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 cites limited gag order for decision to not testify
In a social media post this morning, Donald Trump claimed he "wanted to testify on Monday" but blamed his decision not to testify on the trial's limited gag order, which prohibits Trump from commenting on Judge Engoron's staff.
When Trump on Sunday pulled out of his testimony, he touted the strength of his evidence and previous testimony as the reasons he decided not to take the stand.
"Anyway, the Judge, Arthur Engoron, put a GAG ORDER on me, even when I testify, totally taking away my constitutional right to defend myself. We are appealing, but how would you like to be a witness and not be allowed free snd [sic] honest speech," Trump wrote today.
In a statement to ABC News on Monday, Trump attorney Chris Kise also partially blamed the limited gag order for his client's decision not to testify.
"There is really nothing more to say to a Judge who has imposed an unconstitutional gag order and thus far appears to have ignored President Trump's testimony and that of everyone else involved in the complex financial transactions at issue in the case," Kise said.
In a court filing last week, Engoron's attorney wrote that the limited gag order "does not prevent statements about Justice Engoron himself, not the Attorney General or her staff, not the substance of the claims and allegations against petitioners, not the facts or evidence or witness testimony, not the judicial process, nor any other topic concerning the underlying action."
-Peter Charalambous and Soo Rin Kim
Trump attorney accuses state of withholding witnesses
Judge Arthur Engoron will allow the New York attorney general to call two witnesses during the state's rebuttal case once the defense rests its case -- over the objection of Trump attorney Chris Kise.
"The government has held these witnesses back," Kise said, arguing against the decision.
While state attorney Kevin Wallace maintained that their two rebuttal witnesses -- Cornell professor Eric Lewis and former Trump Organization executive Kevin Sneddon -- would only address arguments already made in court, Kise argued that the witnesses would be used to backfill evidence that the defense team would not be able to address fully.
"It's not rebuttal. It's filling a hole," Kise said, accusing the state of "gamesmanship" by withholding evidence.
Unconvinced by Kise's argument, Engoron ruled that the witnesses would still be permitted to testify.
"I see no reason not to allow these two purported experts to testify," Engoron said.
In response, Trump's defense attorneys suggested they might attempt to present an additional witness after the state's rebuttal case.
Trump's defense expected to rest its case today
After presenting four weeks of testimony, Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to rest their case in the former president's civil fraud trial today.
With Trump no longer testifying as a defense witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will be Trump's final witness.
Resuming his cross-examination this morning, Bartov is likely to face questions about inconsistencies and potential bias in his analysis of Trump's financial statements. Paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, Bartov said last week that he received payments from both the Trump Organization and Trump's Save America PAC.
Bartov strongly defended Trump's statements of financial condition, the documents at the center of the New York attorney general's case, during his testimony last week, saying that he could find "no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud." Bartov also argued the documents were insignificant to the banks that loaned Trump money, which he said used their own analysis to make their loan decisions.
"It is impossible to argue -- it is really absurd to argue -- that Deutsche Bank or any bank or any lender would make lending decisions based on the statements of financial condition," Bartov said. "This should close the book on this case."
Trial to resume on Tuesday
Donald Trump's civil fraud trial will resume on Tuesday, following the announcement from the former president that he was canceling his plans to testify Monday in his own defense.
"Donald Trump already testified in our financial fraud case against him," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Sunday afternoon following Trump's announcement. "Whether or not Trump testifies again tomorrow, we have already proven that he committed years of financial fraud and unjustly enriched himself and his family. No matter how much he tries to distract from reality, the facts don't lie."
The trial will continue Tuesday with the cross-examination of the defense's accounting expert Eli Bartov. Once Bartov concludes his testimony, Trump's defense case is expected to rest.
Lawyers for the New York attorney general plan to present a brief rebuttal case, which might conclude as early as Tuesday.
Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for Jan. 11, and a written decision in the case may come in late January.
Judge concerned if ex-Trump CFO pleads guilty to perjury
Judge Arthur Engoron fired back at defense lawyers Thursday regarding former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who was allegedly engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.
Engoron had asked the lawyers in the case for information on Weisselberg's potential guilty plea, based on reporting from The New York Times. One of the defense lawyers responded by characterizing the request as "unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling."
"Arguing against judicial notice is attacking a straw person, as I have not taken, do not plan to take, and did not suggest or hint that I would take judicial notice of the subject New York Times article or the contents thereof," Engoron wrote in an email posted to the court's docket.
However, Engoron vowed that he would research and consider the issue if Weisselberg, a defendant in the fraud case, pleads guilty to perjury before Engoron issues his final ruling in the case.
"I am not reopening the case, but if someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it," Engoron said, adding that he reached out to Weisselberg's attorney for more information.
"You and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients," Engoron wrote. "That whole approach is getting old."