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
Defense lawyers decline to provide details on potential perjury
Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.
In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."
"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.
In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.
"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."
"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.
NY AG says Weisselberg plea should not affect case
New York Attorney General Letitia James said on Wednesday that the potential perjury-related guilty plea of former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg should have no bearing on the outcome the civil fraud case against former President Trump.
The attorney's general's office said it is unaware whether Weisselberg committed perjury while testifying in the case, but does not believe "this development should result in any delay of a final decision."
Judge Arthur Engoron had asked the parties to weigh in after it was publicly reported that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan district attorney's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.
"In sum, the fact that a defendant who lacks credibility and has already been to prison for falsifying business documents may have also perjured himself in this proceeding or the preceding investigation is hardly surprising," the AG's office said in a filing Wednesday, adding that "it should not delay a final decision and judgment imposing remedial measures in this law enforcement proceeding."
Weisselberg testified during the trial that he was only peripherally involved in certifying the size of Trump's Fifth Avenue apartment, but on the witness stand he was confronted with email suggesting otherwise.
Judge requests info about ex-CFO's potential perjury
Judge Arthur Engoron is requesting more information about potential perjury committed by defendant Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization CFO, according to an email shared on the court's docket.
As ABC News has reported, Weisselberg is in plea talks with the Manhattan district attorney's office to resolve a potential perjury charge, according to sources familiar with the matter.
"As the presiding magistrate, the trier of fact, and the judge of credibility, I of course want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune, and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial," Engoron wrote in an email he sent to the parties on Monday.
Engoron requested both parties to send him a letter by Wednesday at 5 p.m. ET detailing "anything you know about this that would not violate any of your professional ethics or obligations."
"I would also appreciate knowing how you think I should address this matter, if at all, including the timing of the final decision," Engoron added.
The judge is still weighing his decision in the $370 million fraud case, which he originally indicated would come by the end of January.
Trump attorney criticizes independent monitor's report
Trump attorney Clifford Robert on Monday blasted a report issued last week by the former judge appointed to monitor the Trump Organization as an inaccurate depiction of the firm's finances intended to justify the continued oversight of the company.
Robert, in his letter Monday to Judge Arthur Engoron, said the report from independent monitor Barbara Jones "twists immaterial accounting items into a narrative favoring her continued appointment, and thereby the continued receipt of millions of dollars in excessive fees," arguing that her report represented an "unacceptable level of disingenuity."
"This is truly a joke," Trump attorney Chris Kise told ABC News in a statement. "Indeed, it is shocking that President Trump has been forced to pay millions for a Monitor to prove what he has said from the outset, namely, there is no financial reporting misconduct, no fraud and simply no basis for this abusive process to continue."
Bank relied on Trump's financial statement to secure loan
Deutsche Bank relied on the strength of Donald Trump's "financial profile" when deciding to loan the former president roughly $125 million related to the purchase of the Trump National Doral golf club in 2011, according to retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.
Haigh testified that because Trump used the golf course and spa as collateral -- relatively "unusual" assets that Deutsche Bank would struggle to sell in the event of a foreclosure -- the bank leaned on the strength of Trump's larger portfolio.
"[Trump] is guaranteeing he will repay our loan -- all the money due on the loan," Haigh said about the terms of the loan. "He is also guaranteeing if the result is losing money, he will pay the cost of that shortfall."
Haigh said that he personally reviewed Trump's statement of financial condition when determining whether to sign off on the loan.
"My conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, which was not surprising," Haigh said about his findings after reading Trump's financial statement.
Previous witnesses in the trial have offered insights into how Trump's annual financial statement was drafted, finalized, and provided to banks to fulfill loan obligations. Haigh is the first witness to testify from the perspective of the banks, which considered the statements when deciding whether to do business with Trump.