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

Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence to estimate Trump's net worth, landing on a figure that differed from Trump's reported net worth by over $2 billion -- but the difference didn't concern the bank, according to testimony from managing director Dave Williams.

Trump reported a net worth of nearly $5 billion in 2013, according to documents shown at trial. The bank's own Valuation Services Group produced an estimate of only $2.6 billion, a difference that Williams described as "not unusual or atypical."

"My reaction was probably pretty measured," Williams said about learning that the bank determined that Trump's net worth was nearly half the estimate provided by Trump. "We are expected to conduct due diligence and verify information to the extent that is possible."

Even with Deutsche Bank's lower estimate, the former president easily met the bank’s $100 million net-worth requirement for high-net-worth individuals, according to Williams.

“He reported both a net worth and investable assets well in excess of our minimum requirements,” Williams said, confirming that the bank set the interest rate for Trump’s commercial loans between 2%-2.5%.

The testimony also appeared to bolster Trump's arguments that his lenders did their own due diligence, diminishing the importance of his statements of financial condition that are at the center of the case.

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams downplayed the possibility that Donald Trump could have defaulted on the net-worth covenants included in his loans.

While both parties agree that Trump never defaulted on his loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that had Trump accurately reported the value of his assets, he could have risked defaulting on a loan covenant that required he maintain a net worth of $2.5 billion.

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez pushed back on that allegation by asking Williams about the severity of a covenant default -- i.e., breaching the terms of the loan -- compared to a payment default triggered by a missed payment.

"Generally speaking, a payment default is a more material default than a covenant default," Williams said. "It speaks definitively to the repayment of the loan."

Williams described a loan covenant as a "guardrail," and suggested that breaching the covenant would have brought Trump back to the negotiating table to adjust the loan terms.

Williams also reiterated that he was not aware of any loan or covenant defaults by Trump.

James is expected to request a fine of nearly $400 million for Trump's allegedly ill-gotten gains, including over $140 million based on the potential interest she says was lost by Deutsche Bank. By proving that the loan agreements were lawful, Trump's lawyers could significantly lower the fine Trump faces.

The managing director of Deutsche Bank, which was Trump's primary lender in the 2010s, testified that it would be impossible for the bank to calculate their client's net worth with mathematical certainty.

"I don't believe that is possible," said Dave Williams, testifying for the defense. "I think an individual's net worth as reported is largely subjective, or subject to the use of estimates."

The assertion bolsters a recurring theme of the defense's case -- that determining the value of Trump's assets was less of a science than an art form.

Williams said that, regardless of what Trump reported, Deutsche Bank made more conservative estimates about the value of his assets.

"I think it's a difference of opinion. We expect clients provide information to be accurate. At the same time, it's not an industry standard that these financial statements are audited," Williams said.

A day after Trump lawyer Chris Kise asserted that the only person who believes the former president committed fraud in his business transactions is New York Attorney General Letitia James, that claim will face a key test over the next two days as Trump's lawyers call four executives from Deutsche Bank, Trump's primary lender at the time of the alleged conduct.

Trump's lawyers claim that the executives will prove that the bank would have still done business with Trump despite his inflated claims about his assets.

"They're skipping over the part where they have to establish that the gains are ill-gotten, meaning that the loans would not have been issued in the first place or that the terms would have been different," Kise said in November during an argument for a directed verdict.

James, however, says that the banks lost millions in potential interest based on Trump's inflated valuations.