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

New York AG not attending trial today

New York Attorney General Letitia James is absent from the courtroom this morning.

James attended the first six days of the trial, which started last Monday.

Former President Trump and Trump Organization VP Eric Trump both attended the first three days of the trial.


Trump used private banking to secure $300M in loans, per AG

While the Trump Organization's relationship with Deutsche Bank goes back 30 years, the attorney general alleges in her complaint that in 2011, Trump began doing business with the private wealth managers at the bank, rather than bankers who specialized in commercial real estate.

"In essence, rather than obtain credit facilities through the wing of Deutsche Bank with an expertise in commercial real estate, Mr. Trump began to seek funds from a wing of Deutsche Bank focused on servicing ultrawealthy clients," the attorney general's complaint said. "Hence, Mr. Trump's personal guaranty, and his representations regarding his finances that backed up that guaranty, featured prominently in Mr. Trump's loan transactions through the [private wealth management] wing of Deutsche Bank."

During the attorney general's investigation, Deutsche Bank credit risk executive Nicholas Haigh told investigators that he "may not have authorized" Trump's loans if he was aware of the inflated values in Trump's financial statements, according to a letter the state submitted to the court.


Deutsche Bank executive set to take stand

Donald Trump's civil fraud trial is set to resume this morning with the testimony of Nicholas Haigh, a credit risk executive who worked at Deutsche Bank when it issued loans to the former president.

Deutsche Bank was the largest single lender to the Trump Organization between 2011 and 2022, according to the New York attorney general.

Owing approximately $340 million to the bank at one point, the Trump Organization used Deutsche Bank to secure favorable loans related to its purchase of the Old Post Office Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, Illinois, and Trump National Doral golf club in Florida, according to the AG's complaint.


Ex-CFO can't say who OK'd statements after Trump became president

Ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg, who testified earlier Tuesday that Trump approved his financial statements before they were finalized during the years between 2011 and 2016, was unable to recall who approved financial statements after Trump was elected president in 2016.

While he recalled discussing some elements of the statements with Trump Organization VP Eric Trump, he declined to say that either Eric or VP Don Jr. had final say regarding the statements.

Court then adjourned for the day.

Court is set to resume Wednesday morning with the testimony of Deutsche Bank risk manager Nicholas Haigh, who is testifying early due to a scheduling conflict.

Weisselberg is scheduled to return to the witness stand later Wednesday.


No merit to NY AG's complaint, defense expert says

The New York attorney general's civil fraud complaint against former President Trump lacks merit, a defense expert in accounting testified.

"My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud," New York University professor Eli Bartov said. "My analysis shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated."

Bartov's testimony bolstered the defense's contention that non-audited financial statements, like Trump's, are unreliable and represent only a first step in analysis.

"You cannot use the raw numbers in the statements as the basis for making decisions," Bartov said. "If you do that, you are likely to reach the wrong decision."

Judge Engoron asked Bartov whether the attorney general's complaint had no merit.

"This is absolutely my opinion," Bartov replied.

"And why is that?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez jumped in to ask.

"There is not a single reference to a specific provision of GAAP that was violated," Bartov said, referring to the generally accepted accounting principles." "If you allege there was an accounting violation, they have to tell us what provision was violated."

State attorneys objected to the relevance of Bartov's opinion, but Judge Engoron denied the objection.