Deutsche Bank's $378 million in loans to the Trump Organization was a "good credit decision," the bank's former risk management executive told the court at the end of more than a day of testimony.

"I think we did a reasonably thorough analysis of the information," former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified under cross-examination by the defense.

An internal Deutsche Bank group evaluated Trump's financial information, personally visited Trump Organization offices to review bank and brokerage records, and conducted some appraisals of property explicitly used as collateral, according to Haigh.

Though the value that Deutsche Bank determined for the properties often differed by hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the Trump-provided value, the entities continued to have what internal bank documents described as a "long and satisfactory relationship."

"Using a Deutsche Bank-adjusted value for the assets, the net worth still exceeded $2.5 billion," Haigh said, referring to Trump's net worth as it related to a loan covenant.

When Trump decided to run for president and won the election, Deutsche Bank was supportive of the business relationship, though management was careful to monitor their particularly high-profile client, according to internal bank documents presented at trial.

"Note that the relationship continues to be monitored at the highest levels of senior management within the firm and any issues arising from the Guarantor's status as President of the United States are immediately addressed, taken to the appropriate Reputation Risk committee, and discussed with appropriate legal counsel," a credit report said.

When asked directly if the decision to work with Trump was a "good credit decision" by defense attorney Clifford Robert, Haigh responded, "I generally agree with that."

During redirect questioning, state attorney Kevin Wallace stopped short of directly asking Haigh if he would have still done business with Trump had he known about the inflated value of Trump's assets. But he asked Haigh whether Trump's financial information could have been incomplete.

"You have no way of knowing if there was information that wasn't provided to you?" Wallace asked.

"That is correct," Haigh said, marking the end of his questioning.

Former President Trump is expected to return to New York next week to attend the ongoing civil trial, sources tell ABC News.

The former president, who is not required to be in court for the civil proceeding, appeared in court last week for the first three days of the trial.

He is expected to take the stand later in the trial.

Sources tell ABC News that Trump could attend multiple days next week beginning Tuesday.

Trump's attendance could bring him face-to-face with his former attorney and one-time loyal aide Michael Cohen, who is expected to take the stand in the case.

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg is back at the New York Supreme Court courthouse today to possibly continue his direct examination.

If Deutsche Bank risk management executive Nicholas Haigh concludes his testimony this afternoon, Weisselberg will return to the witness stand to face questions from state attorney Louis Solomon.

Weisselberg's testimony began on Monday but was postponed to accommodate a scheduling conflict.

While he acknowledged that some of Trump's assets -- like his Trump Tower penthouse apartment -- were overvalued in the firm's financial documents, Weisselberg responded to dozens of Solomon's questions by saying that he could not recall or remember.

The longtime CFO was released from New York's Rikers Island jail complex in April after serving more than three months for tax fraud, after he pleaded guilty to 15 felony charges related to his compensation while working for Trump.

During his testimony on Monday, Weisselberg acknowledged that he signed a $2 million severance agreement with the Trump Corporation in January. That agreement, which was entered into evidence, limits Weisselberg's ability to cooperate with investigators unless compelled by the court, or to disparage the Trump Organization.

The agreement also set a payment schedule for Weisselberg to receive the severance money across eight $250,0000 payments. According to the schedule, he has only received $750,000 so far, with the remaining payments spread out over the coming year.

Deutsche Bank's internal credit reports related to Donald Trump's loans offered a positive -- at times glowing -- assessment of his assets, evidence presented in court showed.

"The general conclusion is that the hotel will become the most elite hospitality establishment in Washington, DC, once stabilized," a report said about the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., for which Deutsche Bank financed over $100 in debt.

That same report suggested that the "highest levels" of Deutsche Bank's management supported the bank's relationship with Trump as he began to campaign for president, defense attorney Jesus Suarez told the court.

"Relationship has been reviewed and supported from a Management Board perspective in connection with the Guarantor's candidacy for president of the United States," Deutsche Bank's 2016 credit report said.

Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified that the bank's "own analysis" supported approving Trump's loans, despite that analysis often suggesting that Trump's reported asset valuations were off by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Donald Trump has lost his appeal to throw out the limited gag orders and associated fines in his civil fraud trial.

In a decision Thursday, New York's Appellate Division, First Department rejected Trump's request to annul and vacate the limited gag orders imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron that prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge's staff.

In November, Trump's lawyers asked the Appellate Division to vacate the gag orders, citing a provision of New York state law to personally sue Judge Engoron. But the court said in today's ruling that the method used to appeal the gag orders was an improper application of the law.

"To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions," the ruling said, indicating that Trump should use the normal appellate process to pursue the vacating of the gag orders.

The court also determined that the "extraordinary remedy" requested by Trump's lawyers did not match the minimal potential harm from barring statements about Engoron's staff.

"Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court's staff," the decision said.