Unable to cover full amount, Donald Trump offers to post $100M to appeal $454M fraud judgment
Donald Trump proposed on Wednesday to post a $100 million bond while appealing what he called an “exorbitant and punitive” $454 million fraud judgment in New York. State Attorney General Letitia James opposed the request.
A New York judge on Feb. 16 ordered the former president and his namesake company to pay the government for ill-gotten gains from overstating the value of his real-estate. The verdict also barred Trump from doing business in New York for three years, which includes borrowing from New York-based banks. While Trump appeals the judgment, he is asking to postpone paying the full amount because he would have trouble posting the entire amount.
“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” Trump’s lawyers Clifford Robert and Alina Habba wrote. “Appellants nonetheless plan to secure and post a bond in the amount of $100 million.”
James opposed the request Wednesday by arguing Trump is unlikely to prevail in his appeal. She argued a full bond is required precisely because of his insufficient cash and need to raise further capital.
“There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” James wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so.”
James argued the prohibition against future loans is warranted because the heart of the case dealt with Trump’s fraudulent and misleading statements to financial institutions.
“These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary, where defendants’ approach would leave OAG with substantial shortfalls once this Court affirms the judgment,” James wrote.
State appeals court will review
With Trump asking for an expedited decision on how much he must post to avoid paying the entire judgment, Judge Anil Singh of the state court’s Appellate Division, First Department, held a hearing Wednesday and said he expected to rule before the end of the day, according to a statement from the Attorney General's Office.
Whether Trump's emergency request is approved, denied and partially granted, the request will then be passed to five-judge appellate panel to determine whether to grant Trump’s request, according to Mark Zauderer, a senior partner at Dorf Nelson & Zauderer who has practiced in the court for decades.
The panel will review the written arguments from Trump and James and typically reach a decision within several weeks, Zauderer said.
The appellate panel could set a bond anywhere from zero to the full judgment.
A fraud that 'shock(s) the conscience'
In a decision Feb. 16, state Judge Arthur Engoron wrote that the frauds uncovered in the investigation, such as Trump massively overvaluing his assets to secure better loan terms, "leap off the page and shock the conscience."
An independent monitor Engoron assigned to oversee Trump’s business while the case was argued and for the next three years found that Trump “surreptitiously transferred $40 million from their accounts without disclosing the transfer,” according to James. Trump also sought to move portions of the Trump Organization operating in New York to Florida.
“Contrary to defendants’ argument there is substantial risk that defendants will attempt to evade enforcement of the judgment (or make enforcement more difficult) following appeal,” James wrote.
In addition to an $83.3 million loss in court last month to writer E. Jean Carroll in a New York defamation case, the verdict in Trump's civil fraud trial has created a cash crunch for the real estate mogul, who now owes more than half a billion dollars.
Trump argued that the "unprecedented $464 million fine" against him, his two older sons and a former corporate executive was unconstitutional because it resulted from a lawsuit that unfairly targeted him.
Trump argued James went after him without showing he had harmed any victims, and that her public statements demonstrated she considers him a political danger and was targeting him.
James documented at trial that Trump routinely overstated the value of properties by exaggerating their square footage or overestimating the revenue that could be generated from rents.
“Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” Engoron wrote.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump offers $100M to appeal $454M fraud judgment; AG opposed
