FOLLOW US

A New York appeals court raised doubts on Thursday about the $489 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump, his sons, and their businesses, questioning whether the penalty imposed by the state attorney general was too severe or even justified. The skepticism from the five-judge panel opens the possibility that the fine could be reduced or vacated.

Judges Question Extent of Attorney General’s Authority

During the oral arguments, several justices expressed concerns over the scope of New York Attorney General Letitia James' authority in the civil fraud case. Associate Justice Peter H. Moulton voiced apprehension about potential "mission creep," suggesting the attorney general's office may have overstepped its powers in pursuing the Trump case. Similarly, Associate Justice John R. Higgitt and Associate Justice David Friedman questioned whether New York’s broad fraud statutes were intended to apply to private transactions between sophisticated parties like Trump and financial institutions.

"There has to be some limitation on what the attorney general can do in interfering in these private transactions," Justice Moulton said, questioning whether the statute used in the case had been applied too broadly.

Trump $489M Civil Fraud Verdict : Fraud Allegations and Massive Penalty

The civil fraud case stems from a lengthy investigation and an 11-week trial where Trump and top Trump Organization executives were found to have inflated his personal wealth to secure more favorable business deals, including loans from Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital. Evidence presented during the trial showed Trump inflated the value of properties, such as his penthouse apartment and the Mar-a-Lago resort, by as much as $2 billion annually.

Justice Arthur F. Engoron ruled in February that Trump and his businesses committed fraudulent acts, finding deviations from truth amounting to "hundreds of millions of dollars," and possibly "a billion dollars or more" in the case of Mar-a-Lago. The judgment required Trump to pay $354.9 million, while Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and former CFO Allen Weisselberg were ordered to pay lesser amounts. With interest, the total judgment reached over $489 million.

However, the size of the penalty concerned the appellate court. Justice Moulton remarked that the "immense penalty in this case is troubling," particularly given Trump’s claim that the trial court may have double-counted damages.

Debate Over Legal Basis and Precedent

New York Attorney General's counsel, Judith Vale, defended the judgment, arguing that the fine was appropriate for the scale of the fraud Trump allegedly committed. She further claimed that if similar fraud cases in the residential mortgage-backed securities market had been stopped earlier, the 2008 financial collapse might have been averted.