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

Trump, ignoring judge's warning, tells court he's an 'innocent man'

Before Judge Arthur Engoron could even get Trump to agree to the terms the judge had laid down for the delivery of Trump's closing statement, the former president launched into a five-minute address while seated at the defense table.

It began when defense attorney Christopher Kise asked the judge to reconsider his decision and allow Trump to speak, and Engoron asked Trump if he would stay within the bounds of his closing argument.

Trump pressed immediately on.

"Well I think, your honor, this case goes outside the facts," Trump said. "The financial statements were perfect. The banks got all their money back. They were as happy as can be."

Ignoring the judge's prohibition regarding delving into politics, Trump said, "This is a political witch hunt that should be set aside. We should receive damages for what we've gone through."

He also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"I'm an innocent man. I've been persecuted by someone running for office," Trump said. "This statute is vicious. It doesn't give me a jury. It takes away my rights."

He said the tripling of the square footage of his Trump Tower penthouse on his statement of financial condition was a mistake -- "an honest mistake" that was corrected.

Trump declared, "This is a fraud on me. What's happened here, sir, is a fraud on me."


Lawyer says no evidence implicates Trump's sons

Defense attorney Clifford Robert rounded out the defense summations by repeating claims that no evidence implicates his clients Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

"There is not one witness who says that Eric Trump or Donald Trump Jr. had nothing more than peripheral involvement with the statement of financial condition" that's at the heart of the case, Robert said. He added that even former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen -- who he described as "the biggest liar on the face of the planet" -- failed to implicate his clients.

Delivering his summation from the far side of the courtroom as if he was addressing the courtroom's jury box, Robert frequently pointed to the courtroom's gallery where Eric Trump sat in the first row.

"They have their futures ahead of them," Robert implored Judge Engoron, warning that the case could result in a professional "death penalty" for Trump's two eldest sons and could harm their families.

Like his co-counsel, Robert criticized the case as politically motivated.

"This is a press release wrapped up in a lawsuit," he quipped.

Robert concluded his statement by requesting that all the causes of action alleged against Trump's sons be dismissed.


Trump lawyer calls case 'political agenda,' drawing rebuke

The second of three defense attorneys to present closing arguments, Alina Habba, began her statement with accusations of political motives.

Habba, who also serves as Trump's legal spokesperson, said, "This case started before Ms. James took office," referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James. "You are now being dragged through a political agenda."

The accusation prompted an interjection from Judge Engoron, who earlier in the week instructed Trump's attorneys via email that Trump -- should be participate in the closings -- would have to abide by the same rules lawyers must adhere to when delivering a closing statement, namely "commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts."

"You saw the email exchange," Engoron reminded Habba. "So facts, law."

Habba pivoted, declaring that Trump "is worth billions" and arguing that there could be no fraud. She said the Trump Organization and its executives relied on the company's outside accounting firm, Mazars USA, to flag any impropriety with asset valuations and how they were calculated.

"We have wasted years, you and me, your honor, and for what?" Habba said.


Trump attorney warns ruling 'impacts every corporation in NY'

Trump attorney Chris Kise wrapped up his closing statement by warning that the upcoming ruling in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial "impacts every corporation in New York."

"This decision is not just about President Trump," Kise said.

"What you do, judge, impacts every corporation in New York. The commercial marketplace would cease to exist as we know it," Kise warned.

Kise repeated his claim that the alleged fraud lacks any witnesses, allegations of fraud, and lost money; instead, the case is simply the "weaponization" of New York Executive Law 63(12), he argued.

"You cannot allow the attorney general to pursue a victimless fraud and enforce the corporate death penalty," Kise said.


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.