On Thursday, New York's appellate board appeared alarmed by the state's civil fraud lawsuit against former President Trump, which ended in a $464 million judgment against him and his businesses.
In arguments that lasted more than an hour, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division, New York's intermediate appellate court, ruled that the law that New York Attorney General Letitia James had invoked against Mr. He questioned whether the restrictions would apply.
laws give to the state overwhelming power Bringing legal action against companies that “repeat fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on of their business, operations, or transactions.”
“How do we draw the line or at least put some guardrails in place to know when an AG is going to happen? [attorney general] “She works well within her wide, certainly wide, scope…and when she goes outside her jurisdiction?” asked Justice John Higgitt.
A lower judge ruled in February that Trump, the Trump Organization and executives, including two of Trump's sons, falsely altered Trump's net worth in key financial statements to obtain tax and insurance benefits. It was decided that
He ordered Trump to pay a total of $464 million plus interest, $454 million of which is owed by Trump alone, and imposed several other fines. As of Thursday, interest on the judgment was more than $24.7 million, for a total of more than $489 million. This number will continue to grow until Trump pays up.
Trump lawyer D. John Sauer, who represented the former president before the Supreme Court in his presidential immunity challenge, said the state's lawsuit came too late and that decades-old financial statements cannot be used on such “bases.” This should not be the case,'' the panel argued. catastrophic” financial penalties.
Sauer also reiterated his claim in court that the bank was willing to work with the Trump Organization, had conducted its own due diligence, and found no wrongdoing.
“They did their own due diligence,” Sauer said. “The uncontradicted testimony in the summary judgment record is that 'everything we did was independent. We did not rely on numbers.'
New York Deputy Attorney General Judith Weil argued on behalf of the state that the law gives the attorney general “broad” discretion, but two justices interrupted her opening remarks. , asked if there were any other instances where a state had sued an “equally sophisticated partner” in a case like this. Manners.
“Because I've gone through the cases that you cite, and they all always included aspects of consumer protection, and they included market protection,” Judge David Friedman said.
“We don't have anything like that here,” he added.
The debate was a big gamble for Trump. If the panel affirms the lower court's ruling, it would be a devastating blow to the former president's wealth and business empire — both of which underpin the persona that propelled him to the White House.
In addition to the eye-popping financial penalty, Mr. Trump was banned from holding executive positions at any New York company for three years and an independent monitor was appointed to oversee Mr. Trump's business operations.
His sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, executive vice presidents of the Trump Organization, were each fined $4.7 million and barred from holding leadership roles for two years.
Those fines have been suspended after President Trump posted $175 million bail earlier this year, blocking James's office from collecting the hefty judgment pending appeal.
If the commission's ruling goes against Mr. Trump, the ruling will receive even more attention during the appeal period to the state Supreme Court. If they lose, they will have to pay compensation.
Even though his net worth is estimated at $3.7 billion, he only has about $413 million in liquid assets or cash and personal assets available to pay the judgment. According to Forbes.
A ruling on Trump's appeal is expected in the coming months, but a decision is unlikely before Election Day.
