NEW YORK, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Appeals court judges signaled skepticism on Thursday toward the civil fraud case brought by New York state against Donald Trump as the former president asked them to toss a nearly half-billion dollar judgment against him over real estate business practices that a trial judge declared fraudulent.
Justice Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump, the Republican candidate in the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential election, to pay $454.2 million in penalties and interest for inflating his net worth to dupe lenders and insurers into giving him better terms. The civil case was brought by New York state Attorney General Letitia James.
Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division - the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump's appeal - appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.
Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.
"Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace," Justice David Friedman told Vale.
"We don't have anything like that here," Friedman added, saying that nobody "lost any money."
The judges also wondered about what constraints applied to the law James cited in bringing the case - one that is typically used to go after fraudsters who target vulnerable consumers.
"How do we draw a line or at least put up guardrails? Justice Peter Moulton asked.
Vale, the state's deputy solicitor general, said the statute - known as Executive Law 63(12) - is broadly aimed at stopping fraud and illegality, and was therefore appropriate in Trump's case.
"When risk is injected into the market, that does hurt the counterparties and it does hurt the market as a whole," Vale said.
The case stemmed from Trump's leadership of his family real estate company, the Trump Organization, before he became president in 2017. Trump in April averted possible asset seizures in the case by posting a $175 million bond while he appeals.
Trump's lawyer John Sauer told the judges that trial testimony showed that any discrepancies in Trump's net worth were irrelevant to his lenders.
"What is not disputed is the testimony that if the net worth had been as low as one million (dollars), the deal would've been exactly the same," Sauer said.
Sauer added that none of Trump's lenders and business partners were harmed by the discrepancies on the financial statements, an argument Trump's lawyers have made throughout the case.
"There were no victims, no complaints," Sauer said.
During his rebuttal argument, Sauer said Vale had "struggled to articulate any clear principle" that would limit the state's enforcement power under the law. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rk-civil-fraud-case-against-trump/ar-AA1rgHAv
Do you have a link to the article?Possible overreach by Leticia James? That's an understatement. She campaigned on going after Trump.
This is today’s Trump fluffing? Dredging up old complaints about James, pretty weak.Possible overreach by Leticia James? That's an understatement. She campaigned on going after Trump.
James’ office argues that Trump’s appeal is awash in “meritless legal arguments” and ignores volumes of evidence showing that he engaged in “fraud and illegality on an immense scale.” “On appeal, defendants tellingly ignore almost all their deceptions,” Assistant Solicitor General Daniel Magy wrote in a court filing. Trump, his company and top executives including Eric and Donald Trump Jr. “created and used financial statements rife with blatant misrepresentations and omissions to maintain loans worth more than half a billion dollars and to generate over $360 million in ill-gotten profits,” Magy wrote. Trump inflated his net worth on the financial statements by as much as $800 million, to $2.2 billion a year, the state has argued. Magy said the statute of limitations was applied properly and that state law authorizes the state’s attorney general to take action against fraudulent or illegal business conduct, “regardless of whether it targets consumers, small businesses, large corporations, or other individuals or entities.”
She campaigned on going after Trump.
No link?Possible overreach by Leticia James? That's an understatement. She campaigned on going after Trump.
The alleged lie caused no harm to anyone and the lenders would have loaned the money anyway. This is the state sticking its nose into private transactions because the prosecutor vowed to get Trump any way he couild.It's always seemed quite simple to me. Maybe someone can set me straight.
The issue is that they lied on the forms, and that's illegal. It's got little to do with the bank or the deal. If anything, the banks were complicit looking the other way, but the responsibility is Trump's.
As a parallel example, if you are driving without a license, the police aren't generally going to care that you haven't run anyone over recently, because that's not the issue. The issue is you are driving without a license. No one is "harmed" but you will likely be cited and have your vehicle towed.
If you try driving for over a decade with no license, you'll most probably be arrested long before that time expires.
Trump's "defense" is like a sovcit on the side of the road screaming about how they aren't driving and don't need a license and accusing the police of targeting them.
What part of illegal and crime do you not understand?The alleged lie caused no harm to anyone and the lenders would have loaned the money anyway. This is the state sticking its nose into private transactions because the prosecutor vowed to get Trump any way he couild.
The alleged lie caused no harm to anyone and the lenders would have loaned the money anyway. This is the state sticking its nose into private transactions because the prosecutor vowed to get Trump any way he couild.
Precisely.The alleged lie caused no harm to anyone and the lenders would have loaned the money anyway. This is the state sticking its nose into private transactions because the prosecutor vowed to get Trump any way he couild.
Jaywalking on a street in the desert is illegal even though no cars are in sight.What part of illegal and crime do you not understand?
Yes, so that's the big plan.I hope Trump wins
and spends 4 years going after every single person that was out to get him .... and he'll find stuff, and hopefully he'll use the political power he has and the judicial system to grill them for every little thing they ever did including HOA violations
what's good for the goose is good for the gander, fair is fair
Thousands have since leftBut it's not private, is it? The state has requirements about the related documents that Trump failed to follow, repeatedly, for over a decade.
If you don't like the business laws in New York, we have 49 other states and some territories maybe you'll like better.
Yes, so that's the big plan.
4 years of nothing but revenge.
I wonder why you guys are slipping in the polls?
But I mean, if that's where we're going, then we should be making lists of our own for if Harris wins, right?
Hopefully, you'll recognize that Sauer has answered your question.But it's not private, is it? The state has requirements about the related documents that Trump failed to follow, repeatedly, for over a decade.
If you don't like the business laws in New York, we have 49 other states and some territories maybe you'll like better.
That's why I'm voting for her.Harris has one campaign goal - beat Trump
Well, except for the policies she's been discussing that you guys have been ignoring.or one of her minions kill him, either one ... but her entire PLATFORM is not Trump
He does not. His entire "platform" is getting even with people.Trump has a nice platform he's running on - and once he gets it going, I hope he hammers those who did him wrong. They deserve it
Everyone who has 3 brain cells knows this was a phony lawfare case intended to "eliminate" Trump as so many high-ranking officials have said should be done and when there are two attempts on his life because of their inflaming rhetoric, they blame TRUMP for apparently wanting to be shot at???Hopefully, you'll recognize that Sauer has answered your question.
From the Hill, linked above Post #14,
"Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who represented the former president before the Supreme Court in his presidential immunity challenge, argued before the panel that the state’s case was brought too late and that decades-old financial statements should not be the basis for such a “crippling” financial penalty."
Everyone who has 3 brain cells knows this was a phony lawfare case intended to "eliminate" Trump as so many high-ranking officials have said should be done and when there are two attempts on his life because of their inflaming rhetoric, they blame TRUMP for apparently wanting to be shot at???
That's why I'm voting for her.
Well, except for the policies she's been discussing that you guys have been ignoring.
He does not.
Oh the irony!His entire "platform" is getting even with people.
He has no plans for anything else, so he just relies on Agenda 47 (read: Project 2025) as filler.
The Democrats in charge of this country right now are truly evil people, proving once again that ordinary people can and will become evil when given unbridled power.Election Interference, lawfare, victim blaming, you name it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?