Trump unable to pay $464m bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

Donald Trump’s lawyers told a New York appellate court Monday that it’s impossible for him to post a bond covering the full amount of a $454 million civil fraud judgment while he appeals, suggesting the former president’s legal losses have put him in a serious cash crunch.

Trump‘s lawyers wrote in a court filing that “obtaining an appeal bond in the full amount” of the judgment “is not possible under the circumstances presented.” Trump claimed last year that he has “fairly substantially over $400 million in cash,” but back-to-back courtroom defeats have pushed his legal debt north of a half-billion dollars.

Citing rejections from more than 30 bond underwriters, Trump’s lawyers asked the state’s intermediate appeals court to reverse a prior ruling requiring that he post a bond covering the full amount in order to halt enforcement while he appeals the judgment in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit.

Trump’s financial constraints are being laid bare as he appeals Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 ruling that he and his co-defendants schemed for years to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals.

If the appeals court does not intervene, James can seek to enforce the judgment starting March 25. James, a Democrat, has said she will seek to seize some of Trump’s assets if he is unable to pay.

With interest, Trump owes the state $456.8 million. That amount is increasing nearly $112,000 each day. In all, he and co-defendants, including his company, sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. and other executives, owe $467.3 million. To obtain a bond, they would be required to post collateral covering 120% of the judgment, or about $557.5 million, Trump’s lawyers said.

Trump maintains that he is worth several billion dollars, but much of his wealth is tied up in his skyscrapers, golf courses and other properties. Few underwriters were willing to issue such a large bond and none would accept Trump’s real estate assets as collateral, instead requiring cash or cash equivalents, such as stocks or bonds, his lawyers said.

Trump’s lawyers said freeing up cash by offloading some of Trump’s properties in a “fire sale” would be impractical because such cut-rate deals would result in massive, irrecoverable losses.

Not mentioned in Trump’s court filings Monday was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s potential financial windfall from a looming deal to put his social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, on the stock market under the ticker symbol DJT.

A shareholder meeting is scheduled for Friday. If the deal is approved, Trump would own at least 58% of shares in the company, which runs his Truth Social platform. Depending on share price, that could be worth several billion dollars.

Trump is asking a full panel of the intermediate appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court, to stay the Engoron judgment while he appeals. His lawyers previously proposed a $100 million bond, but Appellate Division Judge Anil C. Singh rejected that after an emergency hearing on Feb. 28. A stay is a legal mechanism pausing collection of a judgment during an appeal.

In a court filing last week, Senior Assistant Solicitor General Dennis Fan urged the full appellate panel to reject what he dubbed the defense’s “trust us” argument, contending that without a bond to secure the judgment Trump may attempt to evade enforcement at a later date and force the state to “expend substantial public resources” to collect the money owed.

A full bond is necessary, Fan wrote, in part because Trump’s lawyers “have never demonstrated that Mr. Trump’s liquid assets — which may fluctuate over time — will be enough to satisfy the full amount of this judgment following appeal.”

Trump’s lawyers asked the Appellate Division panel to consider oral arguments on its request, and preemptively sought permission to appeal a losing result to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Singh did grant some of Trump’s requests, including pausing a three-year ban on him seeking loans from New York banks. In their court filing Monday, Trump’s lawyers did not address whether they have sought a bank loan to cover the cost of the judgment or obtain cash for use as bond collateral.

Trump appealed on Feb. 26, a few days after Engoron’s judgment was made official. His lawyers have asked the Appellate Division to decide whether Engoron “committed errors of law and/or fact” and whether he abused his discretion or “acted in excess” of his jurisdiction.

Trump wasn’t required to pay his penalty or post a bond in order to appeal, and filing the appeal did not automatically halt enforcement of the judgment. Trump would receive an automatic stay if he were to put up money, assets or an appeal bond covering what he owes.

Gary Giulietti, an insurance broker friend enlisted by Trump to help obtain an appeal bond, wrote in an affidavit Monday: “A bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen. In the unusual circumstance that a bond of this size is issued, it is provided to the largest public companies in the world, not to individuals or privately held businesses.”

Giulietti, who acts as an insurance broker for Trump’s company, testified at the civil fraud trial as an expert witness called by Trump’s lawyers. In his ruling, Engoron observed that some of Giulietti’s testimony was contradicted by other witnesses, including a different defense expert. He noted that Giulietti’s company collected $1.2 million in commissions on its Trump accounts in 2022.

