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.
Justice Friedman, however, repeatedly interrupted Vale’s arguments, questioning whether the state’s fraud statute applied in a case involving sophisticated parties like Trump and Deutsche Bank, where no one had reported financial losses.
“It hardly seems that that justifies bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump,” Friedman said.
Trump’s Defense Leans on Statute Limitations
Trump’s appellate counsel, D. John Sauer, seized on the panel’s concerns, arguing that allowing the case to proceed under such broad authority would be “sweeping and unsettling.” Sauer contended that the state had overreached and the case should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations.
