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 attorney calls NY AG's case 'fraud with no victims'
Following the adjournment of court for the day, Trump attorney Chris Kise criticized the attorney general's case on the basis of testimony from the Deutsche Bank executives who said they were eager to do business with Trump regardless of the contents of his financial statements.
Echoing past comments, Kise described the case as a "fraud with no victims" in comments to ABC News.
Kise also slammed today's appellate court ruling reinstating Judge Engoron's limited gag orders as a "total breakdown of the rule of law."
"Now you have the front-running presidential candidate who can't even comment about why he thinks he's not getting a fair trial," Kise said about the impact of the ruling.
"I'm not sure how much more absurd it can get for President Trump," he said.
Expert disputes allegation that Trump cost lenders $168M
Robert Unell, an expert in commercial real estate, disputed the analysis conducted by the state's expert, Michiel McCarty, who testified that Trump's alleged deceptions cost his lenders $168 million in lost interest.
"It is really, in my opinion, a very narrow-minded support," Unell, testifying for the defense, said about the assumptions McCarty made regarding the interest rate of the loans.
Unell said that Trump's lenders made money, faced less risk in their investments over time, and sought additional business from the former president and his family. He also criticized the allegation that Trump risked defaulting on any of his loans by offering himself as a personal guarantor of the loans.
"It means the bank got what they wanted ... they had a warm body who was going to stand behind the loan and provide credit support," Unell said about Trump's personal support of the loans.
Judge Engoron interjected at multiple points to question Unell about his findings, at one point noting that the loans would have been pricier for Trump if lenders faced more risk stemming from Trump inflating his assets.
"The more value in collateral, the less risk, the lower the interest rate," Engoron said.
NY court official says judge's wife hasn't posted about Trump
Over the last week, Donald Trump has made multiple posts on social media about a social media account he alleges belongs to Judge Arthur Engoron's wife, accusing her of sharing multiple posts critical of the former president, including doctored images depicting Trump in prison.
"Judge Engoron's Trump Hating wife," Trump called her Wednesday on Truth Social.
A court official on Thursday denied that any of the posts referenced by Trump were made by Engoron's wife.
"Justice Engoron's wife has sent no social media posts regarding the former president. They are not hers," court spokesperson Al Baker wrote in a statement.
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.
Defense lawyers decline to provide details on potential perjury
Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.
In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."
"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.
In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.
"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."
"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.