Lawyers for Donald Trump Appeal Civil Fraud Judgment

On Monday, legal representatives for former President Donald Trump formally appealed a civil fraud judgment issued in February, which found Trump and his business entity liable for committing fraudulent activities. This appeal, filed with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, comprises 95 pages and presents a range of arguments challenging the judgment rendered by Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron.

Key Arguments and Claims in the Appeal

The appeal asserts that New York Attorney General Letitia James has overstepped her jurisdiction with what Trump’s legal team characterizes as an “unauthorized, unprecedented power-grab.” The appeal further argues that the judgment erroneously included several loans that, according to Trump’s lawyers, should not have been considered in the case. The legal team contends that James’s actions are aimed at “unwinding and penalizing complex, highly successful transactions” involving Wall Street banks, which were beneficial to all parties involved and had no detrimental impact on the public.

Judge Engoron’s ruling imposed a considerable financial penalty of $354 million, an amount that had risen to $464 million as of late February, with additional interest accumulating. In addition to the monetary penalty, the judgment includes significant operational restrictions: Trump is barred from managing any business in New York for a period of three years, while his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, are prohibited from operating any business within the state for two years.

Background of the Case

The lawsuit initiated by Attorney General James in 2022 alleged that Trump and the Trump Organization engaged in fraudulent activities by falsifying financial statements. The allegations included claims of inflating asset values to secure financial advantages. A prominent example discussed during the trial was the purported inflation of the value of Trump’s triplex residence in Trump Tower, New York City, which was alleged to be valued at three times its actual size and worth.

Trump’s legal team argues that these transactions were private and that no defaults or complaints had been raised concerning them. They emphasize that all loan payments were made in a timely manner and that the loans were repaid in full, with some payments made before their due dates. Additionally, they argue that, based on a proper application of the statute of limitations, seven out of the ten loan transactions should have been excluded from consideration due to their dated nature. They contend that correcting this oversight would reduce the judgment amount by $350,980,057, thereby challenging the remaining judgment of $464,576,229. They accuse Judge Engoron of disregarding a previous appellate ruling that had identified which claims were “time-barred.”

Statements and Reactions

Christopher Kise, one of Trump’s attorneys, has characterized the appeal as an effort to reverse what he describes as “legally bereft decisions.” Kise criticizes the trial court for ignoring undisputed facts, failing to adhere to appellate directives, imposing what he considers excessive and unlawful penalties, and allowing a politically motivated Attorney General to interfere in lawful, mutually beneficial transactions.

In response, a spokesperson for Attorney General James dismissed these claims as repetitive and already addressed. The spokesperson reiterated confidence in the judgment’s legal foundation, stating, “Once again, the defendants are raising arguments that they were already sanctioned and fined for. We won this case based on the facts and the law, and we are confident we will prevail on appeal.”

Trump's Position and Broader Context

As the Republican nominee for president, Trump has vigorously criticized the case and the resulting civil judgment, asserting his innocence and maintaining that he has not engaged in any wrongdoing. Attorney General James has accused Trump of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars to deceive financial institutions and emphasized that no one is exempt from the law. “We have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the marketplace,” James stated following the judgment. “For years, Donald Trump engaged in deceptive business practices and tremendous fraud.”

James further claimed that Trump’s fraudulent activities misled banks and insurance companies, and that the court’s decision was favorable not only to her office but also to every law-abiding American.

Despite some favorable rulings in other legal challenges, such as the Supreme Court’s position on presidential immunity, Trump’s legal team did not invoke this precedent in their Monday appeal.

In summary, the appeal seeks to overturn the substantial civil fraud judgment against Trump by contesting the authority of the Attorney General and questioning the legal standards applied in the case. The outcome of this appeal will be closely monitored, as it may have significant implications for the broader legal and political context surrounding Trump’s ongoing legal battles.