Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354M, says frauds 'shock the conscience'

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that both Judge Engoron and Deutsche Bank reached similar conclusions about Donald Trump's actual net worth -- but that Deutsche Bank officials weren't bothered by their determination.

In his partial summary judgment ruling before the trial, Engoron found that the New York attorney general provided "conclusive evidence" that Trump inflated his assets between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

"Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be 'immaterial,'" Engoron wrote.

Similarly, Deutsche Bank's valuation services group undercut Trump's net worth estimate by roughly than $2.4 billion when they evaluated his 2013 statement of financial condition. Despite that, the bank still loaned Trump millions for three of his properties.

"It would not be unusual," Unell said about the discrepancy identified by the bank.

Engoron cut him off before he could answer whether the discrepancy was within the "adjustment within the range that the court determined."

"I can do the math," Engoron said.

The defense's commercial real estate expert pushed back on the state's contention that Donald Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that Trump "clearly qualified" for commercial loans through the bank's private wealth group.

State attorney Kevin Wallace had argued that Trump "lied to the private wealth group to get these loans," which would support an increased fine in the case.

Unell, however, said, "I have not seen or heard any evidence that President Trump did not qualify for the private wealth management group."

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams, whose testimony Unell reviewed before taking the stand, said earlier that Trump easily met the bank's $100 million net-worth requirement for high-net-worth individuals.

Wallace, however, appeared to argue that Trump would have been disqualified from the private wealth division based on the act of submitting an allegedly false financial statement, rather than an inability to meet a net-worth requirement.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, challenging the testimony of an expert witness for the defense, angrily argued that Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

The exchange came during Wallace's cross-examination of defense expert Robert Unell, who disputed the state's claim that Trump's alleged misstatements cost lenders $168 million in lost interest because, Unell said, the loan rates the state used in their calculation were higher than the rates Trump was entitled to when he used a personal guarantee as a private wealth client.

"Once you are in the private bank, you are in this sort of rarified air, and you get access to these rates ... it is a flawed premise to say you have to compare it to the outside air," argued Trump attorney Chris Kise after Judge Arthur Engoron removed Unell from the courtroom so the attorneys could hash out the permissibility of Wallace's argument.

Shouting at Kise for repeatedly making lengthy objections, Wallace argued that Trump would have not qualified for the private bank rates had he not fraudulently overstated his assets.

"The court has found that Mr. Trump committed fraud," Wallace said. "To get into the private wealth group, he committed fraud."

"He lied to the private wealth group to get these loans. Therefore, we are looking at what the interest rate would have been had he not had access to the group he lied to," Wallace said of the state's calculation.

Overruling Kise's objection, Engoron said that he supported Wallace's theory.

"I think his explanation is correct," Engoron said.

State attorney Kevin Wallace is expected to complete his cross-examination of the defense's expert witness Robert Unell, who yesterday provided the most direct challenge to the state's analysis that found that Donald Trump's misstatements cost his lenders $168 million in lost interest.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to use that lost interest analysis to justify part of the fine she wants to levy against Trump -- also known as a disgorgement -- for his allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Unell testified yesterday that he found the lost-interest analysis conducted by the state's expert Michiel McCarty was inaccurate based on real-world market conditions, including the interest rates used by commercial real estate lenders who are "living and breathing these deals daily."

"I have not seen anything to indicate that was an accurate interest rate," Unell said about the interest rates in the state's analysis.

Judge Arthur Engoron twice interjected during Unell's testimony to suggest that Trump still cost his lenders money, referring back to his partial summary judgment in which he said, "The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates."