Tag: ruling

New York Judge Orders Former President Trump to Pay $355 Million in Civil Fraud Case

Staff ReporterFinance/Economy 0

A New York judge has handed down a significant ruling in a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump, compelling him to pay nearly $355 million in penalties. This decision by Judge Arthur Engoron, outlined in a comprehensive 92-page document, follows weeks of closing arguments that concluded a lengthy trial, marked by frequent criticism from Trump towards both the judge and the prosecuting attorney.

In 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against Trump, alleging that he manipulated his net worth on crucial financial statements to obtain favorable tax and insurance benefits. The documents, providing details on the Trump Organization’s assets, were submitted to banks and insurers to secure loans and deals, presenting a case for fraud according to the state.

The potential financial burden on Trump and his business, including interest, may surpass $450 million, as indicated by the New York attorney general’s office. Engoron held Trump, the Trump Organization, and key executives, including his adult sons, liable for fraud before the trial began, as there was no jury present.

The imposed fine is slightly less than the $370 million sought by the attorney general’s office, and it also entails a three-year ban preventing Trump from engaging in New York business activities. Furthermore, Trump’s adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, were individually ordered to pay over $4 million each, accompanied by a two-year prohibition from serving as officers or directors of any New York corporation or legal entity.

Former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg faced a $1 million penalty, along with a three-year ban from New York business. Both Weisselberg and former controller Jeffrey McConney were also prohibited for life from serving in the financial control function of any New York corporation or business entity. Additionally, the judge extended the term of the independent monitor overseeing Trump’s business for three years and appointed an “Independent Director of Compliance.”

However, the judge overturned a pre-trial decision that ordered the cancellation of the defendants’ business certificates, stating that the order could potentially be renewed.

In response to the ruling, Attorney General Letitia James hailed it as a “tremendous victory” for the state and the nation, emphasizing the importance of holding powerful individuals accountable for dishonest practices that impact hardworking citizens.

“When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people. Now, Donald Trump is finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating, and staggering fraud,” James remarked, emphasizing that no one is above the law.

Despite the substantial penalties, Trump’s legal team decried the ruling. Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer, labeled it a “manifest injustice” and the outcome of a “multi-year, politically fueled witch hunt.” Chris Kise, Trump’s lead lawyer, characterized the case as an “unjust political crusade” against a leading presidential candidate and criticized the process as unfair and tyrannical. Kise confirmed that Trump would appeal the decision.

The trial spanned over two months, featuring testimony from 40 witnesses, including Michael Cohen, a former fixer for Trump, top Trump Organization executives, Trump’s adult children, and the former president himself. Trump’s defense rested on the argument that there was no fraud, with Deutsche Bank executives testifying that they conducted their own due diligence and found no evidence of fraud when working with the Trump Organization.

The strained relationship between Trump and Judge Engoron was evident early on when the judge ruled on Trump’s fraud liability. During Trump’s testimony in November, he launched attacks on the judge and Attorney General James, referring to them as “frauds,” “political hacks,” and “Trump haters.” Engoron had to admonish a Trump lawyer at one point, reminding him that the trial was not a political rally.

The financial ramifications of the $354.8 million judgment, coupled with another $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defamation, are expected to impact his estimated net worth significantly. Forbes estimates Trump’s wealth at $2.6 billion, while the Bloomberg Billionaires Index values him at $3.1 billion. These judgments could potentially result in a loss of 13 percent or more of his estimated net worth if these figures hold true.

Legal fees are also mounting for Trump, with approximately $50 million spent on legal consulting in 2023 by his fundraising committees. Notably, more than $18 million of this amount was allocated to lawyers Chris Kise, Alina Habba, and Clifford Robert, who represented Trump in the fraud case and other legal matters.

As Trump faces increasing legal challenges, including criminal cases and impending appeals in civil cases, the financial and legal implications of these recent judgments add another layer of complexity to his post-presidential life.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Former Presidents, Including Trump, Can Face Prosecution for Office Crimes

Staff ReporterNation, Nation USA, USA 0

In a groundbreaking ruling, a federal appeals court panel declared that former President Donald Trump, along with any other former president, could potentially face prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office. The unanimous decision, encompassing 57 pages, was handed down by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling stands as a significant victory for special counsel Jack Smith, who aims to bring Trump to trial this year on federal felony charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

The court’s ruling emphasizes the transition of former President Trump into “citizen Trump,” stripping away any executive immunity he may have enjoyed while in office. The judges underscored that for the purposes of this criminal case, Trump is on equal footing with any other criminal defendant. They explicitly stated, “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

The decision affirms the groundbreaking conclusion reached by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, asserting that former presidents can indeed be prosecuted for crimes committed during their time in office, even if those alleged crimes are related to their official duties. Trump had argued against this, contending that former presidents should not be subject to prosecution without first undergoing impeachment and conviction by Congress.

The speed of the appeals court’s action, taking only 28 days after oral arguments, is notable. While this slowed Smith’s case and necessitated a delay in Trump’s scheduled trial, it also keeps the possibility open for a trial to proceed in Washington sometime in the spring.

Despite Trump’s intention to appeal, possibly reaching the Supreme Court as early as Monday, the appellate judges have put their decision on hold until then. If Trump pursues this route, the decision won’t come into effect until the Supreme Court acts on his request. Alternatively, Trump could request a rehearing from the D.C. Circuit, although this would not necessarily delay the case’s return to Judge Chutkan unless the full bench of the D.C. Circuit agrees to a rehearing.

The unanimous nature of Tuesday’s ruling, supported by both liberal and conservative judges, carries significant weight. Rather than a divided decision, the ruling lays down a comprehensive legal and political framework for prosecuting a former president.

The panel, comprising judges appointed by Presidents Joe Biden and George H.W. Bush, concluded that the traditional doctrines of presidential immunity from civil lawsuits related to official duties do not extend to alleged criminal acts, particularly for a former president. They argued that the gravity of the charges against Trump outweighed concerns about potential chilling effects on future presidents.

The judges emphasized that their decision did not factor in policy considerations related to prosecuting a sitting president or a state prosecution of a president, either current or former. They firmly rejected Trump’s claim of “categorical” immunity from prosecution, citing the precedent set by President Richard Nixon’s acceptance of a presidential pardon to forestall potential criminal charges stemming from the Watergate scandal.

Additionally, the panel dismissed Trump’s assertion that former presidents can only be prosecuted after impeachment and conviction by Congress. They pointed out that 30 Republican senators’ refusal to convict Trump during his impeachment trial regarding the Capitol attack signaled a lack of consensus on Congress’s authority to try former presidents.

In response to the court’s ruling, Trump’s spokesperson reiterated Trump’s argument that his indictment would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that future presidents could face vindictive prosecutions from political adversaries after leaving office.

The federal appeals court’s decision represents a significant development in legal and political discourse surrounding the accountability of former presidents for their actions while in office. It establishes a precedent that former presidents, including Trump, are not immune to prosecution for alleged criminal acts committed during their tenure.

-+=