator has 6 months to spare he/she may find the last rinse on a nameplate on a nondescript building in Moscow.
In reply to Larr Pullo
yup. plain and simple.
2. What was the amount of the net mortgage advance and when was the mortgage registered on title? Was there a individual guarantor and if so, who?
3. Who was the lender and who was the mortgage advance to? The mortgagor or a third party? If a third party, whom?
4. What are the terms of the mortgage? No interest rate, prime lending rate, or criminal lending rate? 1 year term, 5 year term etc.
Snoop good points, but don't get caught with all the traditional markers.
From the appraiser to the seller, to the mortgage company... the are all handshakes that enable the washing machine. You are a lawyer, you know all too well how horizontal integration works in the criminal world. Every single part of the trail leads to an entity that sold their soul to the dollar.
In reply to SnoopDog
Summerbreeze LLC. received the mortgage proceeds. It is not stated who repaid the loan.
In reply to Headley
You are now on the right path. As per my above post, the entire trail of the transaction facilitated the washing - including the "bank".
No different to the South Florida Banks in the 80's and 90's
In reply to Headley
So the proceeds of the mortgage advance was given to Summerbreeze LLC and not the mortgagor, Manafort? 
There is no such thing as a "beneficiary" under mortgage transaction. A mortgage is not a trust.
I can tell you that no prudent mortgagee will agree to have their money paid out to a third party who isn't the mortgagor unless that third party is either a guarantor on the first mortgage or have offered up another property (owned by the third party) as a collateral mortgage.
This whole thing stinks of money laundering.
In reply to SnoopDog
See my "horizontally integrated crime" post above.
In reply to pelon
We're on point Bro.
It's why the PussyGrabber-in-Chief won't release his tax records. It will no doubt show how much he is indebted and how much he is bound to those Russian oligarchs and by extension, Putin.
In reply to SnoopDog
Thanks for the correction.
The consensus seems to be money laundering, neither pure nor simple.
In reply to SnoopDog
Exactly.
BTW: On the surface they won't reveal direct links, and that is a point that needs to be raised in the context of the "legal review" done last week by Morgan Lewis and Bockius.
Morgan Lewis and Bockius.
hmmm.... even rum soaked pelon knows that Morgan Lewis and Bockius is :
When the frim says of trump: "He has no business in Russia; he has no connections to Russia" the layman may miss the "he" is an entity in lawyerly speak... "his corporations" another....
bartender?
PS: MANNNN stop referring to pgrabbers in a negative context. It is "hurtsful" to the ligitimate ones....
In reply to pelon
Arrite. I'll cease and desist.
SnowFlake-in-Chief it shall be henceforth.
In reply to pelon
I think his tax records, and those of his companies, will reveal on its surface direct links to Russian oligarchs. This is a guy who doesn't pay taxes despite raking in (purportedly) billions. How is that possible? Debt write-offs. Just follow the debt trail along the yellow brick road and it will take you to the Wizard of Vlad.
In reply to Drapsey
Oh Gord Drapsey you had me laughing so loud I almost fell of
me chair .
In reply to Headley
Look , Trump bought a house in Palm Beach , for around 40+ million dollars . He then turned around and sold the same house for double the price he paid for the House .
The man who bought the house was a Russian ,
this same man bought an Island & various other properties ; under various names , One of the reasons he did that was to hide his assets from his wife , who got 9 million dollars in the divorce settlement .
In reply to POINT
Pro WI has a link on page 1 with the full Miami Herald story. Posters seem to agree that it's all about Russian money laundering. We will soon know for sure.
Rachel Maddow connects the dots everynight at 9 pm
Search
Live Scores
- no matches