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

Insurer backed Trump to guard relationship with broker, expert says

Defense witness David Miller, an expert in insurance underwriting, testified that the Zurich insurance company worked with the Trump Organization largely to protect its relationship with their broker, AON Risk Solutions.

"The relationship with AON was very important, and keeping business intact was very important," Miller said about Zurich, which he said made a "business decision" to insure the Trump Organization's properties.

The testimony appears to be a move to weaken the New York attorney general's allegation that the Trump Organization used their inflated financial statements to get progressively favorable surety terms.

Judge Arthur Engoron was skeptical to qualify Miller as an expert before he relented to the defense's request.

"I don't see why you're an expert in what was just said," Engoron said after Miller spent 20 minutes listing his professional experience.

Both Engoron and state attorney Andrew Amer, who called the testimony a "waste of time," criticized Miller's ability to testify about the decisions made by Zurich and AON.


Defense's case running ahead of schedule

The defense’s case will likely conclude one week ahead of schedule, according to defense attorney Clifford Robert.

Based on the remaining witnesses, the defense team is now planning to rest its case by Dec. 8.

Once the defense rests its case, the New York attorney general has an opportunity to present a rebuttal case, followed by closing arguments from both sides.


James says Trump's expert witnesses are 'friends and golf buddies'

Week 8 of Donald Trump's fraud trial resumes this morning with the defense's sixth expert witnesses.

Apart from the testimony of Donald Trump Jr., the defense's case last week largely relied on multiple experts who supported the claim that asset valuation is more of an art than a science.

Similar to the state's lone expert witness, who was paid $350,000 for his testimony, Trump's expert witnesses during the first week of the defense's case were paid a hefty fee for testifying -- while others testified as a professional courtesy to Trump. Expert witness Gary Giulietti acknowledged his personal friendship with the former president, while Steven Witkoff said he had donated over $2 million to Trump's presidential campaign.

New York Attorney General Letitia James noted those connections in a social media post.

"Several of these experts are longtime friends and golf buddies of Donald Trump. One had donated millions of dollars to Donald Trump's campaign and his son even got married at Mar-a-Lago," she said.


With no gag order, Trump continues to assail judge, clerk

With his limited gag order temporarily lifted on Thursday, Trump is continuing to rail against his civil fraud trial on social media, calling for the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, Judge Arthur Engoron, and Engoron's law clerk.

Describing the case as a "horribly handled persecution of a political opponent," Trump alleged that Engoron himself committed fraud by undervaluing his assets in his pretrial ruling, and that his clerk and James were complicit in the case.

"The World is watching this illegal Witch Hunt," Trump wrote.

Describing Engoron's clerk as a "co-judge" and "highly partisan," Trump's posts over the weekend were the second and third time the former president took aim at the clerk since an appeals court temporarily lifted the gag order preventing him from attacking Engoron's staff. In both posts, Trump explicitly mentioned the clerk by name.

Engoron on Friday denied Trump's request for a mistrial, which alleged bias on the part of the the judge, writing in his ruling, "As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no 'co-judging' at play."


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."