Trump SCANDALIZED as Bank Declares They FEARED Trump WAS A MONEY LAUNDERER As They Closed Accounts!

Capital One Bank closed over 300 bank accounts belonging to Donald Trump and his family, all under the Trump Revocable Trust because of money laundering fears.after their compliance department and anti -money laundering department did an intensive investigation and determined that there was risk related to money laundering and Donald Trump.And that's the reason they closed the accounts in 2023.How do I know that?Because Capital One just filed that statement, that declaration, that argument in several pages of a new filing in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in Miami before Judge Altman as they try, and I think they'll be successful, to get Donald Trump's third attempt at stating a cause of action against Capital One for debanking the Trump Organization as they try hard to get yet another complaint filed.dismissed.

So finally, after Donald Trump has had three opportunities to draft a proper complaint, Capital One has had it, and they have told the federal judge, Judge Altman, the real reason they got rid of Donald Trump and his family as bank customers.See, Trump, if you keep pushing the bank and hitting them with a stick and poking the bear, you may not like the response or the headline.Trump and Trump family debanked because of fears of money laundering.I'm Michael Popock.Let's get to the new filing and who the players are here on Legal AF.As people know, I am traveling.

However, this is important, and I wanted to bring it to you.Take a minute and show that you think what we do is important by hitting the free subscribe button.Okay, let's get the players first.The plaintiff is the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.It has more than 400 entities.Apparently, they had

300 bank accounts at Capital One.That was their primary bank.I mean, now Trump puts all of his money with Charles Schwab, but at the time it was Capital One.Capital One got rid of them in and around the 2023 closing and giving them three months notice that they were closing all 300 bank accounts.Now, Trump didn't like it, and so when he got back into power a couple of years later, first he filed this lawsuit in March of last year, and then he achieved an executive order about not allowing banks to debank people because of woke diversity, equity, and inclusion reasons, and their fundamental claim was Capital One got rid of Donald Trump, it wouldn't touch the family with a 10 -foot pole when it came to banking, not because of money laundering, not because of violations of the Patriot Act or other things that give the know -your -customer requirement of the bank, make it very difficult for the bank to know their customer when they can't understand the transactions in those bank accounts after diligent research.Now, I know this from my own past where I was the global head of litigation for a financial services firm, a Wall Street firm, and was very involved with the compliance department, the anti -money laundering department, and how that process works.

Onboarding of customers and clients and accounts, the Patriot Act, the statutes that you have to follow to know your customer or you can lose your banking license.So banks and financial services company take it very, very seriously and have professionals and they spend tens of millions of dollars between human beings and AI and compliance software to make sure these things don't happen.And when something is flagged, it kind of escalates up the chain to the top of compliance, maybe the head of the bank.and then decisions are made.And that's what happened here.But what they claimed, the Donald J. Trump family and all the Trumpers claimed, oh no, they didn't like the fact that Donald Trump participated in the Jan 6th insurrection and led an insurrection.

And so they wanted to curry favor with the woke left wing, so they wanted to debank Donald Trump.

ridiculous.And finally, after Donald Trump had his first three, sorry, First two complaints dismissed by Judge Altman.

He had one more shot.This is now the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.So there's a complaint, a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint.This is the third time Trump has tried to do it.And Capital One, obviously represented by its lawyers at Debevoise in New York, have had enough.They're like, okay, you were a money launderer, or at least we suspected you were, that's why.

Now fundamentally a bank under most account opening documents as acknowledged by this judge in Miami has the right to unilaterally close your account for any reason or no reason at all.

Read the fine print.

So the judge already ruled You got a problem with your allegations, Trumps, because you have to get around the fact that your contract that you signed to open your account and you acknowledged says that the bank can close it for any reason.So now you're saying you don't like the reason, but that can't be it.So Trump came back with, well, it's a violation of good faith and fair dealing, or it's fraudulent concealment, or some other wacko argument that doesn't work at all.

So now let me read to you from the Capital One filing in the pertinent places.We'll post this up on Legal AF Substack for our paid members as well.Okay, let me get this up here for you.It says on page one, the second amendment complaint of Trump concedes that Capital One's decision to terminate the accounts was expressly prohibited.by the governing agreement and instead rests on vague allegations of political discrimination.To the contrary, those documents made clear that Capital One closed plaintiff's account for anti -money laundering reasons.

