Donald Trump's overstatement of the value of his Trump Tower penthouse apartment was a mistake, according to accounting expert Eli Bartov -- but not fraud.

"The price was inflated. There is no question about it," Bartov said about Trump more than doubling the value of his triplex apartment on his statement of financial condition, from $80 million to $180 million, between 2011 and 2012.

Bartov chalked up the mistake to the inevitable errors that occur in the process of compiling a statement of financial condition. He said that if Trump meant to commit fraud by inflating the value of his apartment, he would have made some effort to conceal it.

"There is no evidence here of concealment," Bartov said. "It's true this is an error. But it is no fraud."

Bartov instead blamed Trump's external accounting firm for failing to catch the obvious error.

"They submitted to him the supporting documents. Any person that had one year experience in auditing ... will immediately see there is a jump from 80 million to 180 million," he said.

The New York attorney general's civil fraud complaint against former President Trump lacks merit, a defense expert in accounting testified.

"My main finding is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud," New York University professor Eli Bartov said. "My analysis shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated."

Bartov's testimony bolstered the defense's contention that non-audited financial statements, like Trump's, are unreliable and represent only a first step in analysis.

"You cannot use the raw numbers in the statements as the basis for making decisions," Bartov said. "If you do that, you are likely to reach the wrong decision."

Judge Engoron asked Bartov whether the attorney general's complaint had no merit.

"This is absolutely my opinion," Bartov replied.

"And why is that?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez jumped in to ask.

"There is not a single reference to a specific provision of GAAP that was violated," Bartov said, referring to the generally accepted accounting principles." "If you allege there was an accounting violation, they have to tell us what provision was violated."

State attorneys objected to the relevance of Bartov's opinion, but Judge Engoron denied the objection.

A panel of five appellate judges has affirmed a judge's Oct. 6 decision that paused the dissolution of the Trump Organization.

Judge Peter Moulton issued a ruling during the first week of the trial pausing the immediate cancellation of Donald Trump's business certificates, as ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his partial summary judgment ruling on the eve of the trial.

Trump's attorneys argued in favor of the stay of enforcement action until the end of the trial, and the New York attorney general supported their argument.

Today's ruling formally pushes a decision on the fate of the Trump Organization into the new year, when Engoron issues his final ruling in the case.

Donald Trump is back in court as a spectator, marking the first time the former president has attended the proceeding in over a month.

Trump entered the courtroom alongside his legal spokesperson Alina Habba and his son Eric Trump, who canceled his testimony that was initially scheduled for yesterday. Notably absent from the courtroom is New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Previewing today's testimony from New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov, Trump said on his way into the courtroom that he has "one of the greatest experts in the country" taking the stand today.

"We did nothing wrong. There were no victims. The bank loves us," Trump said.

Judge Engoron has fined Donald Trump $5,000 for what the judge called Trump's "inadvertent" violation of his limited gag order that occurred when the former president's false Truth Social post about Engoron's clerk was not removed from Trump's campaign website.

"Donald Trump has received ample warning from this Court as to the possible repercussions of violating the gag order," Engoron wrote in a ruling after court had ended for the day. "He specifically acknowledged that he understood and would abide by it. Accordingly, issuing yet another warning is no longer appropriate; this Court is way beyond the 'warning' stage."

The judge said he decided to impose a nominal $5,000 fine "given defendant's position that the violation was inadvertent."

However, the judge wrote, "Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions, which may include, but are not limited to, steeper financial penalties, holding Donald Trump in contempt of court, and possibly imprisoning him pursuant to New York Judiciary Law 753."