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

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, speaking to reporters outside court following the conclusion of closing arguments, dismissed the idea that her case against Donald Trump is about politics.

"This case has never been about politics, personal vendetta, or about name calling. This case is about the facts and the law, and Mr. Donald Trump violated the law," James said.

James thanked her team, the judge, and Trump's lawyers before repeating her confidence that "justice will be done" in the case.

"No matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, no one is above the law," she said.

Judge Arthur Engoron asked state attorney Kevin Wallace to conclude the day's proceedings by comparing Trump's fraud to the actions of financier Bernie Madoff, who defrauded clients out of tens of billions of dollars in the 1990s and 2000s.

"How would you compare the fraud you are alleging to the Madoff Ponzi scheme?" Engoron said.

During a meandering response, Wallace acknowledged that Trump's fraud was smaller, but "significant given the dollar amounts involved."

"If you are rich enough, you going to be allowed to do it. You'll get away with it," Wallace said.

Engoron concluded the day by estimating that he would issue an opinion in the case by Jan. 31.

He then ended the proceedings.

The buck stopped at Donald Trump, and the court should hold him responsible for his company's actions, according to state attorney Andrew Amer.

"The buck stopped with him, so he was responsible for all the conduct I just reviewed," Amer said about Trump's conduct between 2011 and 2015, before his sons took over the company when Trump won the White House.

Though defense attorneys have repeatedly criticized the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Amer highlighted that Trump's lawyers never questioned the former president about his testimony that Trump instructed Cohen and then-CEO Allen Weisselberg to "reverse engineer" his financial statement to increase his net worth.

"Based on their decision not to question Mr. Trump on this critical point, the court should infer that the reverse engineering instructions were given by Mr. Trump, just as Mr. Cohen described," Amer said.

Amer also highlighted what he said was Eric Trump's inconsistent testimony about his knowledge of his father's statement of financial condition.

"He went to great lengths to conceal from this court that he was fully aware that his father had a personal financial statement," Amer said, claiming that Eric Trump and his brother Donald Trump Jr. "approved of and perpetuated those schemes with the intent to defraud."

Judge Engoron, however, appeared skeptical of Amer's argument about Trump's adult sons -- particularly Donald Trump Jr. -- and interrupted the summation to question Amer.

"What evidence do you have -- I just haven't seen it -- that they knew there was fraud?" Engoron said.

Amer responded that the sons should have known about the fraud given their role in the company, and that their inaction amounted to "sticking their heads in the sand."

"They can't say they didn't bother paying attention to it. That is just not a defense," Amer contended.

The competing obligations between the costs of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and his business obligations created a "cash crunch" at the Trump Organization that motivated the former president to commit fraud, state attorney Kevin Wallace argued during his summation.

Wallace's theory about the motivation for the alleged fraud, which he articulated for the first time, attempted to explain Trump's motive for the alleged conduct as well as justify levying a fine against Trump in order to regulate the marketplace.

According to Wallace, the hundreds of millions of dollars saved by the Trump Organization through fraud allowed the company to "stay afloat" during a major "cash crunch" during the 2010s.

During the first half of the decade, the Trump Organization spent roughly $775 million to renovate properties including its Doral and Turnberry golf courses, as well as the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., Wallace said. The idea that the company could have funded these expenses with cash alone was a "fantasy," according to Wallace.

"By the time you get to 2017, Mr. Trump was becoming president, and the company was getting low on cash," Wallace said. Faced with the chance of a negative cash flow, the company opted to embrace fraud, according to Wallace.

"They didn't have to choose between their priorities," Wallace said about the company's business expenses and Trump's presidential campaign.

Trump attorney Chris Kise objected to the argument, suggesting the theory was nothing more than conjecture -- which prompted a heated exchange with Wallace.

"Chris. Stop. We didn't interrupt the defendants' presentation at all," Wallace shouted while facing Kise.

"I think I agree with Mr. Kise," Judge Engoron responded, but he allowed the presentation to continue.