Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has completed his direct examination, although he might be called back to testify by either the attorney general or the defense, Judge Arthur Engoron said.

"I am lifting the prohibition on discussing the case with counsel or anyone else," Engoron said about Weisselberg.

Trump Organization executive Patrick Birney, who as assistant vice president took over managing Trump's statement of financial condition after controller Jeffrey McConney, took the stand following Weisselberg.

Ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg, under questioning from state attorney Louis Solomon, addressed the degree to which Donald Trump's three adult children -- Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka -- were involved in the day-to-day running of the Trump Organization during the period from 2011-2022.

"They wanted to get up to speed on how the business was running," Weisselberg said, noting that Trump's run for president accelerated their engagement in the company.

Emails entered into evidence from around that time suggested that the three Trump children requested financial information about the company's operations.

During one email exchange, Weisselberg directly asked Eric Trump to delay paying off a loan related to Trump's Seven Springs estate so it wouldn't affect the former president's cash balance.

"If we have to pay off the loan I would like to do it post June 30th as that is the date of your dad's annual financial statement ... to keep his cash balance as high as possible," the April 2015 email said.

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has returned to the stand, nine months after he was sentenced to five months in prison for evading more than $1.7 million in taxes on unreported income in the form of company-provided perks.

One day before his sentencing in January, Weisselberg signed a severance agreement with his former employer saying that if he complied with all the conditions of the agreement, he would receive $2 million spread out over two years, according to court records.

One of those conditions, state attorney Louis Solomon highlighted in court, prevented Weisselberg from voluntarily cooperating with an investigation of his former company or boss.

"I didn't give it a lot of thought, to be honest," Weisselberg said when asked about the section of the agreement preventing him from cooperating with investigators.

"Is it just a coincidence that under this severance agreement, you are being paid $2 million, which is coincidentally the exact amount you were ordered to pay under your guilty plea?" Solomon asked.

"Coincidence," Weisselberg replied.

Deutsche Bank's $378 million in loans to the Trump Organization was a "good credit decision," the bank's former risk management executive told the court at the end of more than a day of testimony.

"I think we did a reasonably thorough analysis of the information," former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh testified under cross-examination by the defense.

An internal Deutsche Bank group evaluated Trump's financial information, personally visited Trump Organization offices to review bank and brokerage records, and conducted some appraisals of property explicitly used as collateral, according to Haigh.

Though the value that Deutsche Bank determined for the properties often differed by hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the Trump-provided value, the entities continued to have what internal bank documents described as a "long and satisfactory relationship."

"Using a Deutsche Bank-adjusted value for the assets, the net worth still exceeded $2.5 billion," Haigh said, referring to Trump's net worth as it related to a loan covenant.

When Trump decided to run for president and won the election, Deutsche Bank was supportive of the business relationship, though management was careful to monitor their particularly high-profile client, according to internal bank documents presented at trial.

"Note that the relationship continues to be monitored at the highest levels of senior management within the firm and any issues arising from the Guarantor's status as President of the United States are immediately addressed, taken to the appropriate Reputation Risk committee, and discussed with appropriate legal counsel," a credit report said.

When asked directly if the decision to work with Trump was a "good credit decision" by defense attorney Clifford Robert, Haigh responded, "I generally agree with that."

During redirect questioning, state attorney Kevin Wallace stopped short of directly asking Haigh if he would have still done business with Trump had he known about the inflated value of Trump's assets. But he asked Haigh whether Trump's financial information could have been incomplete.

"You have no way of knowing if there was information that wasn't provided to you?" Wallace asked.

"That is correct," Haigh said, marking the end of his questioning.

The second day of testimony from the defense's expert accounting witness prompted an argument between attorneys for the two sides over the basic question of what the case is about -- leading defense lawyers to make their fourth unsuccessful request for a directed verdict to end the trial.

The arguments came toward the end of direct testimony by accounting expert defense Eli Bartov, who asserted the New York attorney general's case lacked merit because there was no evidence of any fraud on Trump's statements of financial condition, and that any errors about the values of Trump's properties were unintentional and therefore immaterial.

When the defense attempted to question Bartov about those values, state attorneys objected -- prompting defense attorney Christopher Kise to leap from his seat.

"If they don't call anyone to dispute our values, how have they proven their case?" Kise said.

Judge Arthur Engoron, in a pretrial ruling, already decided that Trump conducted a decade's worth of business using fraudulent financial statements, and state attorney Kevin Wallace suggested that Bartov's findings do not change those findings.

"You can't use false statements in business. That's what the summary judgment decision is all about. I think it is pretty much what the rest of this case is about," Engoron said in response to Kise's question.

Kise argued that if the attorney general doesn't prove what Trump's asset values should have been, the case is a "completely rudderless ship" that needs to be "moored to some sort of standard."

"You can't just say it's a misstatement because you feel like it," Kise argued.

"The standard is truth," Engoron responded.

The exchange prompted Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, to make the defense's fourth motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Engoron is "wasting our time" if he won't consider their expert testimony.

"They have not proven their case. They haven't," Habba said in her request for a directed verdict.

"Denied," Engoron said within seconds of the request, without hearing a response from lawyers for the New York attorney general.