Reducing Trump’s appellate bond doesn’t let him off the hook

By Thursday, April 4, former President Donald Trump Must Pony to post appeal bond in New York fraud case to prevent New York Attorney General Letitia James from enforcing the full $464.5 million judgment against his real estate, bank and brokerage accounts It raised $175 million.

Manhattan Appellate Division’s decision to alleviate President Trump’s request to publish full judgment was disastrous Misunderstood Some have pointed to it as a clear example of the judiciary giving special treatment to Trump. In fact, the decision as a whole preserves President Trump’s right to appeal unusually large civil judgments and protects New York State’s hard-won judgment against persistent white-collar fraudsters. A perfect balance is maintained between the two.

This issue, considered an unfair application of the law, arose because the Court of Appeal did not provide a basis for its decision. They simply published a concise, one-page opinion stating only the contents of the judgment without any explanation.

As a lawyer who has practiced civil law for nearly 40 years, including before the Appellate Division, it is clear to me that the Court of Appeals reached its results by fairly applying the law under unique circumstances.

Trump’s filing in support of the motion to eliminate or reduce bail specifically stated that it would be impossible to obtain bail for the full $464.5 million judgment. Despite his political posturing in his prior depositions and on Truth Social and other public statements, he said his wealth is in property and that he does not have the cash necessary to support bond for the full sentence. He claimed that there was no. President Trump correctly pointed out that if the attorney general were to seize and sell these properties and ultimately win on appeal, the victory on appeal would be hollow because there would be no way to unwind those transactions.

That appears to be the underlying concern in the appeals court’s decision — requiring President Trump to post a bail amount that he probably cannot meet in response to what is undoubtedly an unusually high sentence. effectively denying the party the ability to appeal.

This is not to say that President Trump’s eventual appeal of the ruling has any value. Judge Engoron’s award of long-standing fraud and damages that accurately match Trump’s ill-gotten gains, based on witness testimony and Trump’s own documents, are all supported by trial evidence.

However, it is likely that Mr. Trump took advantage of the predicament of posting bail for the full amount of the sentence to rouse his nerves. Claim The business is “too badly treated in New York,” he said. After all, New York is the economic capital of the country, if not the world. It is clearly important that people doing business in New York believe that they will be treated fairly and provided with full due process under the law. A robust appellate process is essential to the fair application of the rule of law.

At the same time, the court of appeals reduced bail to about 38 percent of the original sentence ($175 million is not a lot of money), but the appeals court made sure to honor the full text of New York’s decision. By limiting the timing of the appeals process, the court explicitly eliminated President Trump’s ability to delay the appeals process. The court “conditioned” the ruling on President Trump “completion of his appeal for the September 2024 term of this court.”

This means President Trump must file his appeal brief and supporting documents in July, and the appeal must be argued in September. During this appeals process, he continues to accumulate more than $100,000 in interest per day on the judgment at New York State’s statutory interest rate of 9%.

Most importantly, the Court of Appeals did not suspend the Trump Organization’s appeal of “the portions of the decision that (1) expand and strengthen the role of the monitor and (2) direct the creation of an independent compliance director.” That’s what happened. In other words, if President Trump tries to do something untoward that undermines the integrity of the overall final judgment, the watchdog, former U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones (with whom I work closely in the U.S. Attorney’s Office), ) will definitely criticize. Judge Engoron. Although the final judgment is under appeal, Judge Engoron has continued ability to protect the $464.5 million judgment owed to the people of New York State.

Nick Ackerman, a former Watergate special prosecutor and former assistant attorney for the Southern District of New York, is a New York City attorney.