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

Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense's closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York on Thursday, sources familiar with the former president's strategy tell ABC News.

The defendants in the case -- Trump, his two eldest sons and two former Trump Organization executives -- are represented by three primary attorneys, Christopher Kise, Clifford Robert and Alina Habba. But sources say Trump himself is determined to deliver a portion of the closing statement.

The sources cautioned that plans for the defense's closing argument remain fluid.

The Manhattan courtroom where the trial has been held during its first 11 weeks is currently in use for another high-profile trial involving the New York attorney general's case against the National Rifle Association, and the judge in that case told jurors that trial would temporarily move to a different courtroom this week to accommodate Trump's civil trial.

-Aaron Katersky and John Santucci

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a written brief filed a week before the trial's closing arguments, asked the judge in the case to fine Trump over $370 million to disgorge profits from what James says is a decade of fraudulent business conduct, and to bar Trump for life from participating in the New York real estate industry.

The request for a $370 million fine, plus 9% annual interest, is a sharp increase from James' initial request for disgorgement totaling roughly $250 million.

The largest portion of the requested fine stems from the business loans the Trump Organization obtained using allegedly fraudulent financial statements. Based on expert testimony, James argued that Trump cost his lenders $168,040,168, which the banks would have made if Trump was given the appropriate interest rate corresponding to the actual value of his assets.

In their defense filing, Trump's lawyers called the attorney general's theory for disgorgement "fundamentally flawed, saying that "No lenders testified that they would have done anything differently had they known about Trump's misstatements, and James attempted to fill that evidentiary void with expert testimony, according to Trump's lawyers.

Trump's lawyers added that even if the attorney general proved that some of Trump's profits were ill-gotten, they lack the authority under New York Executive Law 63(12) to request the disgorgement.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for Jan. 11.

Judge Arthur Engoron has denied Donald Trump's most recent motion for a directed verdict to end his civil fraud trial.

In a blistering ruling, the judge not only denied the motion but also opted to explain the flaws he sees in many of Trump's arguments at trial.

Addressing the testimony of defense accounting expert Eli Bartov, who Trump proudly and repeatedly declared found "no accounting fraud of any kind," Engoron flatly dismissed Bartov's findings by saying he lost credibility by "doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement."

"Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say," Engoron wrote.

The judge also rejected assertions from Trump's lawyers that any financial misstatements are beyond the case's statute of limitations.

"Closing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for future misstatements. All that §63(12) requires is a false statement used in business; the subject financial statements fit that definition 'to a T,'" Engoron wrote.

Engoron also suggested he didn't buy Trump's argument that fining the former president for ill-gotten gains was not merited in the case because his lenders were happy with the transactions.

"That the instant lenders made millions of dollars and were happy with the transactions does not mean that they were not damaged by lending at lower interest rates than they otherwise would have," he wrote.

Calling Trump's claims "misstatements at best and fraud at worst," Engoron wrote that "Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways. But a lie is still a lie."

The judge ended his ruling by reminding the parties about the date for closing arguments in the case, currently set for Jan. 11.

In a letter the Judge Arthur Engoron, a lawyer for the New York attorney general said Donald Trump's most recent request for a directed verdict in the case is nothing more than a "political stunt designed to provide Mr. Trump, his co-defendants, and their counsel with sound bites for press conferences, Truth Social posts, and cable news appearances."

Trump's lawyers on Friday made their fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case for lack of evidence, which Engoron earlier said he was all but certain to deny. The judge has rejected all four of Trump's previous motions for a directed verdict.

"Unlike a fine Bordeaux, Defendants' case for a directed verdict does not improve with age," state attorney Andrew Amer wrote in Monday's letter to the judge.

Amer also argued that Trump's request was not merited given the evidence presented at trial, saying that "Nor does any of the testimony from the most ineffective team of experts that Defendants' money can buy change the analysis."

"Defendants are once again 'whistling past the graveyard' by relying on arguments the Court has already rejected," Amer said, referring in part to Engoron's pretrial partial summary judgment ruling, in which he found that Trump used fraudulent statements to conduct business.