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
In blistering ruling, judge denies Trump's motion for directed verdict
Judge Arthur Engoron has denied Donald Trump's most recent motion for a directed verdict to end his civil fraud trial.
In a blistering ruling, the judge not only denied the motion but also opted to explain the flaws he sees in many of Trump's arguments at trial.
Addressing the testimony of defense accounting expert Eli Bartov, who Trump proudly and repeatedly declared found "no accounting fraud of any kind," Engoron flatly dismissed Bartov's findings by saying he lost credibility by "doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement."
"Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say," Engoron wrote.
The judge also rejected assertions from Trump's lawyers that any financial misstatements are beyond the case's statute of limitations.
"Closing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for future misstatements. All that §63(12) requires is a false statement used in business; the subject financial statements fit that definition 'to a T,'" Engoron wrote.
Engoron also suggested he didn't buy Trump's argument that fining the former president for ill-gotten gains was not merited in the case because his lenders were happy with the transactions.
"That the instant lenders made millions of dollars and were happy with the transactions does not mean that they were not damaged by lending at lower interest rates than they otherwise would have," he wrote.
Calling Trump's claims "misstatements at best and fraud at worst," Engoron wrote that "Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways. But a lie is still a lie."
The judge ended his ruling by reminding the parties about the date for closing arguments in the case, currently set for Jan. 11.
Trump's case does not age like fine wine, NY AG lawyer says
In a letter the Judge Arthur Engoron, a lawyer for the New York attorney general said Donald Trump's most recent request for a directed verdict in the case is nothing more than a "political stunt designed to provide Mr. Trump, his co-defendants, and their counsel with sound bites for press conferences, Truth Social posts, and cable news appearances."
Trump's lawyers on Friday made their fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case for lack of evidence, which Engoron earlier said he was all but certain to deny. The judge has rejected all four of Trump's previous motions for a directed verdict.
"Unlike a fine Bordeaux, Defendants' case for a directed verdict does not improve with age," state attorney Andrew Amer wrote in Monday's letter to the judge.
Amer also argued that Trump's request was not merited given the evidence presented at trial, saying that "Nor does any of the testimony from the most ineffective team of experts that Defendants' money can buy change the analysis."
"Defendants are once again 'whistling past the graveyard' by relying on arguments the Court has already rejected," Amer said, referring in part to Engoron's pretrial partial summary judgment ruling, in which he found that Trump used fraudulent statements to conduct business.
Trump files 5th motion for directed verdict
Donald Trump's lawyers made their fifth motion for a directed verdict in the former president's fraud trial in a filing late Friday that appears destined to be rejected.
Judge Arthur Engoron all but guaranteed he would deny the request to end the trial when Trump's lawyer Chris Kise announced his plans to file the motion earlier this week.
"There is no way I am going to grant that," Engoron said on Tuesday. "You'd be wasting your time."
Trump's lawyers nevertheless filed their motion late Friday.
"In sum, there was no fraud, there were no victims, there has simply been no harm or actionable misconduct, and the Court must and should follow the law of the case regarding the scope of the claims at issue," Trump's lawyers wrote.
In the filing, Trump's attorneys targeted New York Attorney General Letitia James' request to fine Trump nearly $400 million for ill-gotten gains by arguing that the state failed to demonstrate that Trump and his sons intended to defraud his lenders or that they engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud.
"Not a single defense witness supported the notion of any alleged conspiracy, and in fact such testimony refuted fully the existence of the same," the lawyers wrote, calling Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, who testified about the alleged conspiracy, a "demonstrable, perpetual, and serial liar."
They also argued that James failed to prove that any of Trump's alleged misrepresentations would have materially changed the loans he received from his lenders, writing that the alleged misstatements had "no actual significance" to Trump's lenders.
All four of Trump's previous motions for a directed verdict to end the case for lack of evidence have been rejected by Judge Engoron.
Trump files notice he intends to appeal gag order decision
Donald Trump wants New York's highest court to weigh in on the limited gag order in his civil fraud trial, according to a new filing Friday afternoon.
New York's Appellate Division shot down Trump's earlier challenge Thursday, determining that Trump used the incorrect legal avenue to challenge the limited gag order, which bars him from commenting on Judge Arthur Engoron's staff.
In a notice of appeal filed Friday, Trump's lawyers said they plan to appeal the decision to the Albany-based Court of Appeals -- New York's highest court.
It's unclear if the Court of Appeals will consider the request because Trump also lost a motion for leave to appeal the gag order.
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies
The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.
McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.
State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."
McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.
"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.
"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.
Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.