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

Court of Appeals upholds limited gag order

New York's highest court has upheld the limited gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.

"On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic," New York's Court of Appeals said in a two-sentence ruling issued Tuesday.

The gag order barred Trump and his lawyers from commenting on Judge Arthur Engoron's staff during the former president's 11-week civil fraud trial.

A decision in the case is expected later this month, after closing arguments wrapped up last week.


'This case has never been about politics,' James says

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, speaking to reporters outside court following the conclusion of closing arguments, dismissed the idea that her case against Donald Trump is about politics.

"This case has never been about politics, personal vendetta, or about name calling. This case is about the facts and the law, and Mr. Donald Trump violated the law," James said.

James thanked her team, the judge, and Trump's lawyers before repeating her confidence that "justice will be done" in the case.

"No matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, no one is above the law," she said.


Closing arguments conclude, ruling expected within month

Judge Arthur Engoron asked state attorney Kevin Wallace to conclude the day's proceedings by comparing Trump's fraud to the actions of financier Bernie Madoff, who defrauded clients out of tens of billions of dollars in the 1990s and 2000s.

"How would you compare the fraud you are alleging to the Madoff Ponzi scheme?" Engoron said.

During a meandering response, Wallace acknowledged that Trump's fraud was smaller, but "significant given the dollar amounts involved."

"If you are rich enough, you going to be allowed to do it. You'll get away with it," Wallace said.

Engoron concluded the day by estimating that he would issue an opinion in the case by Jan. 31.

He then ended the proceedings.


The buck stopped at Trump, state lawyer says

The buck stopped at Donald Trump, and the court should hold him responsible for his company's actions, according to state attorney Andrew Amer.

"The buck stopped with him, so he was responsible for all the conduct I just reviewed," Amer said about Trump's conduct between 2011 and 2015, before his sons took over the company when Trump won the White House.

Though defense attorneys have repeatedly criticized the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Amer highlighted that Trump's lawyers never questioned the former president about his testimony that Trump instructed Cohen and then-CEO Allen Weisselberg to "reverse engineer" his financial statement to increase his net worth.

"Based on their decision not to question Mr. Trump on this critical point, the court should infer that the reverse engineering instructions were given by Mr. Trump, just as Mr. Cohen described," Amer said.

Amer also highlighted what he said was Eric Trump's inconsistent testimony about his knowledge of his father's statement of financial condition.

"He went to great lengths to conceal from this court that he was fully aware that his father had a personal financial statement," Amer said, claiming that Eric Trump and his brother Donald Trump Jr. "approved of and perpetuated those schemes with the intent to defraud."

Judge Engoron, however, appeared skeptical of Amer's argument about Trump's adult sons -- particularly Donald Trump Jr. -- and interrupted the summation to question Amer.

"What evidence do you have -- I just haven't seen it -- that they knew there was fraud?" Engoron said.

Amer responded that the sons should have known about the fraud given their role in the company, and that their inaction amounted to "sticking their heads in the sand."

"They can't say they didn't bother paying attention to it. That is just not a defense," Amer contended.


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."