In all, Trump has more than $543 million in personal legal liabilities from three civil court judgments in the past year. Bonding requirements could add at least $100 million to that total.

In January, a jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Earlier this month, after his lawyers made similar arguments that he be excused from posting a bond, Trump did secure a $91.6 million bond to cover 110% of the Carroll judgment while he appeals.

Last year, a jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in a related trial. In that case, rather than post a bond, Trump put more than $5.5 million in cash in an escrow account while he appeals.

(REUTERS)

Source link

#Trump #unable #pay #464m #bond #York #fraud #case #lawyers

Trial without a lawyer: Cuts leave families without lawyers in UK

Going to trial without representation? That’s what more and more people in England and Wales are facing. Cuts implemented to government-funded legal aid have left many without a choice. Among the hardest hit areas is family law.

ADVERTISEMENT

“A week before the hearing date, I realised I was going to have to represent myself in court”, recalls Louisa, a grandmother who had to fight for her grandson’s custody.

Louisa had been looking after her grandson for two years, when social services informed her that she needed to lodge an application with the family courts if she wished to keep custody.

“From this point on, I had no idea what to do”, she states.

A legal aid crisis

Louisa knew she could not afford a lawyer – but as she would discover that meeting the criteria for government funded legal aid – was also not enough to obtain one.

The 2012 LASPO Act – implemented in 2013 – brought in drastic cuts to legal aid, especially for family law cases. To obtain legal aid in England and Wales, individuals must earn less than £2,657 a month (€3,039.20). Although this threshold may seem generous, bills for family lawyers quickly rack up to the thousands – or hundreds of thousands.

“Solicitors don’t have enough time to devote to these cases, even people who are eligible for help have very little chance of finding a solicitor,” explains Jenny Beck, co-founder of family law firm Beck & Fitzgerald.

The legal aid fee paid to lawyers is set by the government – and usually at a fixed hourly rate. This fee has not increased since 1996 when inflation is factored in – and legal aid fees were reduced by 10% in 2011.

“Many firms turn down cases, especially when they are complex – for instance if the client needs an interpreter, has mental health problems or if it’s complex law”, adds Jenny Beck. 

The barriers to accessing legal aid

Louisa contacted five firms but only one accepted to send an application to be reviewed by the Legal Aid Agency. 

Louisa received a response – her fees would be covered if she made a £3,000 (€3435) contribution. She refused this offer, explaining she could not afford the fee. A second proposal then came through, asking for a £500 (€577.69) contribution, which she could also not pay. 

“Months of stress and time spent putting together an application which amounted to nothing”, Louisa tells Euronews.

In May 2023, the government implemented measures to facilitate access to legal aid in child custody cases. But according to Kinship Carers, a charity that protects the rights of families “the measure does not go far enough and many grandparents are assessed on their capital to access legal aid, but they have no income.”

Louisa recalls the day of the hearing, “I was sitting in the waiting room and I saw lawyers walking past, complainants getting angry, other people shouting. I was so anxious. I managed to win the case. This was all due to the Suffolk Law Centre’s help – but it was still a horrible experience,” concluded Louisa.

Legal advice centres

“Complainants are often overcome with emotion during hearings and leave the court confused. We ask them to write everything down – what they have to do and by when,” Sharon O’Donnell, Family Law Caseworker at the Suffolk Law Centre tells Euronews.

“We don’t have the budget to offer advocacy services. There is only so much we can help with, especially when people come to us late in the legal process”, explains Sue Wardell, Operations Manager at the Suffolk Law Centre. 

In 2016, the number of cases in which two litigants face each other in court without representation has risen by 30% since 2012.

Legal advice centres are funded by the national Legal Aid Agency – but in recent years the number of these centres has declined. In 2021, there were 59% fewer centres than in 2009, according to the Law Society. A drop in the number of centres due to a decline in funding which has led to advice deserts – swathes of England and Wales where there are no legal aid advice centres.

When Euronews spoke to the Suffolk Law Centre back in October they were operating at ‘maximum capacity’, accepting no new cases until January 2024.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cases refused by lawyers

But according to some lawyers, legal advice centres can also generate problems.

“These organisations have advisers but they are often not trained lawyers. They will help you fill in the required forms, but they can also add fuel to the fire. Lawyers are trained to avoid litigation, to de-escalate a situation and encourage mediation’, explains Jenny Beck, co-founder of family law firm Beck & Fitzgerald.

Following the 2013 legal aid regulation, only domestic violence and child abuse cases guarantee legal aid in private family proceedings. According to the latest government figures, roughly 84% of family law cases supported by evidence of child or domestic abuse received funding. 

