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

Closing arguments set for Jan. 11

Judge Engoron has set a date of Jan. 11 for closing arguments in the trial.

Both parties face a noon deadline on Jan. 5 to file their briefs, and closing arguments are scheduled to take place in person on Jan. 11, the judge decided after considering scheduling proposals from both the state and the defense.

Engoron said he plans to issue his decision in the case "a few weeks after" closing arguments.

"I would hope this [January] but no guarantees," Engoron said.

State attorneys had requested closing statements take place Dec. 13, while attorneys for Donald Trump suggested closing arguments be presented 60 days after both parties submitted paper filings.


Judge says he'll 'rigorously' enforce limited gag order

Judge Arthur Engoron warned that he plans to "rigorously" enforce the limited gag order he handed down last month, which prohibits Trump and his attorneys from commenting on the judge's staff, after an appeals court reinstated it this morning.

"I want to make sure all counsel are aware, and they probably already are aware, that this morning the Appellate Division First Department issued a decision vacating the stay on the two gag orders that I imposed earlier on this case," Engoron said in court. "So I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously, and I want to make sure that counsel informs their clients of the fact that the stay was vacated."

"We're aware. It's a tragic day for the rule of law, but we are aware," Kise responded.

"It is what it is," Engoron quipped.


Appellate court reinstates limited gag order

A New York appellate court has upheld the limited gag order imposed by Judge Engoron in the ongoing trial.

The decision reinstates the limited gag order Engoron imposed on Trump and his attorneys prohibiting them from disparaging court staff, particularly his principle law clerk, who has come under attack by Trump on social media.

The limited gag order was temporarily lifted two weeks ago by appellate judge after Trump's lawyers sued Judge Engoron.

Engoron's lawyer wrote in support of the gag order, saying that Engoron and his clerk have been inundated with threats since Trump began his attacks.

"It is ordered that the motion is denied; the interim relief granted by order of a Justice of this Court, dated November 16, 2023, is hereby vacated," the appellate court said in its ruling issued this morning.


Trial isn't likely to conclude until January, says judge

Closing statements in the trial aren't likely to occur until January, according to an updated schedule proposed by Judge Engoron.

The trial was initially expected to wrap up in December.

Rather than have the closing arguments immediately follow the conclusion of the defense's case and a brief rebuttal case by the state, Engoron signaled that he would prefer to receive simultaneous paper briefings from both parties, followed by oral arguments in January.

He did not set a date for the closing statements or oral arguments.

State attorney Kevin Wallace initially requested that Engoron set closing statements for Dec. 13. Donald Trump is set to testify on Dec. 11, and Wallace said the state may to present a brief rebuttal case, including testimony from two witnesses, on Dec. 12.

However defense attorneys suggested that both parties submit paper filings simultaneously, then receive questions from the judge and present oral arguments in 60 days.

"There is just an awful lot of argument to cover," said Trump attorney Chris Kise.

Wallace objected to defense's proposed plan "stretching this out to February," and instead suggested a two-week period after the close of evidence.

"I like the idea of the briefs, then the argument," Engoron said, adding that he would set a "just right" date between the two proposed options.


Defense expert says Mar-a-Lago was worth $1.2 billion

Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club was worth more than $1.2 billion in 2021 -- roughly double the value listed in Trump's statement of financial condition -- according to defense expert Lawrence Moens.

Describing Mar-a-Lago as a castle nestled on 17.6 acres of waterfront property, Moens said he determined the value by considering nearby properties and adding the total value of the club's 500 memberships, which in 2021 cost $350,000 each.

Between 2011 and 2021, Moens' analysis found that Trump undervalued Mar-a-Lago in his statements of financial condition -- but his analysis appeared to be based on Trump being able to sell the property to an individual to use it as a private residence, which the New York attorney general says Trump is prohibited from doing based on a 2002 deed he signed that would "forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use."

Judge Engoron only qualified Moens as an expert on the value of residential real estate.

Moens spoke with confidence about his ability to value real estate in Palm Beach, saying that he has sold billions of dollars of real estate since his first sale as a broker in 1982. Asked if any broker has sold more Palm Beach real estate than he has, Moens replied, "They don't exist."

"I am on the front lines everyday of selling properties, and I have a pretty good handle of what is going on currently in the market," Moens said. He later added, "My numbers are usually right."

Moens also put together a seven-minute promotional video about Mar-a-Lago, which was played during his testimony. Set to relaxing music, the video included high-resolution drone shots and dramatic panning shots of the property's amenities. After the video played, Moens highlighted details such as hand-carved stones, gold decorations that cost millions to construct, and other details that required years of work from tradesmen.

"I invited the attorney general's office to come see it anytime. The offer still stands," Moens said. "I will make sure he is not there when you come," he said of Trump.

Engoron appeared attentive to Moen's testimony -- but once Moens left the courtroom, he indicated that he wasn't as concerned about Mar-a-Lago's specific value as he was about whether it was misrepresented.

"I see this case about the documents -- whether the defendants used false documents when transacting business," Engoron said. "I am not trying to figure out what the value is ... I don't necessarily consider it relevant."