The closures were the result of months of analysis and careful review by Capital One's AML, anti -money laundering team, in accordance with bank policies and guidance.Capital One never publicized the termination decision, nor its confidential internal process, giving rise to the closure, and it permitted plaintiffs several months to find new banking services and gave them extensions, which they finally did.So.as the plaintiffs cannot meaningfully criticize the robust process undertaken by Capital One's AML professionals with decades of law enforcement experience in deciding to close accounts.Instead, plaintiffs attempt to keep their misguided allegations of political discrimination alive by speculating that the anti -money laundering concerns were pretextual and that plaintiffs were misled by the contractually permitted closure decision.And of course, they reject that.

Let me go to page nine, footnote four.It says plaintiffs make the conclusory claim, that's Trump, that they could have explained the transactions underlying Capital One's assessment.In other words, when you do anti -money laundering analysis, they are flagging certain transactions, deposits, withdrawals, wiring of funds in or out.They're looking at the timing, the dates, the purpose.They look at the company's business model or its declared existence and try to figure out if these are legitimate.

They see a lot of personal checks being written to the founders or to donors.or for personal expenses or money coming in from banks across the world without explanation.It sets off a flag.lead to somebody filing what's called a SAR, a Suspicious Activity Report, an SAR.I had to deal with a lot of SARs when I worked for that Wall Street company in trying to sort them out and reach a conclusion and help contribute to that analysis.So I know the process.

So here it says that Plaintiffs do not allege facts plausibly suggesting that any such explanation could have altered Capital One's determination or prevented the account closures.

I mean, even today, Trump can't or won't explain the transactions to get him out from under the cloud of money laundering allegations.

Indeed, the transaction patterns identified by Capital One are among the types of activity flagged by federal banking guidance.In other words, and they attach Appendix F, money laundering and terrorist financing, red flags.

I mean, and the reason that this is yet another example of the Trump family filing a lawsuit, whether it's for defamation or against a major bank, where it backfires, you know.And so in the BBC case, which happens to also be in front of the same judge, Judge Altman in Miami, In the BBC case, Donald Trump's suing for $10 billion in defamation.So the judges there are like, all right, well, you're suing for $10 billion.You, Trump Trust, open up all your books and your tax returns for the last two years or three years and turn it over to the other side.No, but I don't, but that's not what I, I never want to do that.Yeah, well, then don't sue for $10 billion in defamation.

And ironically, this is the same judge, Judge Altman, that's in this case involving Capital One.Trump sued separately.JPMorgan Chase and Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, about the exact same thing, the debanking.And you know it's going to happen.They're going to say the same thing.Let's look at it from the bank perspective at that time, right?

By the time the banks made the decision to toss the Trump family, Let's look at what happened.A New York judge after multiple -week trial determined that Donald Trump committed persistent fraud along with Don Jr. and Eric Trump and the Trump Organization and the Revocable Trust in the operation of the Trump Organization's business for decades.Persistent fraud, proven by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James.And that alone And during the course of the case, Donald Trump's own auditors, accountants, auditors, certified public accountants, quit the engagement and said, not only did they quit the engagement, and they had been the auditors for about 10 years, they said everything that we did was based on information that we got from the Trump Organization that we can no longer rely on, so you can't rely on our audited financials for the last 10 years.They declared that to the public.What do you think the banks were thinking?

persistent fraudster, auditor fires them, says they won't do work because they can't trust the books and records, and then you get flags on their transactions in their bank account.I'm not even talking about Trump also being criminally indicted and convicted for another type of fraud and tax evasion related to the Stormy Daniels bribery, 34 felony counts, that came after the decision.Or his indictment for Jan 6 interference with the election and the transfer of power.Or his indictment for espionage and obstruction of justice down in the Mar -a -Lago.That was after just the fraud case alone.Or how about him being a judge to be a sex abuser.

owing over $100 million worth of judgments to E. Jean Carroll?I mean, pick one.And especially when you understand that banks have the right generally in their documents, these form documents, to fire any bank account and fire any client for any reason or no reason, even a discriminatory reason.And they reserve that for themselves because of problems like anti -money laundering, the Patriot Act, the Terrorism Act, Know Your Customer Regulations, and the rest.So, you know, another backfire for Donald Trump where somebody has to put in a federal filing in front of a judge that's handling his BBC defamation case that they were concerned about anti -money laundering.And this on the heels of a decision by his own Department of Justice to admit that they were fabricating evidence and using false evidence to obtain indictments.

How do you think this plays out in a court of law?I'll let you know as we continue to follow it.I'm Michael Popach on a working holiday with my family, but here for you on Legal AF.Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button.Until my next report, I'm Michael Popach.Can't get your fill of Legal AF?

Me neither.That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack.Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack.You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF.What else?All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well.

We got some new reporting.We got interviews.We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes.Where?Legal AF.F on some stack come over now to free subscribe