The Martin Act

[guncrasher]

issue subpoenas and demand corporations produce documents without probable cause or the ruling of a grand jury. The state is not required to provide proof of scienter (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing), damages to the public, or reasonable reliance (what a prudent person would believe and act upon if told something by another).

but in this specific case somebody did say my property is worth more to get a loan then claim it's worth less to pay less taxes.  that's probable cause.

semp

[Busher]

issue subpoenas and demand corporations produce documents without probable cause or the ruling of a grand jury. The state is not required to provide proof of scienter (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing), damages to the public, or reasonable reliance (what a prudent person would believe and act upon if told something by another).

Further to Semp's point, debating the application of the law accomplishes little more than complaining that the 25 mph speed limit on Main street in your hometown is unfair to drivers. Don't like the law? File an argument before SCOTUS.

[Hungry]

but in this specific case somebody did say my property is worth more to get a loan then claim it's worth less to pay less taxes.  that's probable cause.

semp

Ok, but the Martin Act doesnt need probable cause, what are you trying to compare????

[guncrasher]

Ok, but the Martin Act doesnt need probable cause, what are you trying to compare????

how can you say that your buildings are worth more to get a  better loan but at the same time claim that your buildings are worth less to pay less taxes.  that looks like probable cause to me.  dont you see that?


semp

[guncrasher]

just to explain to you in every state there's laws where you cannot lie on a loan to get better terms, so if you say your property is worth more, then you go to the state and claim your property is worth less to pay less property taxes.  so who did you lie to, the financial companies or the state or local property tax.


semp

[CptTrips]

Further to Semp's point, debating the application of the law accomplishes little more than complaining that the 25 mph speed limit on Main street in your hometown is unfair to drivers. Don't like the law? File an argument before SCOTUS.

Laws like that aren't sexy, but they can have teeth.

They didn't get Capone on murder, or extortion, or racketeering.  They got him on tax evasion. 

Whatever works.  He still died in a prison cell of syphilis raging like a lunatic.  Justice served.

[Eagler]

Who has the state of NY been targeting since 2016?

It should be interesting if not criminal

Eagler

[Hungry]

how can you say that your buildings are worth more to get a  better loan but at the same time claim that your buildings are worth less to pay less taxes.  that looks like probable cause to me.  dont you see that?


semp

Don't you see that. lol so again what are you trying to compare or are you just trying to make an irrelevant point to come off as relevant?

What you mention is a crime, probable cause, so what's that have to do with the Martin Act not needing probable cause

[Hungry]

just to explain to you in every state there's laws where you cannot lie on a loan to get better terms, so if you say your property is worth more, then you go to the state and claim your property is worth less to pay less property taxes.  so who did you lie to, the financial companies or the state or local property tax.


semp

Explain to me, hehe, gee I didn't know that if you purger yourself on a loan application or your taxes its considered a crime, this is like a conversation from another planet, dont be surprised if I dont respond anymore, I should have known better in the first place.  I also know by me not further responding it opens you up to post a ranting comeback but thats ok too have at it.

[guncrasher]

Explain to me, hehe, gee I didn't know that if you purger yourself on a loan application or your taxes its considered a crime, this is like a conversation from another planet, dont be surprised if I dont respond anymore, I should have known better in the first place.  I also know by me not further responding it opens you up to post a ranting comeback but thats ok too have at it.

I went back to the web sites I read, turns out the several stories I read were based on a satirical website but had been modified to change as if they had appeared in leading newspapers.

my bad.

semp

[decoy]

how can you say that your buildings are worth more to get a  better loan but at the same time claim that your buildings are worth less to pay less taxes.  that looks like probable cause to me.  dont you see that?


semp

Absent the issue of probably cause and attempt to defraud....

In the 1980s I was in the business of selling and erecting metal buildings, so when it came time to build my house, I started with a metal building.  It was a great plan and I wound up building a house for $28/square foot, when the going construction costs were about $80/ft(2).   Ah, but the bank said, "It's a metal sided building, so we can only loan money on it as if it's a mobile home."  What?  No axle, no frame, no tongue, no mobile home.  "Sorry, mobile home loan is all you get."  But the Tax Commissioner (who happened to be a relative - small town, right?) said, "No, we can't tax it like a mobile home because it's on a concrete slab."

Trust me, if I could have figured out a way to get a) a lower rate loan and b) a lower tax rate, I would have.  It could not be done.  Eventually I sold the place and moved on. 

[guncrasher]

Absent the issue of probably cause and attempt to defraud....

In the 1980s I was in the business of selling and erecting metal buildings, so when it came time to build my house, I started with a metal building.  It was a great plan and I wound up building a house for $28/square foot, when the going construction costs were about $80/ft(2).   Ah, but the bank said, "It's a metal sided building, so we can only loan money on it as if it's a mobile home."  What?  No axle, no frame, no tongue, no mobile home.  "Sorry, mobile home loan is all you get."  But the Tax Commissioner (who happened to be a relative - small town, right?) said, "No, we can't tax it like a mobile home because it's on a concrete slab."

Trust me, if I could have figured out a way to get a) a lower rate loan and b) a lower tax rate, I would have.  It could not be done.  Eventually I sold the place and moved on.

used to work in palm springs, somebody had idea to use metal studs, was hard trying to replace windows and doors as usually owners didn't know about the metal studs.

guess laws are weird or maybe misapplied they never had a problem getting a loan. but there were other communities that had basically a mobile home installed on a concrete slab, not your typical mobile home, they were beautiful great neighborhood, those had to get a special loan we couldn't touch them, walls  were only 3 inches thick. to me the only difference between one and the other was the thickness of the studs.

weird,

semp

[Traveler]

Seems that the Martin Act will soon be front and center in the news.

The Martin Act has been on the books in New York State for over 100 years.  it's not new.

[Traveler]

The Martin act has been on the books for over 100 years. it only applies to publicly traded companies. 

[Busher]

The Martin act has been on the books for over 100 years. it only applies to publicly traded companies.

You may know more than I but I don't see anything in the Act that limits fraudulent investigations exclusively to "publicly traded" corporations.