Defense attorney Christopher Kise requested Judge Engoron issue a directed verdict at the conclusion of testimony from Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams -- marking the third time the defense has asked the judge to stop the proceedings and decide the case in their favor.

"Was an event of default ever declared by Deutsche Bank on the loans to the Trump Organization?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked Williams at the end of Williams' testimony.

"No," Williams replied, prompting Kise to jump up and make his request.

"This witness has again testified the bank conducted its own due diligence" and was not defrauded by Trump's statements of financial condition, Kise argued.

"This is a subjective exercise. There isn't a right answer. There isn't an 'Ah-ha, you picked the wrong number,'" Kise said. "The bank is in a relationship whose job it is to make these determinations. It's not the attorney general's job to insert herself into a private transaction ten years later."

Judge Engoron took the defense's motion under advisement but signaled he was unmoved.

"The mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn't mean the statute wasn't violated," Engoron said.

Kevin Wallace, an attorney for the state, took issue with Kise's analysis of the testimony.

"The witness did not say none of this matters. The witness said he expects clients to tell the truth," Wallace said.

Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence to estimate Trump's net worth, landing on a figure that differed from Trump's reported net worth by over $2 billion -- but the difference didn't concern the bank, according to testimony from managing director Dave Williams.

Trump reported a net worth of nearly $5 billion in 2013, according to documents shown at trial. The bank's own Valuation Services Group produced an estimate of only $2.6 billion, a difference that Williams described as "not unusual or atypical."

"My reaction was probably pretty measured," Williams said about learning that the bank determined that Trump's net worth was nearly half the estimate provided by Trump. "We are expected to conduct due diligence and verify information to the extent that is possible."

Even with Deutsche Bank's lower estimate, the former president easily met the bank’s $100 million net-worth requirement for high-net-worth individuals, according to Williams.

“He reported both a net worth and investable assets well in excess of our minimum requirements,” Williams said, confirming that the bank set the interest rate for Trump’s commercial loans between 2%-2.5%.

The testimony also appeared to bolster Trump's arguments that his lenders did their own due diligence, diminishing the importance of his statements of financial condition that are at the center of the case.

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams downplayed the possibility that Donald Trump could have defaulted on the net-worth covenants included in his loans.

While both parties agree that Trump never defaulted on his loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that had Trump accurately reported the value of his assets, he could have risked defaulting on a loan covenant that required he maintain a net worth of $2.5 billion.

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez pushed back on that allegation by asking Williams about the severity of a covenant default -- i.e., breaching the terms of the loan -- compared to a payment default triggered by a missed payment.

"Generally speaking, a payment default is a more material default than a covenant default," Williams said. "It speaks definitively to the repayment of the loan."

Williams described a loan covenant as a "guardrail," and suggested that breaching the covenant would have brought Trump back to the negotiating table to adjust the loan terms.

Williams also reiterated that he was not aware of any loan or covenant defaults by Trump.

James is expected to request a fine of nearly $400 million for Trump's allegedly ill-gotten gains, including over $140 million based on the potential interest she says was lost by Deutsche Bank. By proving that the loan agreements were lawful, Trump's lawyers could significantly lower the fine Trump faces.

The managing director of Deutsche Bank, which was Trump's primary lender in the 2010s, testified that it would be impossible for the bank to calculate their client's net worth with mathematical certainty.

"I don't believe that is possible," said Dave Williams, testifying for the defense. "I think an individual's net worth as reported is largely subjective, or subject to the use of estimates."

The assertion bolsters a recurring theme of the defense's case -- that determining the value of Trump's assets was less of a science than an art form.

Williams said that, regardless of what Trump reported, Deutsche Bank made more conservative estimates about the value of his assets.

"I think it's a difference of opinion. We expect clients provide information to be accurate. At the same time, it's not an industry standard that these financial statements are audited," Williams said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a written brief filed a week before the trial's closing arguments, asked the judge in the case to fine Trump over $370 million to disgorge profits from what James says is a decade of fraudulent business conduct, and to bar Trump for life from participating in the New York real estate industry.

The request for a $370 million fine, plus 9% annual interest, is a sharp increase from James' initial request for disgorgement totaling roughly $250 million.

The largest portion of the requested fine stems from the business loans the Trump Organization obtained using allegedly fraudulent financial statements. Based on expert testimony, James argued that Trump cost his lenders $168,040,168, which the banks would have made if Trump was given the appropriate interest rate corresponding to the actual value of his assets.

In their defense filing, Trump's lawyers called the attorney general's theory for disgorgement "fundamentally flawed, saying that "No lenders testified that they would have done anything differently had they known about Trump's misstatements, and James attempted to fill that evidentiary void with expert testimony, according to Trump's lawyers.

Trump's lawyers added that even if the attorney general proved that some of Trump's profits were ill-gotten, they lack the authority under New York Executive Law 63(12) to request the disgorgement.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for Jan. 11.