“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes AN INTENT to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”
“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes AN INTENT to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”
The all caps is mine, showing the heart of the controversy. On its face, the law says Trump only has to intend to commit another crime, not actually commit it or be proven to commit it. But is that right? Merchan ruled yes:
Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
Our legal eagles on these podcasts should start by clearly explaining this, then describe whether they think it’s a novel theory, a sound theory, or a bogus theory. They should talk about whether Merchan’s ruling is a correct interpretation of NY law and if it is, whether that NY law is sound.
That IS good.
So in essence, NY law says:
“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes AN INTENT to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”
The all caps is mine, showing the heart of the controversy. On its face, the law says Trump only has to intend to commit another crime, not actually commit it or be proven to commit it. But is that right? Merchan ruled yes:
Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
Our legal eagles on these podcasts should start by clearly explaining this, then describe whether they think it’s a novel theory, a sound theory, or a bogus theory. They should talk about whether Merchan’s ruling is a correct interpretation of NY law and if it is, whether that NY law is sound.