Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience'
The former president was found to have defrauded lenders.
Former President Donald Trump has been fined $354.8 million plus approximately $100 million in interest in a civil fraud lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel him to the White House. In the decision, Judge Arthur Engoron excoriated Trump, saying the president's credibility was "severely compromised," that the frauds "shock the conscience" and that Trump and his co-defendants showed a "complete lack of contrition and remorse" that he said "borders on pathological."
Engoron also hit Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump with $4 million fines and barred all three from helming New York companies for years. New York Attorney General Letitia James accused Trump and his adult sons of engaging in a decade-long scheme in which they used "numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation" to inflate Trump's net worth in order get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.
Top headlines:
Summary of penalties
Donald Trump and his adult sons were hit with millions in fines in the civil fraud trial and barred for years from being officers in New York companies. The judge said the frauds "shock the conscience."
Donald Trump: $354 million fine + approx. $100 million in interest
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
Donald Trump Jr.: $4 million fine
+ barred for 2 years from serving as officer of NY company
Eric Trump: $4 million fine
+ barred for 2 years from serving as officer of NY company
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg: $1 million fine
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
+ barred for life from financial management role in NY company
Former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney:
+ barred for 3 years from serving as officer of NY company
+ barred for life from financial management role in NY company
Judge to allow testimony from Mar-a-Lago experts
Judge Engoron denied two motions by the New York attorney general that would have precluded testimony from two experts on the value of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago property.
In his pretrial ruling, Engoron decided that Trump inflated the value of the oceanfront property by 2,300% by listing its value at least $426 million, despite a tax appraiser determining its value at $27.6 million.
Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly criticized Engoron's finding, arguing that he misunderstood the purpose of a tax appraisal, and they planned to call two experts to support Trump's value of the property: John Shubin to testify about the deed that the state says limits the estate's value because it restricts the use of the property to a club, and Lawrence Moens, one of the top real estate brokers in Palm Beach.
State attorney Kevin Wallace argued that Shubin would offer impermissible legal opinions, and Moens could not offer a traceable process for evaluating the property.
"He is extremely different than a doctor [explaining] how he might conduct a surgery. He is providing evaluation advice," Wallace said about Moens' testimony.
Engoron denied the state's motions, allowing them both to testify -- but said he would enforce objections if they overstep their areas of expertise.
Bank and judge agreed on Trump's net worth, expert points out
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.
Trump easily qualified for private banking loans, expert says
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.
Judge backs argument that Trump fraudulently got better loan terms
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.
1st witness eyes Trump's decade-old financial statements
Testifying about the preparation of the Trump Organization's statements of financial condition in 2011, former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender said Trump executives largely provided the input data for statements, in addition to dictating the standards by which the work was completed.
"We would cut and paste that information into a new worksheet," Bender said about the approach taken by Mazar after receiving new data from co-defendant Jeffrey McConney of the Trump Organization.
When asked about the compliance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles -- which Bender testified are the standards for accounting in the United States -- Bender repeatedly placed responsibility in the lap of the Trump organization.
"That was the Trump Organization's responsibility," Bender testified about GAAP compliance.
Bender acknowledged that he rarely questioned the inputs from the Trump Organization, and when he did, he largely dealt with McConney and executives other than Trump and his adult sons.
Repeatedly asked by the state attorney if Mazars would have issued the statements if they had known the Trump Organization included material misrepresentations in their data, Bender reiterated that Mazars would not have issued the statements.
When Judge Engoron remarked at the end of the trial day that the state would still need to present further evidence to prove that the 2011 statement was within the statute of limitations, Trump seized the statement as a partial victory.
"The last five minutes was outstanding, because the judge actually conceded that the statute of limitations … is in effect," Trump told reporters as he was leaving court.
Engoron, however, did not completely rule out the 2011 evidence during trial, instead appearing to remind counsel that they need to show the 2011 statement represents an ongoing concern that falls within the statute of limitations.
Testimony is scheduled to resume on Tuesday at 10 a.m. ET.