New York AG Asks Appeals Court To Uphold Trump $454 Million Civil Fraud Judgment

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office asked an appeals court on Wednesday to uphold the $454 million civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump from earlier this year.

(Left) Former President Donald Trump. (Right) New York Attorney General Letitia James. Brandon Bell; David Dee Delgado/Getty Images

In a 168-page submission, state attorneys said there is “overwhelming evidence” supporting Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoran’s Feb. 16 decision finding that Trump misrepresented his wealth to insurers, banks, and other entities to build his real estate empire.

Trump appealed that ruling in July. Among other things, he and his attorneys argue that the judge, who they say “struggled to understand basic banking concepts” before handing down the penalty, made an erroneous decision.

State attorneys, responding in their submission to the First Department of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division on Wednesday, said that Trump’s appeal is filled with “meritless legal arguments.”

They say his appeal disregards substantial evidence from the bench trial that demonstrated “fraud and illegality on an immense scale.”

“Supreme Court’s liability determinations are supported by overwhelming evidence that, in each Statement, defendants used a variety of deceptive strategies to vastly misrepresent the values of Mr. Trump’s assets,” Assistant Solicitor General Daniel S. Magy wrote, referring to annual statements they said misrepresented Trump’s wealth.

Magy said that Trump, along with his company and top executives, engaged in deceptive practices to maintain loans worth more than $500 million and illicitly gained more than $360 million in profits.

“On appeal, defendants tellingly ignore almost all their deceptions. Instead, they primarily argue that [the New York State Office of the Attorney General] failed to prove that defendants’ counterparties relied on the misrepresentations to their financial detriment,” Magy added.

“But it is well-established that neither reliance nor victims’ losses—which are elements of common-law fraud—is required for fraud or illegality claims where, as here, [state attorneys] seeks disgorgement and injunctive relief rather than damages or restitution.”

In his July appeal, Trump’s attorneys objected to the legal mechanics of James’s lawsuit, arguing that it used a statute—meant to protect consumers from being ripped off—“in a way never seen before.”

Trump and his attorneys argued that there were “no victims and no losses.”

They contended that the case should never have gone to trial, the statute of limitations barred some allegations, and the state shouldn’t be policing private business transactions.

They also argued that the ruling is a disaster for the New York economy, as it gives the attorney general’s office “limitless power to target anyone.”

State attorneys, defending the statute of limitations, argued that the law empowers the attorney general to act against fraudulent business conduct, regardless of whether it directly “targets consumers, small businesses, large corporations, or other individuals or entities.”

They also rejected Trump’s claims that the case should never have gone to trial and that the state should not interfere in private business transactions.

The Appellate Division has scheduled the appeal’s oral arguments for Sept. 26. A ruling is expected about a month later, shortly before the end of Trump’s presidential campaign.

The outcome of the appeal could see the court uphold, modify, or overturn Engoron’s ruling. The $485 million sum continues to accrue interest while the appeals process plays out. Trump has paid a $175 million bond to halt collection while he appeals.

Should the ruling be upheld, Trump and his sons will be liable for the full sum.