A law professor says that Donald Trump might have solid grounds to appeal in his New York fraud trial, as the evidence of harm from his actions seems ‘very weak’.
Weak Evidence in Trump Fraud Trial?
In September, Judge Arthur Engoron delivered a partial summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James. He found that the ex-president and top Trump Organization executives committed fraud by significantly overvaluing assets to secure better deals from lenders and insurers.
The trial saw heated exchanges between Trump and James, with accusations of racism and trial politicization.
Verdict Awaited
Engoron will soon decide on the penalties for Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, and address six additional allegations, including insurance fraud and falsifying business records.
Guilty of Fraud
Engoron previously ruled that Trump and Trump Organization executives committed fraud by inflating asset values. He will also rule on additional charges, including falsifying records and insurance fraud. New York Attorney General Letitia James seeks millions in profits.
James seeks to recover $370 million in profits as she claims Trump illegally earned.
Trump May Win Appeal
Greg Germain, a professor at Syracuse University of Law, shared with Newsweek his view that Trump could argue on appeal that James failed to establish his fraudulent actions.
Motive Questioned
“The traditional job of the attorney general is to protect innocent citizens who cannot protect themselves, such as consumers and investors,’ Germain noted.
“In this case, the attorney general is purporting to protect large financial institutions who can protect themselves and did not request the attorney general’s [protection]. So while motive is not directly relevant to the issues before them, I don’t think the judges will be able to ignore the ramifications of their decision.”
Past Harm Vs. Future Prevention
Elaborating on his argument, Germain added, “This case involves punishing Trump primarily for past harm in using an overstated financial statement. I think he has a strong argument that when the attorney general seeks to punish for past use, rather than prevent future use, she would have to show all of the traditional elements of fraud.”
Upcoming Judgment Predicted
Germain speculated that Judge Engoron might shape his upcoming judgment to incorporate instances of previous fraud. He expects Engoron to choose trial testimonies that bolster the fraud claims, yet he notes the evidence showing that the ‘victims’ reasonably relied on Trump’s financial statements is ‘very weak.’
Banking Official Testifies
A banking official has already testified that Trump’s statements were not the sole basis for evaluating his loan application, as the bank conducts its own assessments.
Executive Order 63.12 in Spotlight
Germain also discussed New York executive order 63.12, under which James is acting, granting her expansive authority to investigate business fraud.
A Legal Authority Debate
He believes that while the attorney general’s motive ‘ is not technically a defense,’ it should significantly influence the judges in determining if 63.12 grants the attorney general excessive authority to penalize even unintentional, non-relied upon, and non-harmful false information.
Trump Denies Claims
According to Engoron, Trump significantly exaggerated the worth of his assets to secure advantageous deals from lenders and insurers. Trump has consistently denied these allegations, claiming that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack aimed at undermining his status as the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
Discrepancies in Trump Empire
Barbara Jones, a retired judge monitoring Trump’s companies, has recently reported undisclosed payments of over $40 million by Trump, a $1.6 million understatement in Trump building management costs, and delayed disclosure of company dissolutions.
Trump’s Attorney Responds
In response, Trump’s attorney, Chris Kise, vehemently dismissed her findings, writing to Newsweek, “Wandering beyond her mandate, it appears the Monitor has been paid $2.6 million to ‘uncover’ seven immaterial disclosure items, three irrelevant inconsistencies and five clerical errors.”
‘This is truly a joke’
“She even attempts to sensationalize President Trump’s $40 million in tax payments by disingenuously characterizing them as a failure of disclosure,” Kise added.
“This is truly a joke.”
Read Next: What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
Former President Donald Trump’s distinctive orange skin has captivated attention, sparking curiosity about its evolution from average pale over the years:
What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
How the MAGA movement left its mark on individuals and disrupted certain aspects of our everyday life forever:
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Samuel Lazar sentenced for Jan. 6 insurrection; previously confidential case now revealed: Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
Kari Lake loses First Amendment right to accuse Maricopa County recorder; Arizona Republic ponders if she’s channeling Rudy Giuliani in her sleep : Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
In Pennsylvania, a significant number of registered Democrats flipping is sending an unflattering signal to President Biden: More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
