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.


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


0

Rep. Stefanik files complaint against Judge Engoron

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York has filed a judicial complaint against Judge Arthur Engoron.

The letter, addressed to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, largely concerns the judge's rulings in the case and his public statements, and is unlikely to impact the proceedings of the trial.

"Judge Engoron's bizarre and biased behavior is making New York's judicial system a laughingstock," Stefanik, a staunch Trump supporter, wrote.

The lengthy letter echoes some of Trump's attacks on the trial, criticizing Engoron's limited gag order in the case, the actions of his legal clerk, his summary judgment ruling, and his comments during Trump's testimony this week.

"Simply put, Judge Engoron has displayed a clear judicial bias against the defendant throughout the case, breaking several rules in the New York Code of Judicial Conduct," Stefanik wrote.


Court adjourned until Monday

Court has adjourned for the day, with the trial scheduled to resume Monday for the start of the defense's case.

The court will be closed Friday in observation of Veterans Day.

Donald Trump Jr. will return to the witness stand to testify as the defense's first witness on Monday, assuming the judge does not rule in favor of Trump's motion for a directed verdict to end the case early.


Judge denies NY AG's motion to quash 4 defense witnesses

Judge Engoron has denied a motion from the New York attorney general to preclude four expert witnesses from testifying for the defense when the defense presents it case starting on Monday.

The state had sought to preclude the four experts' testimony on the grounds that, following the testimony of the state's witnesses, the four defense witnesses were no longer relevant to the case.

"You've won the battle. We'll see if you win the war," Engoron told defense attorney Chris Kise -- though he warned Kise that he would cut off the witnesses if they try to debate facts already established in the case.

In making his ruling, Engoron reiterated his finding from his earlier summary judgment order that Donald Trump made at least ten internally contradictory claims in his statements of financial condition.

"You can't have a correct statement with these kinds of errors," Engoron said.

Kise told the court that Donald Trump Jr. will be the first witness to testify in the defense's case on Monday.

"Oh, I know him," Engoron deadpanned after the announcement.

It will mark Trump Jr.'s return to the witness box after the state put him on the stand last week.


Defense attorney apologizes for barb

Court has resumed after a lunch break, and Trump attorney Chris Kise appears to have had a change of heart regarding his earlier barb directed toward state attorney Andrew Amer.

Before lunch, Kise threw some shade at Amer during arguments over the state's motion to preclude testimony from four of the defense's expert witnesses.

Returning from court after the break, Kise took back his words and apologized.

"I am going to apologize to the court, I am going to apologize to Mr. Amer," Kise said.

"I appreciate it and accept the apology," Amer responded.


Rebuttal witness assails Trump's disclosures

State attorney Kevin Wallace concluded his direct examination of the New York attorney general's second and final rebuttal witness amid frequent objections by defense lawyers.

Lewis attempted to explain how Donald Trump's statements of financial condition failed to disclose that he did not conduct a discounted cash flow analysis, contributing to the over-valuation of some of his assets.

"There is no mention of discounting or future value in the disclosure," Lewis said, disagreeing with testimony from defense expert Jason Flemmons -- as well as former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, who testified as a state witness.

“Are you impeaching your own witness?” Engoron asked state attorneys regarding whether Bender’s testimony should no longer be considered credible.

"We didn't feel the need to," Wallace responded.

Lewis also suggested that Trump's external accountants at Mazars had less of an obligation to highlight issues that Flemmons suggested, since they were only conducting a compilation report rather than a more intensive audit. While Mazars had an obligation to flag obvious issues, they were not responsible for ensuring Trump's statements were compliant with generally accepted accounting principles, he testified.

"If while doing the compilation ... something comes to the attention of the accounts that could be a GAAP departure, they have a responsibility to bring that issue to the client," Lewis said regarding generally accepted accounting principles.

During the hour-long direct examination, defense lawyers objected at least 14 times, successfully interrupting the line of questions.

"I am lost," Engoron asked at one point. "Can you put this together?"

The parade of objections visibly irritating Wallace, who voiced his displeasure.

"Petulant outbursts don't really play well in the courtroom," quipped Trump lawyer Chris Kise in response.