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.


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


0

Trump attorneys call trial 'election interference'

Members of Donald Trump's legal team, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse prior to the start of the trial, called the fraud allegations against the former president "election interference."

Trump's attorneys said that Democrats were using the case to fight Trump's efforts to retake the White House in 2024.


Attorney general arrives at courthouse

New York Attorney General Letitia James has arrived at the courthouse in lower Manhattan.

"No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law," James said to the cameras before entering the courthouse.

"Today we will prove our case in court," she said. "Justice will prevail."

Demonstrators across the street from the courthouse cheered and applauded as the AG arrived.


Trump on way to courthouse

Former President Trump is in a motorcade on his way to the courthouse in lower Manhattan where his fraud trial will get underway this morning.

Opening statements in the case are scheduled to get underway at 10 a.m. ET.

-John Santucci


NY attorney general releases statement on 1st day of trial

New York Attorney General Letitia James released a statement on Monday just hours before the first day of trial in her fraud case against former President Donald Trump.

"For years, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system," James said. "We won the foundation of our case last week and proved that his purported net worth has long been rooted in incredible fraud. In this country, there are consequences for this type of persistent fraud, and we look forward to demonstrating the full extent of his fraud and illegality during trial."

"No matter how rich or powerful you are, there are not two sets of laws for people in this country," she added. "The rule of law must apply equally to everyone, and it is my responsibility to make sure that it does."


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.