Trump real estate fraud suit

Post Reply New Topic

Former President Donald Trump disregarded restrictions imposed by the judge overseeing his civil fraud trial in New York and addressed the court during closing arguments on Thursday, raging against the state's attorney general and the judge himself for several minutes on the final day of proceedings.

One day before, Judge Arthur Engoron told Trump's attorneys that he would only be allowed to speak if he limited his comments to "relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts." His legal team did not agree to the conditions.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise raised the issue again in court, and the judge asked if he would abide by the limits. Trump began speaking, and Engoron allowed him to continue.

Seated at the defense table and wearing a blue suit and red tie, the former president criticized New York Attorney General Letitia James and defended his business practices, saying he did "nothing wrong" and that the state "should pay me for what we had to go through."

His comments came after his attorneys made their closing arguments and urged Engoron to reject the state's civil case against Trump and other co-defendants.

The tension-filled day was a fitting end to a chaotic trial that lasted for more than three months and featured bitter arguments, courtroom grandstanding, hallway gaggles and hundreds of objections. The judge has indicated he intends to make a ruling in the coming weeks.

Trump's closing argument
After outlining the Trump side's argument, Kise renewed his request for his client to be allowed to speak in court. Engoron asked Trump if he could abide by the restrictions he put into place, and limit his comments to the facts of the case. Trump indicated he would not, but began to speak anyway.

"Well, I think, your honor, that this case goes outside just the facts. The financial statements were perfect, the banks got back their money and are happy as can be," Trump said.

"When you say don't go outside of these things, we have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office and I think you have to go outside the bounds," Trump said, referring to James.

He said the attorney general had misused a statute designed to target consumer fraud.

"This is a fraud on me. What's happened here, sir, is a fraud on me," Trump said, before adding that the state should be forced to pay him damages as punishment for pursuing the case.

Trump said he "never had a problem" before running for office and directed his ire toward the judge.

"You have your own agenda, you can't listen for more than one minute, this has been a persecution," he told Engoron, who interrupted and told Kise to "control your client."

Engoron then continued: "By the way, you said you've never had a problem. Haven't you been sued before?"

Trump demurred. "Your honor, look, I did nothing wrong. They should pay me for what we had to go through," he said.

Trump's outburst came at the end of nearly three hours of closing arguments by his defense team. In his presentation, Kise argued that the state failed to rebut the testimony of experts called by the defense and cast doubt on one of the state's key witnesses. He insisted Engoron had to take unrebutted testimony into consideration when crafting his decision. Engoron interrupted Kise to disagree.

I should make clear that I'm not passing judgment on whether what you say was unrebutted, but I don't believe I have to accept unrebutted testimony if I don't find it credible," Engoron said. In a Dec. 18 ruling, the judge indicated that he in fact did not find one particular Trump witness credible: accounting professor Eli Bartov, who heaped praise on Trump's financial statements.

"All that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say," Engoron wrote at the time, referring to the amount Bartov charged for the work that went into his testimony, which totaled at least $877,500.

Trump leaned in, apparently paying particularly close attention when Kise spoke about estimates of his net worth, and the testimony of his nemesis and former attorney Michael Cohen.

Kise honed in on Cohen's October testimony, when Cohen said the former president personally authorized the fraudulent inflation of his net worth and property valuations.

The attorney displayed a slide titled, "Michael Cohen — AG Only [sic] Witness is a Serial Liar." Cohen admitted while testifying to previously having lied under oath multiple times. Kise said Cohen was the state's only witness who testified about the defendants' "intent" in compiling fraudulent financial statements.

"He's their only witness. They don't have anybody else. They're forcing you, judge, into the extremely uncomfortable position of having to find Michael Cohen a credible witness," Kise said.

Kise said the case would set a bad precedent if Trump loses, driving businesses from New York.

"You just cannot allow the attorney general to pursue a victimless fraud and impose the corporate death penalty," Kise said.

He also admonished Engoron: "Think of your legacy. This is precedent."

The New York attorney general's closing arguments
Lawyers for James argued in their closing that fraud was central to the operations of the Trump Organization for years.

Kevin Wallace, an attorney in James' office, said Trump and his company exposed lenders to more risk than they bargained for by lying about his wealth and the values of his properties. Wallace said the defendants conspired intentionally to commit fraud for a decade.

Wallace focused on the defendants' use of arguments that were rejected before the trial began, including their assertions that a disclaimer in Trump's financial statements absolved him of responsibility, and that his accountants were responsible. Wallace called these efforts "undead arguments."

He also called the testimony of experts hired by Trump's team "irrelevant." Wallace said the experts were used to distract from what he said was the defense's inability to point to facts in evidence that supported their case.

