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
Trump touts defense witnesses' testimony
Following the fourth full day of testimony from witnesses for the defense Thursday, Donald Trump took to social media overnight to tout his case.
The former president posted that defense witnesses have "conclusively" proven that his financial statements were conservative and adequately disclosed, while claiming that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron "knowingly, substantially, & outrageously" devalued his assets.
After criticizing Engoron's law clerk in a post last night, Trump's latest posts do not reference the clerk, who Trump was previously prohibited from mentioning under the limited gag order that was temporarily lifted yesterday.
With gag order lifted, Trump blasts judge's clerk online
Hours after an appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order that prohibited Donald Trump from commenting about court staff in his civil fraud trial, the former president criticized Judge Arthur Engoron's law clerk on social media.
Describing the gag order as "Ridiculous and Unconstitutional," Trump applauded the appeals court for its decision and described Engoron's clerk as "politically biased and out of control."
Engoron issued the limited gag order after Trump made a false social media post about the clerk last month. This evening's post marked the first time Trump has explicitly mentioned her since then.
Trump also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James, calling her a "worldwide disgrace," and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against him during the trial.
Engoron ends day without addressing gag order
After attentively watching the testimony of the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa, Judge Engoron adjourned court for the day without referencing the stay of his limited gag order issued this afternoon by an appellate court.
The judge's clerk -- who was the subject of Trump's false social media post that triggered Engoron's limited gag order last month -- remained in her regular seat next to the judge after the ruling came down.
Court will resume with Laposa back on the stand Friday.
Real estate expert describes NY AG's approach as 'flawed'
The New York attorney general's approach to valuing Donald Trump's properties was "flawed," according to testimony from the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa.
Laposa said that the attorney general's complaint relied on a market value analysis of Trump's properties, rather than the investment value of the assets, which would consider the asset's value based on an individual's investment requirements instead of market norms.
"In my opinion, it's flawed," Laposa said about the attorney general's findings.
Judge Arthur Engoron appeared attentive during Laposa's testimony, overruling an objection from the state that would have limited the scope of his testimony.
"I want to hear what he says about evaluations," Engoron said.
Trump's lawyers disavow threats against judge, clerk
Donald Trump's lawyers, in a court filing this morning, doubled down on their criticism of the trial's limited gag order while distancing Trump and his co-defendants from what they called the "vile and reprehensible" threats against Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.
In a filing arguing against the limited gag order, defense lawyer Clifford Robert said that the attacks -- which he said Trump neither condoned nor directed -- do not justify the gag order's unconstitutional restraint on Trump's free speech.
"Respondents' sole cognizable justification for the Gag Orders is that an unknown third party may react in a hostile or offensive manner to Petitioners' speech," Robert wrote.
While Robert characterized the threats as "disturbing, derogatory, and indefensible," he argued that it could not be proven that Trump's Truth Social post on Oct. 3 -- which prompted the limited gag order prohibiting statements about the judge's staff -- led to an increase in threats. Trump and his lawyers have never called for violence, condoned the attacks, or encouraged threatening behavior, Robert said.
The threatening behavior "merits appropriate security measures," Robert wrote. "However, it does not justify the wholesale abrogation of Petitioners' First Amendment rights in a proceeding of immense stakes to Petitioners," which Robert argued has been "compromised by the introduction of partisan bias on the bench."