Former President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, in separate media appearances, addressed the ruling Friday evening, trading barbs while reacting to the judgment.

Speaking from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump said he had to pay a fine for "having built a perfect company." Accusing both James and Judge Arthur Engoron of being politically motivated, Trump denied committing any fraud and said he plans to appeal.

20:02

Trump responds to ruling: 'A crooked New State judge just ruled I need to pay a fine'

Meanwhile, in New York, James lauded the ruling as a victory for all Americans and the principles of equal justice under the law -- saying "former presidents are no exception."

"The scale and scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering -- and so, too, is his ego and his belief that the rules don't apply to him," she said.

James also heralded Judge Engoron's penalties as effective remedies to "ensure this fraud cannot continue."

4:43

Letitia James delivers remarks after Trump ruling

Based on Friday's decision, former President Trump and his co-defendants will likely owe $463.9 million based on their initial fine and the prejudgment interest imposed by the court, according to a representative for the New York attorney general.

Trump himself will likely owe $453.5 million, between his $354.86 million fine and $98.6 million in interest.

The amount of interest owed by the defendants is set to increase every day they do not pay the fines.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office brought the civil fraud case against Donald Trump, described the ruling as a "tremendous victory for this state, this nation, and for everyone who believes that we all must play by the same rules -- even former presidents."

“When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people," James said in a statement. "Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage to buy a home, and if they did, our government would throw the book at them. There simply cannot be different rules for different people."

The former president is "finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating, and staggering fraud," she said.

In addition to the fines imposed on Donald Trump and his co-defendants, the judge's decision leaves the Trump Organization in a constrained position to continue operating their New York-based businesses.

While Judge Engoron backtracked on his September summary judgment ruling -- vacating the part of his order that canceled their business certificates -- Donald Trump and his sons are temporarily unable to lead their namesake company. Trump faces a three-year ban on serving as the leader of a New York company, and his sons face two-year bans.

An independent monitor will continue to oversee the company's finances for at least three years, and the company needs to install a director of compliance.

Regarding the combined $364 million owed by the defendants, experts who ABC News spoke with believe it is unlikely any of them foot the bill immediately; instead, they can cover the fine with a bond while they appeal.

Judge Engoron, in an exchange with defense attorneys regarding the state's expert witness, said that levying fines against Trump -- one of the central issues being decided at this trial -- is "clearly an available remedy" despite the defense's contention otherwise.

Engoron already ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted "fraudulent valuations" for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.

Engoron's observation came during the defense's effort to preclude testimony from the attorney general's expert witness. In denying their effort, the judge also shot down the defense's argument that disgorgement -- fining Trump for illegal profits -- is off the table.

"For reasons this court has explained ad nauseam, that view is simply incorrect," Engoron said. "Disgorgement is a clearly available remedy."

Trump attorney Chris Kise countered that the state has failed to prove that banks would have done anything differently had they known Trump's statements were fraudulent. Kise specifically cited the testimony of Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh, who testified that loaning money to Trump was a "good credit decision."

"Several witnesses have testified that they would have acted differently had they known the statements of financial condition were fraudulent," Engoron responded.

"I think, to a certain extent, the defendants are whistling past the graveyard here," the judge added.