Donald Trump signed mortgage documents in the early 1990s claiming two separate Florida properties as his primary residences. Records show that these loans, obtained within seven weeks of each other, were for neighboring homes near Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.
Despite pledging that each property would be his principal dwelling, Trump rented both houses out as investment properties. His real estate agent confirmed the properties were intended as rentals from the start, and Trump never lived in them.
The mortgages required Trump to occupy the homes within 60 days and live there for at least a year. However, records and advertisements indicate Trump resided in his Manhattan address throughout the period and only officially changed his residence to Florida decades later.
The two loans were for amounts of $525,000 and $1.2 million, secured at the same Merrill Lynch lender. Both mortgages have since been paid off, and the alleged violations fall outside the statute of limitations for mortgage fraud.
Trump’s administration has labeled similar conduct by political rivals as “deceitful and potentially criminal.” For example, Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was fired for signing two primary residence mortgages closely timed, a situation mirroring Trump’s past loans.
Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, stated claiming two primary residence mortgages would be referred for criminal investigation. Yet, no known criminal charges have been publicly brought against Republicans, despite similar mortgage patterns.
Trump himself criticized Cook’s behavior, calling it “incompetence” and “gross negligence” in financial dealings. His spokesperson described ProPublica’s revelations as politically motivated attacks and insisted Trump has never broken the law.
The contrasting treatment of mortgage documentation between Trump and others underscores the complexities of proving intent in fraud accusations. Experts note that while Trump’s loans exceed the threshold set by his administration, proving fraud requires clear intent.
ProPublica reached out for comment on whether Trump’s mortgages resembled those he accuses others of misusing but received no substantive response. This ongoing scrutiny highlights the contentious nature of mortgage representations in political and legal arenas.
Read more at: www.theguardian.com