“You cannot use expert testimony to fill in new facts that are not part of the record," Wallace said. Engoron indicated he agreed.

Wallace continued, "None of the experts actually helped the court in fact-finding. That's the role of experts."

At one point, Wallace referred to the experts as a "Murderers' Row," a sarcastic nod to the dominant 1927 New York Yankees. Kise, who is from Florida, protested the criminal comparison. Wallace clarified that he was joking and explained the reference, prompting a knowing nod from the New York judge.

Another lawyer for James' office, Andrew Amer, focused on what he called false depictions of how much cash the Trump Organization had on hand in various years. The state has accused the company of saying it had hundreds of millions in cash that a partner company had assigned to a joint project.

Amer said insurers relied on a false portrayal of liquidity, believing the cash belonged to the Trump Organization.

Engoron interrupted Amer when he accused one defendant, former Trump Organization executive Jeffrey McConney, of purposely inflating a building's value by ignoring that many of its apartments were rent stabilized. How did Amer know for sure that McConney ignored that fact? Engoron asked.

"Because he's not an idiot," Amer replied.

Amer pointed to evidence that McConney, who was the Trump Organization's controller, knew a deed prevented Trump's club Mar-a-Lago from being valued as a private residence. He pointed to a moment when McConney was asked during October testimony why he valued the club as a residence anyway.

"I don't remember off the top of my head," McConney said at the time. Amer expressed disbelief Thursday at McConney's response, saying, "Really, your honor?"

Later, Amer said Trump Organization executives considered applying a "presidential premium" to the values of their assets. The move was meant to make up for the loss of value of Trump's triplex apartment after Forbes Magazine exposed that it was a third of the size Trump had long claimed.

As Amer concluded the state's closing arguments, Engoron questioned if he had proved that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump had committed fraud.

"What evidence do you have — I just haven't seen it — that they knew there was fraud?" Engoron asked.

"So, your honor, that brings us to the question of, [if you] stick your head in the sand, is that fulfilling your responsibility?" Amer replied, saying that the two have run the company for seven years. "You can't just say, 'I wasn't paying attention to this.'"

Amer said the defense could have asked Trump about that assertion, but chose not to. He argued, based on that omission, "the court should infer, fairly, that Mr. Cohen's testimony was accurate on this point."

It was a point that seemed to leave Habba shocked. She turned mouth agape to her colleagues on the defense team.

The judge who presided over a civil business fraud trial against Donald Trump on Friday ordered the former president, his sons, business associates and company to pay over $350 million in damages and temporarily limited their ability to do business in New York.

Judge Arthur Engoron ordered the former president and the Trump Organization to pay over $354 million in damages, and bars Trump "from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years."

He also continued "the appointment of an Independent Monitor" and ordered "the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance" for the company.

During the trial, Trump and executives at his company, including his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, attempted to blame exaggerated financial statements that were the heart of the AG's case on the accountants who compiled them. Engoron disagreed.

"There is overwhelming evidence from both interested and non-interested witnesses, corroborated by documentary evidence, that the buck for being truthful in the supporting data valuations stopped with the Trump Organization, not the accountants," he wrote.

The judge also cited the lack of remorse by Trump and his executives after the fraud was discovered as showing the need for a monitor.

"Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways," Engoron wrote.

"Defendants’ refusal to admit error — indeed, to continue it, according to the Independent Monitor — constrains this Court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained," he added.

Trump attorney Alina Habba called the verdict "a manifest injustice — plain and simple."

New York Attorney General Letitia James had been seeking $370 million from Trump, his company and its top executives, including his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, alleging "repeated and persistent fraud" that included falsifying business records and financial statements. James had argued those financial statements were at times exaggerated by as much as $2.2 billion.

James contended the defendants used the inflated financial statements to obtain bank loans and insurance policies at rates he otherwise wouldn’t have been entitled to and "reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains."

Trump had maintained his financial statements were conservative, and has called the AG's allegations politically motivated and a "fraud on me."

The months-long civil trial included testimony from Trump and his oldest children. The former president was combative in his day on the stand, blasting James as a "hack" and calling the judge "extremely hostile."

Trump repeatedly complained about Engoron before and throughout the trial, and the judge slapped him with a partial gag order after he started blasting the judge's law clerk as well. Trump's complaints led to a flood of death threats against the clerk, as well as Engoron, court officials said, and Trump was fined $15,000 for twice violating the order.

Among the examples cited as fraud by the attorney general's office during the trial was Trump valuing his triplex home in Trump Tower in New York City at three times its actual size and value, as well as including a brand value to increase the valuation of his golf courses on the financial statements, which explicitly said brand values were not included.

