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 lawyer calls NY AG's 'Pharma Bro' comparison 'irresponsible'
A day after New York Attorney General Letitia James cited a ruling involving "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli to support a lifetime real estate ban for Donald Trump, a defense lawyer responded in a letter to the court calling the comparison "misplaced and irresponsible."
The New York AG said Tuesday that a federal appeals court decision upholding a lifetime industry ban for Shkreli should convince Judge Arthur Engoron to impose a lifetime real estate ban on Trump.
Defense attorney Clifford Robert, in response, wrote Wednesday that "the absurdity of the Attorney General's latest effort would be almost comical but for the sobering future consequences of her shameless abuse of power."
Robert argued that Trump's fraud case lacks witnesses, complaints, and victims compared to Shkreli's case.
In a statement to ABC News, Trump attorney Chris Kise said the ruling in Trump's case could have far-reaching implications for the New York business community.
"This is not just about President Trump. Every major bank CEO and every Wall Street participant should speak out now before the Attorney General's shocking and tyrannical interference in the capital markets places all New York business transactions at risk," Kise said.
NY AG cites 'Pharma Bro' ruling in seeking lifetime ban for Trump
The New York attorney general's office says a federal appeals court decision upholding a lifetime industry ban for disgraced "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli should convince Judge Arthur Engoron to impose a lifetime real estate ban on Donald Trump.
In a letter to Judge Engoron, state attorney Colleen Faherty cited Tuesday's decision in the Shkreli case to justify the NY AG's request to ban the former president from the New York real estate industry for life.
According to Faherty, New York State Executive Law 63(12) -- which was used in the NY AG's lawsuits against both Trump and Shkreli -- gives the court the ability to "issue a permanent and plenary ban in a particular industry."
"63(12) is the Swiss Army knife of the AG's Office," said Tristan Snell, a former lawyer with the New York attorney General's office who used the law to sue Trump over the now-defunct real estate seminar called Trump University. "If you don't have laws like this in place, that you basically allow lies and misrepresentations to be endemic."
A final decision in Trump's civil fraud case is expected later this month.
James releases video of Trump's April 2023 deposition
New York Attorney General Letitia James on Friday released video of former President Trump's April 2023 deposition in the case.
Video of the deposition, the transcript of which was released by the attorney general in August 2023, was released as part of a public records request.
As ABC News reported in August, Trump in the deposition called his real estate portfolio "the Mona Lisa of properties" and suggested his assets were worth far more than what appeared in his statements of financial condition that are at the center of the New York AG's case.
The videotaped deposition proved to be a preview of Trump's testimony at trial earlier this month, in which he bragged about his finances and declared himself "an innocent man."
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.
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.