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 delivering closing could be risky, expert says
Attorneys Chris Kise, Alina Habba and Clifford Robert are scheduled to deliver closing arguments for the defense -- in addition to former President Trump, should Judge Arthur Engoron reverse his decision to bar Trump from participating.
Multiple legal experts who ABC News spoke with described Trump's attempt to deliver a closing statement as unprecedented and potentially perilous for the former president.
"One of the old adages is, 'He who represents himself has a fool for a client,'" trial attorney and Dartmouth College senior lecturer Bruce Fredrickson told ABC News. "The thinking behind that is you lose the objectivity and impartiality that an advocate can provide on your own behalf."
Closing arguments generally allow both parties to summarize the evidence and testimony presented during the trial -- but because Trump is not a lawyer, he would only be able to speak for himself as a named defendant in the case, according to trial attorney and ABC News contributor Chris Timmons.
"There's been a lot of damage done, and I don't know how much he can do to repair it, but he certainly can make things worse," Timmons said.
Trump, James arrive at courthouse for closing arguments
Donald Trump has arrived via motorcade at the lower Manhattan courthouse where closing arguments are scheduled to take place.
The former president pulled up shortly after New York Attorney General Letitia James arrived.
Traffic around the courthouse was briefly disrupted about half an hour before Trump's arrival by a group of protesters chanting "No dictators in the USA" as they waved signs and displayed a large banner.
Judge receives bomb threat ahead of closing arguments
Judge Arthur Engoron received a bomb threat at his New York home this morning, just hours before closing arguments are scheduled in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, according to a court official.
In light of the threat, the court is adding additional security for the judge, the court official said.
Nassau County Police bomb technicians responded to Engoron's home out of an abundance of caution. Nassau County Police notified the court system of the threat, which they say they have determined to be unfounded.
Today's court proceedings are expected to proceed as planned.
Trump to attend court, still hopes to present closing statement
Donald Trump is set to attend his civil fraud trial today, where he still hopes to participate in the defense's closing statement despite Judge Arthur Engoron rejecting that request yesterday.
The former president last night dismissed the idea that spending time in the courtroom is impacting his campaign ahead of Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.
"No -- we're leading by record numbers," Trump told ABC News.
The defense team's closings are scheduled to take place from 10:15 a.m. ET to 12:45 p.m. ET, while the state's closing is scheduled from 2:15 p.m. ET to 4:30 p.m. ET.
The defense plans to use most of its allotted time, and the attorney general's office has indicated their closing statement would run roughly one hour, according to emails shared on the court's docket yesterday.
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."