> Some adopted an especially aggressive approach, according to documents and interviews. First, they purchased medallions at bargain rates and established big fleets of cabs. Then, they pumped up medallion prices. Finally, they sold their medallions to their drivers and to rival fleet operators just before the collapse.
Take each claim one by one:
> First, they purchased medallions at bargain rates
How did they get them at bargain rates?
> Then, they pumped up medallion prices.
Again, how? Did they somehow drive the population increase in NYC?
> Finally, they sold their medallions to their drivers and to rival fleet operators just before the collapse.
Did they sell the medallions or finance them to drivers, because earlier in the article it says:
> They inflated medallion prices, provided high-risk loans to buyers and collected interest and fees before the bubbles burst and the markets collapsed.
If they financed them, the drivers defaulted and the collateral was worth a lot less than originally valued at.
The whole article is a weird hodge-podge mess of trying to find victimizers and victims. People who bought medallions between certain years are victimizers but those that bought them after the peak are victims and New Yorkers (?) in Chicago are especially bad.