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
Trump expected in court for 2nd day
Former President Donald Trump signaled he will be in court again Tuesday morning in a post on his social media platform.
"See you in Court Tuesday morning," Trump posted.
The former president then went on to attack New York Attorney General Letitia James. He claimed he had a "good day at trial" during Monday's proceedings.
-ABC News' Lalee Ibssa
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.
Ex-accountant says statements were 'Trump Org's responsibility'
Prosecutors have called their first witness to the stand: Donald Bender, a former accountant at Mazars USA, the firm that for years handled Trump's taxes.
Bender testified at length about his involvement in compiling Trump's statements of financial condition between 2011 and 2020, which he described as "balance [sheets] of Mr. Trump's assets and liabilities."
Bender said the standards and inputs for the statements were largely decided by Trump Organization executives.
"That was the Trump Organization's responsibility," Bender said about the accounting standard used in the statements.
As Bender answered the state's questions, Trump was seen taking notes at the defense table.
Bender described spending roughly half his time on Trump's business and personal financial matters toward the end of his career at Mazars.
The firm severed its business relationship with Trump last year after learning of the attorney general's findings during the AG's probe.
Trump indicates he'll attend more days
Former President Trump took swipes at the attorney general and the judge overseeing his case during a break, calling the trial a "disgrace," and saying that he will return over the course of proceedings.
"I'll be seeing a lot of you," he told reporters, "because this is a horrible thing that's happening to this country."
He again claimed the civil lawsuit brought by AG Letitia James -- as well as the litany of other cases he faces -- are politically motivated.
"If I weren't leading in all the polls, or if I weren't running, I wouldn't have any of these cases," Trump said.
Bank's loans to Trump were 'good credit decision,' says exec
Deutsche Bank's $378 million in loans to the Trump Organization was a "good credit decision," the bank's former risk management executive told the court at the end of more than a day of testimony.
"I think we did a reasonably thorough analysis of the information," former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified under cross-examination by the defense.
An internal Deutsche Bank group evaluated Trump's financial information, personally visited Trump Organization offices to review bank and brokerage records, and conducted some appraisals of property explicitly used as collateral, according to Haigh.
Though the value that Deutsche Bank determined for the properties often differed by hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the Trump-provided value, the entities continued to have what internal bank documents described as a "long and satisfactory relationship."
"Using a Deutsche Bank-adjusted value for the assets, the net worth still exceeded $2.5 billion," Haigh said, referring to Trump's net worth as it related to a loan covenant.
When Trump decided to run for president and won the election, Deutsche Bank was supportive of the business relationship, though management was careful to monitor their particularly high-profile client, according to internal bank documents presented at trial.
"Note that the relationship continues to be monitored at the highest levels of senior management within the firm and any issues arising from the Guarantor's status as President of the United States are immediately addressed, taken to the appropriate Reputation Risk committee, and discussed with appropriate legal counsel," a credit report said.
When asked directly if the decision to work with Trump was a "good credit decision" by defense attorney Clifford Robert, Haigh responded, "I generally agree with that."
During redirect questioning, state attorney Kevin Wallace stopped short of directly asking Haigh if he would have still done business with Trump had he known about the inflated value of Trump's assets. But he asked Haigh whether Trump's financial information could have been incomplete.
"You have no way of knowing if there was information that wasn't provided to you?" Wallace asked.
"That is correct," Haigh said, marking the end of his questioning.