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
Judge orders monitor to oversee company
Judge Engoron vacated his September order canceling the defendants’ business certificates, instead ordering an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization for at least three years.
He also ordered an Independent Director of Compliance be installed at the company.
Judge says Trump's lack of remorse 'borders on pathological'
Judge Engoron, in his decision, excoriated the Trumps and their co-defendants for their "complete lack of contrition and remorse" that he said "borders on pathological."
"They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin."
"Defendants did not commit murder or arson," the judge wrote. "They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' posture that the evidence belies."
Judge fines Trump $354 million
Former President Donald Trump must pay $354 million for fraudulent business practices, Judge Arthur Engoron has ruled.
Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have been fined $4 million apiece, and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has been fined $1 million.
The decision bars Trump barred from serving as an officer of a New York company for three years, and bars his sons for two years apiece.
Regarding the dissolution of Trump's companies, the decision says, "This Court hereby modifies its September 26, 2023, Decision and Order solely to the extent of removing the language ordering the LLCs cancellation en masse. The restructuring and potential dissolution of any LLCs shall be subject to individual review by the Court appointed Independent Director of Compliance in consultation with Judge Jones."
In his decision, Engoron wrote that "Defendants' refusal to admit error -- indeed, to continue it, according to the Independent Monitor -- constrains this Court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained."
"Overall, Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial," the judge wrote. "His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility."
"The accountants created these 'compilations' based on data submitted by the Trump entities," the decision said. "In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants' fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences."
Of Donald Trump Jr., Engoron wrote, "Despite disclaiming responsibility for or knowledge of the Statements of Financial Conditions' contents, Trump, Jr. still insisted that the Statements of Financial Condition were 'materially accurate.'"
Engoron's decision follows an 11-week civil trial in New York, where Trump and three of his adult children testified.
New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, his two adult sons, and Trump Organization executives in September 2022 for issuing fraudulent financial statements -- including over 200 false and misleading asset values between 2011 and 2021 -- to get better loan terms and business deals.
Judge concerned if ex-Trump CFO pleads guilty to perjury
Judge Arthur Engoron fired back at defense lawyers Thursday regarding former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who was allegedly engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.
Engoron had asked the lawyers in the case for information on Weisselberg's potential guilty plea, based on reporting from The New York Times. One of the defense lawyers responded by characterizing the request as "unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling."
"Arguing against judicial notice is attacking a straw person, as I have not taken, do not plan to take, and did not suggest or hint that I would take judicial notice of the subject New York Times article or the contents thereof," Engoron wrote in an email posted to the court's docket.
However, Engoron vowed that he would research and consider the issue if Weisselberg, a defendant in the fraud case, pleads guilty to perjury before Engoron issues his final ruling in the case.
"I am not reopening the case, but if someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it," Engoron said, adding that he reached out to Weisselberg's attorney for more information.
"You and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients," Engoron wrote. "That whole approach is getting old."
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."