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 attorney blasts motion to limit defense witnesses
Trump attorney Chris Kise grew visibly frustrated as today's proceedings moved on to arguments over the state's motion to preclude testimony from four of the defense's expert witnesses that the state argues are no longer relevant to the case.
After state attorney Andrew Amer argued in favor of the motion, Kise suggested he belongs in totalitarian Russia.
"I suggest Mr. Amer check the internet," Kise said. "Vladmir Putin has some openings. That is where he belongs."
Describing the comment as "completely uncalled for," Judge Engoron suggested that Kise apologize to Amer.
"I am not going to apologize," Kise said, though he promised to refrain from "further pejoratives."
Judge to take defense's motion to end case early 'under advisement'
Judge Arthur Engoron did not immediately rule on the defense's motion for a directed verdict that would end the trial early.
Instead, the judge simply said the arguments were being "taken under advisement."
Wrapping up his argument for a directed verdict, defense attorney Chris Kise channeled some of the rhetoric of his client, praising Donald Trump for helping the community and "reshaping the skyline of New York."
"What building has the attorney general built in this community?" Kise asked.
Trial is a 'documents case,' state lawyer says
State attorney Kevin Wallace, arguing against the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial early, reiterated that the state's case relies on documents that they say incriminate Donald Trump and his adult sons.
"This is a documents case," Wallace said. "Each of the three defendants signed documents saying they were responsible for the fair presentation of the statements."
While the defendants all testified that they relied on accountants, Wallace said by way of analogy that it's like the defense saying that using an accountant absolves an individual of filing false tax returns.
"I am liable for that fraudulence," Wallace said. "I am not relieved of my responsibility because I handed off to an accountant."
Trump's sons caught in political crossfire, defense lawyer says
Clifford Robert, a lawyer for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., argued that his clients were caught in a political "fight between the attorney general and their father" and should be cleared from the fraud case, as part of the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial
"The evidence is clear that my clients had no real involvement in the preparation of the statement of financial condition," Robert said in reference to the allegedly fraudulent documents that are at the center of the New York attorney general's case.
To demonstrate his point, Robert highlighted testimony from six witnesses who attested that Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were not involved in the preparation of their father's financial statements.
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.