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
Expert witness to resume testimony for defense
Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to resume their direct examination of expert witness Jason Flemmons this morning, continuing a line of questioning yesterday that largely placed responsibility for Trump's financial statements on Trump's external accountants.
Flemmons, who was qualified as an expert on accounting, explicitly criticized the testimony of Donald Bender, Trump's accountant at Mazars USA who was the New York attorney general's first witness, disputing Bender's claim that he would have wanted to see any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.
Flemmons also testified that Trump's financial statements should have sent a "buyer beware" signal to lenders due to the "highly cautionary language" in their disclaimer, which allowed Trump to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles.
To the extent that the statements and the Trump Organization's representations about the statements were inaccurate, Flemmons placed responsibility on Bender and his colleagues at Mazars, rather than the Trump Organization.
Expert calls Trump CPA's testimony 'not professionally plausible'
Expert witness Jason Flemmons cast doubt on the testimony of the Trump Organization's former external accountant Donald Bender, who said he would have wanted to review any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.
"That's not something that is required by professional standards," said Flemmons, testifying for the defense. "His testimony was not professionally plausible."
That prompted a strong objection from state attorney Kevin Wallace.
"Is he trying to say the witness is lying?" Wallace said.
"Not to put too fine a point on it," Judge Engoron quipped.
Asked to confirm what he meant by "professional plausible," Flemmons said it would be "highly unusual" for Bender to request appraisals outside what was mentioned in the statement of financial condition.
"Accountants in the industry do not go seeking records for things that are not in the four corners of the statement of financial condition," Flemmons said.
Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Flemmons scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow.
Trump's disclaimer told bankers to 'beware,' expert says
Defense expert Jason Flemmons described the disclaimer included in Donald Trump's financial statement as the "highest level disclaimer" that could have been provided to bankers reviewing the document.
Flemmons said that the disclaimer, which he said includes "highly cautionary language," would allow a user to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles, known in the industry as GAAP.
"Was that language present in a substantially similar form in the compilation statements issued by Mazars for Donald Trump?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.
"Yes," Flemmons said, adding that the disclaimer was "effectively saying 'user beware.'"
During his testimony and in statements to the media, Trump has claimed that the disclaimer shields him from liability in the case.
Suarez also used Flemmons' testimony to suggest that Trump's external accountants were responsible for understanding the methods used in the financial statement and determining their appropriateness.
That appeared to conflict with testimony of former Trump accountant Donald Bender of Mazars USA, who described his role as akin to plugging numbers provided by the Trump Organization into a template.
Expert says property valuations can be 'wildly different'
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.
Trump calls case a 'scam,' says he might testify
Exiting court during the break, Trump told reporters positioned nearby that the financial statements being reviewed in court included disclaimers, which his legal team has argued absolves him of wrongdoing.
"This case is a scam," Trump said during his walk back to court.
When asked if he would consider testifying, Trump said he might.