Another example pointed to by the attorney general clearly got under his skin — a dispute over the value of Mar-a-Lago, his social club and residence in Florida. Trump's financial statements between 2011 and 2021 valued Mar-a-Lago at between $426 million and $612 million, while the Palm Beach County assessor appraised the property’s market value to be between $18 million and $27 million during the same timeframe. Trump had also fraudulently puffed up the value of the property by saying it was a private residence, despite having signed an agreement that it could only be used as a social club to lower his tax burden.

The 92 page (pdf) judgement is worth a read.
"Nailed" barely covers it.

Donald Trump has been hit with all three in the past nine months, with Friday’s $354 million penalty for New York business fraud by far the most massive.

He is now on the hook for over $440 million in civil judgments as he heads toward the Republican nomination — and as he prepares for one or more criminal trials this year.
Those criminal cases could put him in jail. And in the meantime, his escalating troubles in his civil cases are packing a devastating financial punch.

Even for a man who claims to be a billionaire, $440 million is a potentially crippling amount of cash to turn over. Can Trump afford the judgments? When does he have to pay them? And what happens if he says he can’t — or if he outright refuses?

Here’s a look at what comes next.

Can Trump afford to pay?
Trump’s company isn’t public, and he has famously refused to disclose his tax returns, so his cash flow situation is shrouded in mystery.

Even if he has $440 million in cash on hand — and it’s far from clear that he does — paying the judgments could wipe out his accounts, since Trump himself has placed his cash reserves in the ballpark of that amount.

Trump claimed in a deposition last year that he had “substantially in excess” of $400 million in cash on hand.

But it’s unclear whether that number is accurate. That deposition, after all, was part of the very lawsuit in which a judge found that Trump has repeatedly inflated his net worth.

If he doesn’t have enough cash on hand, would he have to sell properties?

Trump would likely have to sell something, although it wouldn’t necessarily have to be property. He could sell investments or other assets.

What happens if he resists paying?
In the civil fraud case, which is in New York state court, if Trump can’t post the funds or get a bond, then the judgment would take effect immediately and a sheriff could begin seizing Trump’s assets.

The rules are slightly different in federal court, which is the venue for the $83.3 million judgment that Trump owes for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her. (He also owes Carroll an additional $5 million from a separate verdict last year.) Carroll could pursue post-judgment discovery under the jurisdiction of the judge who oversaw the trial. Through that process, the judge could order Trump to produce his bank account records, place liens or garnish his wages.

If Trump truly can’t afford the judgments, he would have to declare bankruptcy.

Can Trump delay payment by appealing the verdicts?
No. In all three cases, he has to put money in an escrow account with the court or get a bond while he’s appealing the verdicts.

With the civil fraud verdict, which Trump has vowed to appeal, the amount to be posted or bonded is set by the court. It is typically about 120 to 125 percent of the judgment amount, to account for additional post-judgment interest that accrues during the appeal.
With last year’s Carroll verdict, which Trump has appealed, he turned over $5.5 million to the court, which was worth 111 percent of the judgment.

For the more recent Carroll verdict, which Trump has also vowed to appeal, 111 percent of the judgment would be $92.46 million. Trump has a 30-day window after the Jan. 26 verdict to either pay cash into the court’s escrow or get a bond while he appeals. If he chooses to file a bond, he will likely have to pay a 20 percent deposit ($16.66 million) and put up collateral, but it could come with fees and interest, making it more expensive in the long run. And it would require Trump to find a third party willing to take on the risk of loaning him money.

Does he personally have to pay the verdicts? Could he get his campaign or PAC or the RNC to pay?
The courts don’t have restrictions on the sources of funds used to pay judgments, and Trump would surely like to tap other funds than whatever money is in his own personal accounts.

He could transfer assets from the Trump Organization to himself in order to help satisfy the judgments.

Using his political vehicles to pay would be far trickier. There is a general ban on using campaign donations for personal uses unrelated to a campaign or the official duties of an officeholder. And as for his political action committees, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University law school, said they can’t pay Trump’s judgments.

“Campaign funds cannot be used for that purpose regardless of whether the PAC is the decision-maker,” he wrote in an email.

Besides, Trump’s PACs may not be able to afford the judgments, since he has been using them to pay the many lawyers defending him across his criminal and civil cases.

Two of Trump’s PACS spent $29 million in legal consulting and legal fees in the second half of last year, leaving only $5 million in his leadership PAC’s coffers.

The Republican National Committee doesn’t have the same ban on the personal use of funds as Trump’s campaign committee, but paying Trump’s judgments could jeopardize its nonprofit status.

That's what I call 'Draining the Swamp'.

LOL there's a gofundme for cult members to make donations to pay the $355M!

https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-with-t ... settlement

Idiots to the nth degree.