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

Bank wouldn't extend Trump credit to buy Buffalo Bills, exec says

Former president Donald Trump and his company bid $1 billion in 2014 in an attempt to purchase the Buffalo Bills football team.

The only problem was that Trump needed a bank to help finance his bid.

Former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified that when Trump turned to his bank for help, bank executives declined, fearing it would increase their financial exposure to Trump.

"Deutsche Bank was not willing to increase its credit exposure to Donald Trump at that time," Haigh said.

But the bank was still willing to help Trump by sending a letter to support his bid, according to Haigh -- on the condition that Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney certify that the company was still in compliance with the covenants of the three outstanding loans the bank had given Trump.

McConney verified that Trump had over $300 million in liquid assets in 2014, and that it suffered no material decrease in the value of his illiquid assets, according to a document entered into evidence today.

With that verification, Deutsche Bank issued a letter that Trump had the "financial wherewithal" to fund his bid.

Trump's effort to purchase the Bills was ultimately unsuccessful.


Trump had to maintain $2.5B net worth for loan, banker says

When Donald Trump negotiated a $125 million loan from Deutsche Bank related to his Trump National Doral golf club, the former president agreed to maintain a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion as a condition of the loan, former bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified.

The loan memorandum prepared by Deutsche Bank included a covenant that the "Guarantor shall maintain a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion excluding any value related to the Guarantor's brand value," according to a document marked as evidence today.

The New York attorney general alleges that Trump's actual net worth at the time of the loan agreement was only $1.5 billion, an amount that would have triggered a default.

Retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified that he was involved in the decision to set the $2.5 billion figure, which he believed would protect the bank from exposure if the property failed or the broader market declined.

"It was set in order to make sure the bank was fully protected under adverse market conditions," Haigh testified.

To calculate Trump's net worth, Deutsche Bank looked at what Haigh described as Trump's four "trophy properties," all in Manhattan: Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, Trump Park Avenue, and Niketown -- a ground lease for a property adjoining Trump Tower.

Since the properties themselves were not provided as collateral for the loan, Deutsche Bank did not commission independent appraisals for the properties, and instead used a modified version of Trump's own numbers.

"The bank normally only commissions appraisals on assets taken as collateral," Haigh said.

Deutsche Bank adjusted their assessment in 2012, when they learned of a separate appraisal of Trump Tower that offered a lower value of the property than what Trump had provided.

"The bank felt that it had an independent view on the value of the asset," Haigh said of the appraisal that prompted his bank to lower their value for Trump Tower from $1.2 billion to $992 million.


Bank relied on Trump's financial statement to secure loan

Deutsche Bank relied on the strength of Donald Trump's "financial profile" when deciding to loan the former president roughly $125 million related to the purchase of the Trump National Doral golf club in 2011, according to retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.

Haigh testified that because Trump used the golf course and spa as collateral -- relatively "unusual" assets that Deutsche Bank would struggle to sell in the event of a foreclosure -- the bank leaned on the strength of Trump's larger portfolio.

"[Trump] is guaranteeing he will repay our loan -- all the money due on the loan," Haigh said about the terms of the loan. "He is also guaranteeing if the result is losing money, he will pay the cost of that shortfall."

Haigh said that he personally reviewed Trump's statement of financial condition when determining whether to sign off on the loan.

"My conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, which was not surprising," Haigh said about his findings after reading Trump's financial statement.

Previous witnesses in the trial have offered insights into how Trump's annual financial statement was drafted, finalized, and provided to banks to fulfill loan obligations. Haigh is the first witness to testify from the perspective of the banks, which considered the statements when deciding whether to do business with Trump.


'Nobody forgot to check off a box,' judge says about lack of jury

Responding to lingering questions about the lack of a jury at the ongoing civil trial, Judge Engoron stated on the record that Trump would not have been entitled to a jury trial.

"We are having a non-jury trial because we are hearing a non-jury case," Engoron said, dispelling claims that the trial lacks a jury because Trump's lawyers simply forgot to check off a box or file a motion.

"It would have not helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said.

During her opening statement, Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said the former president would have preferred a jury trial, and Trump himself has made multiple posts on his Truth Social platform about the alleged injustice stemming from the lack of a jury.

"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

"I would like to say thank you, your honor," Habba said about the clarification.


Judge, clerk subjected to daily threats, official says in gag order filing

An attorney for Judge Arthur Engoron also filed in support of the gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, arguing that violent threats have increased since the gag order was lifted.

The limited gag order, which prohibited Donald Trump and his attorneys from publicly commenting about Engoron's staff, was issued by the judge last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media. Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's First Department stayed the order on Thursday, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

Engoron's filing includes a report from Charles Hollon of the Judicial Threats Assessment Unit of the New York State Court System's Department of Public Safety. According to the report, Engoron and his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, have been inundated with credible, violent and antisemitic threats since Trump began criticizing Greenfield.

"The threats against Justice Engoron and Ms. Greenfield are considered to be serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative," Hollon wrote in the report.

Greenfield has been the victim of daily doxing of her personal email address and phone number, receiving dozens of calls, emails and social media messages daily, according to Hollon. Approximately half the harassing messages have been antisemitic, according to Greenfield.

In the report, Hollon wrote that Engoron was the subject of credible threats before the trial had started, but Trump's Oct. 3 Truth Social post directed at Greenfield exponentially increased the number of threats directed at her.

The report included multiple examples of voicemails that were left on the telephone in Engoron's chambers.

Hollon said the messages have created an "ongoing security risk" for Engoron, his staff and family, but that the gag order had been effective in lowering the number of threats.

"The implementation of the limited gag orders resulted in a decrease in the number of threats, harassment and disparaging messages that the judge and his staff received," Hollon said in the report. "However, when Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased."

Engoron's lawyer, Lisa Evans, said the threats detailed in Hollon's affirmation justify the gag order, which functions as a reasonable limit on free speech.

"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from limiting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff," Evans wrote.

Trump's reply to the filing is due on Nov. 27, after which the First Department will decide whether to fully lift the gag order.