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 inflated size of Trump's penthouse, rebuttal witness says
With the defense having rested its case, state attorneys began what they expect to be a brief rebuttal case by calling to the stand Kevin Sneddon, a managing director at Trump International Realty between 2011 and 2012.
State attorneys asked Sneddon about one of the centerpieces of the attorney general's complaint: Trump's penthouse apartment in Trump Tower, which Trump claimed on his statements of financial condition was 30,000 square feet in size when the actual dimensions are a third of that. The overstated size allowed Trump to inflate the value of the apartment by over $200 million, Judge Arthur Engoron decided in his partial summary judgment.
During the defense's case, a former Trump Organization executive blamed Sneddon for the error.
"The person running Trump International Realty at the time, Kevin Sneddon, sent me an email that the triplex was 30,000 square feet," former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney testified.
Sneddon, however, testified that he received the 30,000 square foot figure directly from Trump's main deputy: co-defendant and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.
Sneddon said that he received a phone call directly Weisselberg, who requested that he value Trump's penthouse.
"I just knew it was the penthouse. I didn't know much about the apartment itself," Sneddon testified.
"I asked if I could see it. He said that was not possible. I asked if there was a floor plan or any specs. He said he did not have any of that information," Sneddon said. "He said, 'It's quite large. I think it's around 30,000 square feet.'"
When McConney emailed him in September 2012 to ask for help valuing Trump's penthouse, Sneddon said he relied on the figure Weisselberg provided him -- unknowingly providing inaccurate information to McConney.
"I already valued DJT's triplex for Allen," Sneddon wrote in an email shown at trial. "At 30,000 sq. ft., DJT's triplex is worth between 4K and 6K per ft - or 120MM to 180MM."
Trump's attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected to most of Sneddon's brief testimony, describing the questioning as a "free for all."
During a short cross-examination, defense attorney Clifford Robert attempted to discredit the testimony of Sneddon -- who did not testify in the state's case -- by suggesting Sneddon was primed by state attorneys so his testimony would align with the state's theory of the case.
Defense rests its case, makes 5th motion to end trial
Donald Trump's lawyers rested their case in the former president's civil fraud trial, as New York Attorney General Letitia James watched from the gallery.
Defense attorneys undertook several "housekeeping items" before concluding their case, including adding expert reports to the trial record "for appellate purposes."
"You're going to appeal," Judge Engoron deadpanned before breaking into laughter.
Both parties were argumentative until the end, squabbling over minor issues that threatened to draw out the defense's case.
"We don't want additional time, we want the case to end," said state attorney Kevin Wallace.
With all housekeeping finished, Trump attorney Chris Kise announced, "We do rest." He then made the defense's fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case, saying he planned to submit a written motion on Friday.
"There is no way I am going to grant that," Judge Engoron responded. "You'd be wasting your time."
Wallace criticized Kise's plan to submit a written motion as "silly" and a "colossal waste of resources."
"We have already won on summary judgment," Wallace said in reference to Engoron's pretrial ruling. "I don't know what we are pretending is happening here."
NY AG in attendance for conclusion of defense's case
New York Attorney General Letitia James is attending the afternoon session of Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.
Sitting in the gallery with her staff, James briefly walked into Judge Engoron's chambers before the trial resumed following the midday break.
Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, was also spotted entering the judge's chambers for a separate meeting.
Court then resumed with defense attorneys conducting their redirect examination of accounting expert Eli Bartov.
Bartov is expected to be the defense's last witness before they rest their case, which will likely be followed by a brief rebuttal case by the state.
State highlights 'unpersuasive' past testimony of defense expert
In an effort to discredit the defense's accounting expert, state attorney Louis Solomon highlighted that Eli Bartov's testimony was rejected by a judge when he testified as an expert for the New York attorney general in her trial against Exxon Mobil in 2019.
The judge in that case wrote in his ruling that Bartov's testimony during that trial was "unpersuasive" and was "flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence," according to Solomon's reading of the ruling in court.
Bartov said he was unaware of the ruling, and defense attorney Chris Kise objected to the line of questioning as irrelevant.
Bartov largely stuck to his initial testimony during two hours of cross-examination this morning, defending his overall finding while acknowledging his analysis found that Trump's statements included some marginal overstatements that "did not impact significantly Deutsche Bank's decision to extend loans."
While Bartov agreed that, in the real estate business, "price gets set first, then valuation follows" he said he saw no evidence to support the attorney general's allegation that Trump's statements were reverse engineered to provide support for the values determined by Trump and his executives.
"Do you know if they were reverse engineered?" Solomon asked.
"I have no knowledge of that," Bartov responded.
Present in the courtroom for Bartov's testimony was Eric Trump, who made a surprise appearance in the gallery. Like his father, Eric Trump initially planned to take the stand during the defense's case, but canceled his testimony.
Judge denies defense's 4th request to end trial
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.