It has really nice appliances
One of the things Rachel Maddow talked about in the segment leading up to the 1040 reveal was the fact that Trump sold a house to a Russian oligarch for way more than it was worth, so what’s that about.
So today I googled for more, and got a Washington Post piece from five days ago.
The front-page centerpiece of Friday’s Palm Beach Post, billed as an “exclusive,” begins with a provocative question: “Why did a Russian oligarch pay now-President Donald Trump $95 million for his Palm Beach mansion?”
The piece offers no clear answer and, despite being a captivating read filled with several new details, it revisits a curious real estate transaction that has previously been probed by the New York Times, CNN and Politico, among others.
$95 million is a LOT of money for one house, even if it is a mansion.
Trump paid $41.35 million for the seaside estate in 2004 and sold it in 2008 for $95 million to Dmitry Rybolovlev, a fertilizer magnate and majority owner of the AS Monaco soccer team.
There was a real estate bubble between 2004 and 2008…but it was deflating in 2008, and it was never so expanded that it could explain a profit of $43 $53 million in four years unless the seller added a few extra houses. $95 million was a record price and before that, the Post says, Trump was struggling to sell it at all.
(Maison de L’Amitie, as the estate is known, languished on the market for two years before fetching what was, at the time, believed to be the highest price ever for a home in the United States.) Rybolovlev, who has never lived in the 62,000-square-foot house, has claimed at various times that it is a corporate investment, an asset for his family trust or perhaps a 6.2-acre playground for his equestrian-loving daughter.
None of that is an explanation for paying a vastly inflated price.
Since Rybolovlev can’t get his story straight, and he keeps bumping into Trump at airports, is it possible that the answer to the Palm Beach Post’s question about the oligarch’s motive is that he was trying to curry favor with the future president?
If so, Rybolovlev had tremendous political foresight. An alternative explanation is that he was just moving money in the midst of a divorce from his wife, Elena, who in a 2009 lawsuit accused him of “secreting and transferring assets in order to avoid his obligations,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
That still doesn’t make any sense. If you overpay for a house in order to withhold the money from someone else, the money is still lost to you, because you overpaid. Why not buy art works, or multiple houses, or startups, or any number of things that wouldn’t be just donating $43 $53 million to Donnie from Queens?
Unless donating $43 $53 million to Donnie from Queens is exactly what you intended to do.
Unless Donnie is/was holding the money for him. I’ve certainly seen it done for bankruptcy. Just prior to the bankruptcy assets get sold, then afterward they end up back with the discharged bankrupt. It’s very murky behaviour and sometimes the courts can reverse transactions for one reason or another, but not often enough.
I read a story a couple of years ago that houses in the most desirable parts of London were being bought at way over market value – in some cases in excess off 200% over – by both wealthy Russian and Chinese businesses and individuals. Can’t for the life of me remember why they were paying so much. Sorry for being of no help whatsoever.
??? 95 million – 41.35 million is not 43 million. It is 53 million (plus .65 million, so nearly 54 million).
Hahahahaha thus we see I can’t do addings and subtractings in my head, at least not unless I slow down and pay attention.
About Donnie holding the money for him. Who in the world would ever trust Donald Trump to hold money [and then give it back]?
That’s an easy one. Someone who is part of a criminal oligarchy which owns a bank to which Donnie owes vast amounts of money.
Someone who can follow him from airport to airport, reminding him that his current position is dependent on toeing the line.
OB @5, not I, but then Tigger makes a compelling case. The local examples I was referring to are the sort of developer sharks you’d meet, then check you still had all your fingers and organs afterward. Honour amongst thieves? Unwritten ‘help the bro’s’ rule? Dunno.
If the train wrecks and I hope it does I would hate to be anywhere near it, seller or buyer. Problem is, I am a spectator and there will likely be schrapnel.
Ah. Ah yes of course.
Well, I hope hundreds of eager journalists are pursuing this story as we speak.
Tigger’s explanation is the one that occurred to me, too. If you’re going to launder money, it’s best done by people who already owe you something. Those are the exact people you can cause to owe you more, after all.
Acolyte of our master:
Money laundering is the most obvious explanation. Regulations have made this more difficult to do in the UK over the last few years but it is still common.