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

Defense teams applauds lifting of gag order

Defense attorney Alina Habba, speaking to reporters outside court, said that an appellate judge's decision to temporarily stay Judge Engoron's limited gag order on Donald Trump would allow the defense team to continue raising issues with the conduct of Engoron's clerk.

Habba also said she saw no reason to advise Trump to refrain from attacking the clerk now that the gag order has been stayed -- despite Judge Engoron's concerns about his staff facing threats.

"There is not a day that I don't get a threat. It's just part of the game," Habba said. "If I put something out on social media, and I get a threat for it, which has happened to me every single day, I don't get to cry."

"Ms. James is continuing to disparage my client," Habba said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the lawsuit against Trump. "And they were grasping at straws for a reason to say that the president should be gagged. There was no reason."

James did not ask for the gag order, which was issued by Judge Engoron last month out of concern for the safety of his staff after Trump made a false post about his clerk on social media.


Responses to gag order stay due by Wednesday

New York Attorney General Letitia James and representatives for Judge Arthur Engoron have until Wednesday to file a response to the appellate judge's stay of the limited gag order imposed last month on Donald Trump by Engoron, according to the appellate judge's order.

Trump's reply is then due on Nov. 27 before the appellate court decides whether to fully lift the gag order. The civil fraud trial is expected to wrap up in mid-December.

Engoron's "gag orders entered during the non-jury trial in the underlying proceeding are unconstitutional, and sanctions imposed there under are in violation of the Judiciary Law and Rules of this court," Trump's attorneys said in arguing for the order to be lifted.

Oral arguments about the gag order were presented at a separate courthouse from the courtroom where Trump's civil trial is taking place. Engoron, who is hearing testimony from an expert witness, has not commented on the decision.


Appeals court temporarily lifts Trump gag order

A New York appeals court has temporarily lifted the limited gag order imposed on Donald Trump by Judge Arthur Engoron.

Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's first department ruled from the bench after a brief oral argument.

The judge stayed the limited gag order, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

"Considering the constitutional and statutory rights at issue, an interim stay is granted," Judge Friedman said in a handwritten order.

The gag order was imposed by the Engoron last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media.


Trump seeks emergency stay of limited gag order

Attorneys for Donald Trump have filed an emergency application for a stay of the limited gag order issued by last month Judge Engoron, asking that an appeals court annul and vacate the gag order and fines imposed against him.

Trump has been fined on two occasions, for a total of $15,000, after making statements referencing the judge's clerk, and the judge recently extended the gag order to apply to lawyers in the case.

Trump's lawyers argue that the gag order is an unconstitutional violation of Trump's freedom of speech, which they say Engoron has used as a "unfettered license to inflict public punishments on a defendant for the defendant's out-of-court statements."

"As applied to President Trump, it also prevents a presidential candidate from commenting on the public conduct and possible ethical violations of a critical member of Justice Engoron's chambers," Trump's lawyers wrote.

Engoron has said the gag order is meant to protect his staff from violence, noting that his chambers has received hundreds of threatening phone calls, messages, and packages over the course of the trial. While Trump's lawyers described Engoron's desire to protect his staff as "understandable," they argue the gag order is too broad a "curtailment of plainly protected speech in a trial playing out on a national and international stage."

An attorney for the New York attorney general responded to the filing by describing the gag order as the least restrictive means available to protect Engoron's staff.

"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from restricting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff or frustrates the orderly progression of a trial," the attorney general responded in a letter to the appeals court.


Trump's business drew little scrutiny from bank, defense says

Deutsche Bank was a serious company in business with Donald Trump to make money, defense attorney Jesus Suarez said during his cross examination of former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.

At the height of its relationship with the Trump Organization the company loaned Trump over $378 million, and failed to commission independent appraisals of Trump's properties, Haigh acknowledged. While the bank listed lower estimates for the value of Trump's assets year after year, it continued to do business with Trump and his company.

"We ... the bank hadn't done all the due diligence one would do in the sense of the opinion of value you see in an appraisal," Haigh said, at one point agreeing with the defense's characterization that the bank's internal value services group conducted "sanity checks'' on the numbers.

The direct examination of Haigh by state attorney Kevin Wallace also left a central question about Deutsche Bank's activity unanswered.

In a letter to the court and in previous arguments, lawyers for the attorney general suggested that Haigh might have turned away Trump's business if he had known that Trump's assets were inflated in value.

"As this Court noted during summary judgment arguments, Mr. Haigh testified during OAG's investigation that he may not have authorized lending to the borrower if he had at that time been aware of the inflated asset values contained in Mr. Trump's SFCs [statements of financial condition]," a lawyer for the attorney general wrote to the court in a letter last week.

Wallace never directly posed the hypothetical to Haigh during his direct examination, leaving the question unresolved.

Court subsequently adjourned for the day, with Suarez telling the court he plans to continue his cross examination of Haigh through Thursday afternoon.