NYS has a law called the Martin Act which has strong anti-fraud protections, probably the strongest in the country.
This law allows the NY AG to bring this case on its own. The claim is it protects the marketplace itself. That due to this fraud lenders would taking on unknown risk and not charging enough to cover that risk.
For example, you can commit bank fraud even if you pay your loan back.
If you lie about your worth to get a loan you didn't qualify for, the bank is taking on extra risk and that loan doesn't go to someone else.
Put it this way, did people in 2004 know there was a growing risk to our banking system that led to the financial crisis in 2008?
NYS has a law called the Martin Act which has strong anti-fraud protections, probably the strongest in the country.
This law allows the NY AG to bring this case on its own. The claim is it protects the marketplace itself. That due to this fraud lenders would taking on unknown risk and not charging enough to cover that risk.
For example, you can commit bank fraud even if you pay your loan back.
If you lie about your worth to get a loan you didn't qualify for, the bank is taking on extra risk and that loan doesn't go to someone else.
Put it this way, did people in 2004 know there was a growing risk to our banking system that led to the financial crisis in 2008?
Ok, thank you for that info, but it is still obvious that the case is purely political.