The competing obligations between the costs of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and his business obligations created a "cash crunch" at the Trump Organization that motivated the former president to commit fraud, state attorney Kevin Wallace argued during his summation.

Wallace's theory about the motivation for the alleged fraud, which he articulated for the first time, attempted to explain Trump's motive for the alleged conduct as well as justify levying a fine against Trump in order to regulate the marketplace.

According to Wallace, the hundreds of millions of dollars saved by the Trump Organization through fraud allowed the company to "stay afloat" during a major "cash crunch" during the 2010s.

During the first half of the decade, the Trump Organization spent roughly $775 million to renovate properties including its Doral and Turnberry golf courses, as well as the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., Wallace said. The idea that the company could have funded these expenses with cash alone was a "fantasy," according to Wallace.

"By the time you get to 2017, Mr. Trump was becoming president, and the company was getting low on cash," Wallace said. Faced with the chance of a negative cash flow, the company opted to embrace fraud, according to Wallace.

"They didn't have to choose between their priorities," Wallace said about the company's business expenses and Trump's presidential campaign.

Trump attorney Chris Kise objected to the argument, suggesting the theory was nothing more than conjecture -- which prompted a heated exchange with Wallace.

"Chris. Stop. We didn't interrupt the defendants' presentation at all," Wallace shouted while facing Kise.

"I think I agree with Mr. Kise," Judge Engoron responded, but he allowed the presentation to continue.

"We're back to hearing the same arguments," Kevin Wallace, an attorney with the New York state AG's office, began his closing statement following closing arguments from Trump's defense team.

"Donald Trump is rich, banks like rich people," Wallace said. "What we have not heard from defendants is any new facts."

Wallace said the defense failed to assert that any of the alleged fraud was a mistake, other than the overvaluation of the Trump Tower penthouse, and that the defense did not argue the numbers Trump used on his statements of financial condition were accurate.

"If you look at it across time, it becomes clear that fraud was central to the operation of the Trump Organization's business," Wallace said.

Wallace took aim at the testimony of defense expert witnesses, calling them a "murderer's row of experts" who Trump collectively paid at least $2.5 million.

"None of the experts actually presented evidence that is helpful to the court as a fact-finder," Wallace claimed.

Defense attorney Chris Kise stood up to interject, calling Wallace's murderer's row reference "outrageous." Wallace joked he was referring to the 1927 Yankees.

Moments after delivering his closing statement, Donald Trump exited the courtroom to criticize the trial as politically motivated.

"This is a political witch hunt the likes of which nobody's ever seen before. They owe me damages for what they've done," Trump said, repeating his claim that the case against him would scare businesses away from New York.

Nevertheless, the former president appeared pleased with his defense.

"It's been a pretty successful trial," said. "I don't know that we're going get a fair ruling. But everybody knows what I just said -- this is a sham and it's a shame," Trump said.

With the defense team's closings concluded, the state's closing is scheduled to begin following a break.

Judge Engoron mostly kept his head down for the duration of Donald Trump's closing summation, which Trump delivered from his seat at the defense counsel table.

"This is not how this should have been done," Engoron said seconds before Trump launched into his statement, which contained several accusations that Engonron had tried to prohibit Trump from making.

Calling the state attorneys "disgraceful" and the statute used against him "vicious," Trump repeated many of his lawyer's claims before arguing that he is the only victim of fraud in the case.

Trump also criticized Engoron himself, claiming that the judge would not listen to him.

"You can't listen for one minute," Trump said.

"Mr. Kise please control your client," Engoron said while attempting to reign in Trump. But Trump continued.

"I did nothing wrong. They should pay me for what we had to go through," Trump said. "She sued me to try to get publicity," he said of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Engoron then held up his phone screen to signal to Trump that he had run out of time for his remarks, then the judge called for a break.

Taking the witness stand as an expert witness for the defense, accountant Jason Flemmons offered testimony in support of Donald Trump's approach to valuing his Mar-a-Lago property, which has been the subject of debate throughout the seven weeks of the trial.

In his summary judgment decision, Judge Engoron found that Trump overvalued the estate by at least 2,300% because the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the property's market value between $18 and $27.6 million after Trump signed a deed that restricted its use to a social club, potentially limiting its resale value as a residence but ensuring a tax cut. Trump, in contrast, listed its value in his financial statement between $426 million and $612 million, and during his appearances in court and online he has repeatedly attacked Engoron's finding.

Flemmons argued that Trump's approach to valuing his assets gave him latitude to consider his property's future revenue streams. That approach, according to Flemmons, could result in "wildly different values" between the numbers listed on a personal financial statement and a tax assessed value.

"Tax assessed values are typically on the lower end of the spectrum," Flemmons said, while Engoron looked on attentively.

While he never mentioned Mar-a-Lago by name, Flemmons was asked by defense attorney Jesus Suarez about a hypothetical property assessed at $18 million but valued closer to $500 million using a comparable sales approach -- the same approach used to value Mar-a-Lago.

"It would not be unusual to have a value in the hundreds of million using projected cash receipts," Flemmons said.

Engoron then turned his chair toward Flemmons and began asking his own questions.

"I am trying to get to the order of magnitude we are talking about here," Engoron said. "What is the highest value you have ever seen legitimately placed on such a property?"

Flemmons could not provide a specific example to answer Engoron's question but reiterated that a massive discrepancy could be appropriate.