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
Ex-CFO can't say who OK'd statements after Trump became president
Ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg, who testified earlier Tuesday that Trump approved his financial statements before they were finalized during the years between 2011 and 2016, was unable to recall who approved financial statements after Trump was elected president in 2016.
While he recalled discussing some elements of the statements with Trump Organization VP Eric Trump, he declined to say that either Eric or VP Don Jr. had final say regarding the statements.
Court then adjourned for the day.
Court is set to resume Wednesday morning with the testimony of Deutsche Bank risk manager Nicholas Haigh, who is testifying early due to a scheduling conflict.
Weisselberg is scheduled to return to the witness stand later Wednesday.
Ex-CFO OK'd financial documents used to prevent loan default
Ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg testified that he certified that Trump's financial statements were "true, correct and complete" so the documents could be provided to lenders to prevent a breach of contract resulting in a loan default.
"Please see the attached report required per our loan documents, for the above referenced loan," a Trump Organization employee would write to lenders like Wells Fargo, according to examples entered into evidence.
The employee would include a certification, signed by Weisselberg, attesting to the accuracy of Trump's financial documents.
"Did you understand that if you failed to provide this, the Trump organization would be in breach of its obligations under the loan agreement?" state attorney Louis Solomon asked Weisselberg for each email.
"Yes," Weisselberg replied.
Weisselberg says Trump signed off on financial statements
Donald Trump would approve his financial statements before they were finalized between 2011 and 2016, ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg testified.
Weisselberg said that Trump often had feedback about the notes sections of the statements, which contained more detailed descriptions of Trump's properties.
"'Don't use the word beautiful. Use the word magnificent,'" Weisselberg offered as an example of the kind of feedback Trump would provide.
Earlier Tuesday, Weisselberg testified that he did not meet with Trump or attorney Michael Cohen to review the statements. Returning to the topic after the lunch break, Weisselberg described Trump's final review of the document as a regular occurrence before he became president.
"Did you ever send it to the Mazars [accountants] … as a final version before Mr. Trump signed off on it?" state attorney Louis Solomon asked.
"Not that I can remember, no," Weisselberg said.
Ex-CFO suggested 30% 'brand premium' for golf course valuations
Ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg explained the Trump Organization's process for valuing its marquee properties as a complicated, months-long process during which the firm's controller, Jeffrey McConney, would reach out to appraisers and brokers to better determine their value.
"This took months to prepare. It was not a simple task," Weisselberg said, adding that he reviewed McConney's final product at a "30,000-foot level."
But Weisselberg acknowledged that he often intervened in the process to push McConney in a certain direction.
In one example, Weisselberg testified that he suggested McConney add a 30% brand premium for seven of Trump's golf courses -- adding tens of millions of dollars in value without disclosing the reasoning.
"Was the 30% premium you directed Mr. McConney to add to the fixed assets disclosed in the statement of financial condition?" Solomon asked.
"No," Weisselberg said.
During a later portion of his direct examination, Weisselberg testified he sent Trump Organization employee Patrick Birney -- who took over handling Trump's financial statements from McConney -- a newspaper clipping about a nearby Palm Beach property in order to support the valuation of Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club.
"Patrick -- hold for next year DJT f/s, Let's see what it ends up selling for," a handwritten note from Weisselberg on the clipping said.
Weisselberg acknowledged his hesitancy to use that property's asking price to help value Mar-a-Lago.
"Anyone can ask anything for a dollar amount. Doesn't mean it's going to sell," Weisselberg said.
Defense expert tells AG lawyer, 'You ought to be ashamed of yourself'
Donald Trump's accounting expert snapped at a lawyer for the New York attorney general after the lawyer suggested his opinion was bought by the defense team.
As accounting expert Eli Bartov was testifying about Trump's use of disclaimers in his financial statements, state attorney Kevin Wallace interjected, saying, "This is pure speculation from someone they hired to say whatever it is they want."
Still in the witness box, Bartov began yelling at Wallace about the comment as Trump sat watching a few feet away.
"You make up allegations that never existed," Bartov shouted. "I am here to tell the truth. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for talking like that."
Bartov, in his testimony, said that Trump's use of disclaimers functioned "just like the warning from the surgeon general on a box of cigarettes."
The accounting expert said that Trump's disclaimers clearly flagged to his lenders that they should conduct their own due diligence regarding the figures, rather than rely on them at face value. Witnesses from Deutsche Bank -- Trump's primary lender during the 2010s -- previously testified that they conducted due diligence and significantly undercut the valuations Trump provided in his financial statement when deciding to offer him loans.
"I never saw anything that is clearer than that," Bartov said about the language in Trump's disclaimer clause. "Even my nine-year-old granddaughter Emma would understand this language."
In his pretrial summary judgment ruling, Judge Engoron dismissed Trump's argument that disclaimer clauses protect him from allegations of fraud. While multiple defense witnesses have attempted to rebut Engoron's opinion about Trump's use of disclaimer clauses, the judge has signaled he stands by his opinion.
"My summary judgment is the law of the case on the legal effect of this paragraph or these sentences," Engoron said in response to Bartov's testimony, adding that the clauses "would not insulate the client."
Nevertheless, Trump attorney Chris Kise requested that Engoron reconsider his finding.
"I am fairly liberal in reconsidering my opinions," Engoron said before Bartov resumed his testimony.