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

Real estate expert describes NY AG's approach as 'flawed'

The New York attorney general's approach to valuing Donald Trump's properties was "flawed," according to testimony from the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa.

Laposa said that the attorney general's complaint relied on a market value analysis of Trump's properties, rather than the investment value of the assets, which would consider the asset's value based on an individual's investment requirements instead of market norms.

"In my opinion, it's flawed," Laposa said about the attorney general's findings.

Judge Arthur Engoron appeared attentive during Laposa's testimony, overruling an objection from the state that would have limited the scope of his testimony.

"I want to hear what he says about evaluations," Engoron said.


Defense teams applauds lifting of gag order

Defense attorney Alina Habba, speaking to reporters outside court, said that an appellate judge's decision to temporarily stay Judge Engoron's limited gag order on Donald Trump would allow the defense team to continue raising issues with the conduct of Engoron's clerk.

Habba also said she saw no reason to advise Trump to refrain from attacking the clerk now that the gag order has been stayed -- despite Judge Engoron's concerns about his staff facing threats.

"There is not a day that I don't get a threat. It's just part of the game," Habba said. "If I put something out on social media, and I get a threat for it, which has happened to me every single day, I don't get to cry."

"Ms. James is continuing to disparage my client," Habba said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the lawsuit against Trump. "And they were grasping at straws for a reason to say that the president should be gagged. There was no reason."

James did not ask for the gag order, which was issued by Judge Engoron last month out of concern for the safety of his staff after Trump made a false post about his clerk on social media.


Responses to gag order stay due by Wednesday

New York Attorney General Letitia James and representatives for Judge Arthur Engoron have until Wednesday to file a response to the appellate judge's stay of the limited gag order imposed last month on Donald Trump by Engoron, according to the appellate judge's order.

Trump's reply is then due on Nov. 27 before the appellate court decides whether to fully lift the gag order. The civil fraud trial is expected to wrap up in mid-December.

Engoron's "gag orders entered during the non-jury trial in the underlying proceeding are unconstitutional, and sanctions imposed there under are in violation of the Judiciary Law and Rules of this court," Trump's attorneys said in arguing for the order to be lifted.

Oral arguments about the gag order were presented at a separate courthouse from the courtroom where Trump's civil trial is taking place. Engoron, who is hearing testimony from an expert witness, has not commented on the decision.


Appeals court temporarily lifts Trump gag order

A New York appeals court has temporarily lifted the limited gag order imposed on Donald Trump by Judge Arthur Engoron.

Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's first department ruled from the bench after a brief oral argument.

The judge stayed the limited gag order, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

"Considering the constitutional and statutory rights at issue, an interim stay is granted," Judge Friedman said in a handwritten order.

The gag order was imposed by the Engoron last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media.


Trump Organization executive says CFO had final say

Trump Organization executive Patrick Birney testified that CFO Allen Weisselberg and controller Jeffrey McConney had the final say on Trump's financial documents when he worked under them.

"I was not the final decision maker," said Birney, who was an assistant vice president at the time.

Birney joined the Trump Organization in 2015, a few years after he graduated from the University of Michigan. He began helping with Trump's statement of financial condition in 2016 and eventually took over preparing the vital financial document, though he acknowledged in court that he initially lacked some basic knowledge about accounting and finance.

Asked if he ever had valued a property using a capitalization rate, he replied, "I don't think so."

Birney said he would often turn to McConney if he needed specific documents, and that he reviewed drafts of the statement with Weisselberg.

"He would review drafts with me that I would provide him," Birney said. He later added, "Allen Weisselberg had the authority to approve everything."