Donald Trump Fraud Ruling Could Be Reversed, Appeals Court Indicates

Some judges on the New York Appellate Court have indicated they might overturn Donald Trump’s $489 million fraud judgment.
During oral arguments on Thursday, one judge called the case “troubling” and questioned if it was an example of “mission creep.”
In the original trial, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump, his adult sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and The Trump Organization liable for a scheme in which the value of Trump’s net worth and assets were unlawfully inflated to obtain more favorable business deals.
Trump was ordered to pay the enormous $464 million fine and was banned from the New York real estate business for three years. That figure has now risen to $489 million with interest.
Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were ordered to each pay more than $4 million and were banned from doing business in New York for two years.
Newsweek sought email comment from Donald Trump’s attorney on Friday.
Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has maintained his innocence. His lawyers are now before the New York Appellate Court, seeking to overturn the judgment.
On Thursday, the five-judge appellate court questioned Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale about the lack of victims in the case and the huge penalty that Trump had to pay.
“The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” Justice Peter Moulton told Vale. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”
Vale replied that, although it is a large fine, “it’s a large number for a couple reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”
“That is an enormous benefit they got from this conduct,” Vale added.
Moulton said that there was “the question of mission creep.”
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, mission creep is a term used to describe “the gradual broadening of the original objectives of a mission or organization.”
“There has to be some limitation in what the attorney general can do in interfering in these private transactions … where people don’t claim harm. So what is the limiting principle?” Moulton asked.
Vale replied that the transactions have to be “related and relevant to the business at hand, and it does have to have a capacity or tendency to deceive.”
“When you have hidden risks,” Vale said, “that hurts the market and honest participants in the market.”
Justice Llinet Rosado asked how the New York attorney general calculated the disgorgement, which is the amount Trump had to pay back.
Vale said it was calculated on the real interest that Trump would have been charged on bank loans if he had been honest in his loan applications.
On August 22, New York attorney general Letitita James filed her counter argument to Donald Trump’s appeal.
James and five of her lawyers wrote that the trial judge in New York Supreme Court was completely convinced that Trump and his organization had committed fraud.
“Following an eleven-week bench trial, the Supreme Court issued factual and credibility findings,and concluded that defendants had also engaged in criminal, illegal conduct,” they wrote.