Share
Donald Trump plans to dispute Judge Arthur Engoron’s interpretation of fraud that resulted in a $355 million ruling in the ex-president’s New York case.
“The case brings up significant legal and constitutional concerns about ‘fraud’ claims/findings without any actual fraud,” stated Chris Kise, Trump’s main attorney in the case, in an interview with Newsweek.
When questioned about the appeal schedule, Kise mentioned that the timing will be influenced by various factors and may be difficult to predict at this point. However, the appeal will be filed within the 30-day timeframe permitted by the court.
Kise criticised New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron for attempting to force Trump out of New York, stating that it would have negative consequences for the city.
In September 2022, James filed a lawsuit against Trump, his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, The Trump Organisation, and two firm executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney. Engoron, who presided over the trial, determined that Trump exaggerated his assets to secure more favourable business loans. In late last year and early January, a trial took place to decide the amount that the ex-president and his colleagues would need to pay in damages.
Engoron’s decision on February 16 required Trump to pay approximately $355 million in penalties. Trump, Weisselberg, and McConney face a three-year ban from holding any officer or director positions in New York corporations or other legal entities. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have been instructed to each pay over $4 million and are prohibited from conducting business in the state for two years.
Trump, leading the GOP in the 2024 presidential race, continues to assert his innocence in the matter, stating it was driven by political motives.
The outcome of the appeal depends on the specific interpretation of fraud applied in the case.
According to Professor Greg Germain of Syracuse University of Law, Trump will need to demonstrate on appeal that the New York attorney general lacks the authority to penalise him without proving specific elements of fraud.
“I believe he presents a compelling case that if the attorney general aims to penalise for prior use instead of preventing future use, she must demonstrate all the typical aspects of fraud,” he stated.
James’ team will contend that, according to New York executive order 63.12, the attorney general has the power to prosecute fraud without needing to demonstrate the presence of all six elements.
An executive order was put in place in 1956, granting the attorney general extensive power to issue subpoenas and investigate civil fraud allegations with few legal obstacles.
“Judge Engoron ruled in the summary judgement order that, under 63.12, the attorney general does not have to show any of those elements—a showing of falsity is enough,” Germain said.
According to him, if the court had used the complete six-part definition of fraud, it would have discovered minimal evidence that the banks had a “reasonable reliance” on Trump’s statements.
Germain stated that the evidence of reasonable reliance on Trump’s financial statements by the ‘victims’ is very weak and could be used as grounds for appeal.
According to a banking official at the trial, he did not base loan decisions solely on Trump’s statements and instead relied on the bank’s own calculations.
