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 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 gag order appeal stuck in 'procedural purgatory'
Donald Trump appears to be out of options to appeal the limited gag orders in his civil fraud trial, with his own lawyer describing his options as "procedural purgatory."
In addition to Thursday morning's appellate decision denying Trump's appeal, a panel of appellate judges issued an additional order Thursday denying his request to elevate his appeal to New York's highest court.
The decision forces Trump back to Step 1: asking Judge Arthur Engoron to vacate the gag orders, then appealing the judge's likely denial.
But the timeline for that process is unlikely to work in Trump's favor, with the evidentiary portion of the trial having concluded Wednesday and closing arguments scheduled for Jan. 11.
"We filed the petition because the ordinary appellate process is essentially pointless in this context as it cannot possibly be completed in time to reverse the ongoing harm," Trump attorney Chris Kise told ABC News in a statement regarding the gag orders, which prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge's staff.
"Unfortunately, the decision denies President Trump the only path available to expedited relief and places his fundamental Constitutional rights in a procedural purgatory," Kise said.
Trump loses bid to throw out limited gag orders, fines
Donald Trump has lost his appeal to throw out the limited gag orders and associated fines in his civil fraud trial.
In a decision Thursday, New York's Appellate Division, First Department rejected Trump's request to annul and vacate the limited gag orders imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron that prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge's staff.
In November, Trump's lawyers asked the Appellate Division to vacate the gag orders, citing a provision of New York state law to personally sue Judge Engoron. But the court said in today's ruling that the method used to appeal the gag orders was an improper application of the law.
"To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions," the ruling said, indicating that Trump should use the normal appellate process to pursue the vacating of the gag orders.
The court also determined that the "extraordinary remedy" requested by Trump's lawyers did not match the minimal potential harm from barring statements about Engoron's staff.
"Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court's staff," the decision said.
Ex-Deutsche Bank VP can't describe Trump's due diligence
Former Deutsche Bank vice president Emily Pereless, testifying for the defense, appeared reluctant to offer details about the process of reviewing Donald Trump's bank and brokerage statements between 2011 and 2014.
Pereless physically reviewed Trump's bank and brokerage statements with a colleague, according to documents shown at trial, and signed Deutsche Bank credit reports. Despite being called as a defense witness, she struggled to recall any details about the process and appeared uncooperative on the witness stand.
"I analyzed and compiled the information provided," Pereless testified about a 2014 credit report, saying could not recall the specific steps she took in detail.
Defense attorney Jesus Suarez attempted to refresh her recollection by showing her a document titled "DT Due Diligence Items" that listed steps that included reviewing Trump's personal tax reports, understanding ownership structures for assets, and learning of Trump's financial commitments.
Pereless still said she could not recall specific steps cited in the document, and even struggled to confirm who the aforementioned "DT" was.
"I am assuming it means Donald Trump, but I don't recall specifically," Pereless said.
Trump's attorneys said they planned to shorten their remaining direct examination when Pereless returns to the stand tomorrow.