Finding a lawyer at the last minute

Last July, Marion, a mother of three young children, received a letter from her ex-husband’s lawyer. It was requesting custody of their children.

“My ex-partner was abusive, sometimes physically but mainly emotionally. I wanted us to stay on good terms but after we separated, he tried to take our children and the police intervened.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Marion didn’t know legal advice centres existed – so she navigated the legal system alone – assisted by a friend who was a former lawyer. The process was draining, “I was the one replying to my ex partner’s lawyer, there was no intermediary to protect me”, she recalls. 

Only one legal firm accepted to make a legal aid application for Marion’s case. After it was refused, she realised she would have to represent herself in court. 

Marion recalls how “terrified” she was on the day of the hearing. 

But a stroke of luck came her was, as she discovered a free on-site representation service funded by the Central England Law Centre while in the waiting room. Although many courts do not offer these services – Marion was able to speak with a paralegal – who was able to represent her. 

“I was in distress because my ex partner’s solicitor had demanded a ‘fact-finding hearing’ at the last minute. The paralegal explained that it wasn’t too late to change my mind and advised against me doing it. I would have had no idea”, Marion explains.

ADVERTISEMENT

“In the courtroom, I kept telling myself ‘don’t cry, stop shaking, don’t throw up’. I could barely control my body, it was impossible to digest everything that was happening around me – l can’t think how I would have represented myself”, she recalls.

As it stands, the case is still ongoing. Marion has an upcoming court date, for which she does not yet know whether she will have a lawyer.

The government’s response

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told Euronews it had “widened” the “evidential requirements” “for victims of domestic abuse applying for legal aid to make it easier for them to prove their claims”.  

A spokesperson underlined that “last year alone we spent £2 billion (around €2,302,599) helping people in legal difficulty and have recently widened the scope of legal aid to help more victims of domestic abuse and family cases.”

While the Ministry of Justice insists that the “priority is to ensure that legal aid is available to those who need it most”, with a review on legal aid access set to be published in 2024.

ADVERTISEMENT

Names have been changed in this story to respect the anonymity of interviewees.

Source link

#Trial #lawyer #Cuts #leave #families #lawyers

Donald Trump briefly testifies in defamation trial in New York

He testified for under three minutes. But former President Donald Trump still broke a judge’s rules on what he could tell a jury about writer E Jean Carroll’s sexual assault and defamation allegations, and he left the courtroom Thursday bristling to the spectators: “This is not America.”

 

Testifying in his own defence in the defamation trial, Trump did not look at the jury during his short, heavily negotiated stint on the witness stand. Because of the complex legal context of the case, the judge limited his lawyers to asking a handful of short questions, each of which could be answered yes or no — such as whether he had made his negative statements in response to an accusation and didn’t intend anyone to harm Carroll.

But Trump nudged past those limits.

“She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he said, later adding: “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”

After Judge Lewis A Kaplan told jurors to disregard those remarks, Trump rolled his eyes as he stepped down from the witness stand. The former president and current Republican front-runner left the courtroom during a break soon after, shaking his head and declaring to spectators — three times — that “this is not America.”

Carroll looked on throughout from the plaintiff’s table. The longtime advice columnist alleges that Trump attacked her in 1996, then defamed her by calling her a liar when she went public with her story in a 2019 memoir.

While Trump has said a lot about her to the court of public opinion, Thursday marked the first time he has directly addressed a jury about her claims.

But jurors also heard parts of a 2022 deposition — a term for out-of-court questioning under oath — in which Trump vehemently denied Carroll’s allegations, calling her “sick” and a “whack job.” Trump told jurors Thursday that he stood by that deposition, “100%.”

Trump didn’t attend a related trial last spring, when a different jury found that he did sexually abuse Carroll and that some of his comments were defamatory, awarding her $5 million. This trial concerns only how much more he may have to pay her for certain remarks he made in 2019, while president. She’s seeking at least $10 million.

Because of the prior jury’s findings, Kaplan said Trump now couldn’t offer any testimony “disputing or attempting to undermine” the sexual abuse allegations. The law doesn’t allow for “do-overs by disappointed litigants,” the judge said.

Even before taking the stand, Trump chafed at those limitations as the judge and lawyers for both sides discussed what he could be asked.

“I never met the woman. I don’t know who the woman is. I wasn’t at the trial,” he cut in from his seat at the defense table without jurors in the room. Kaplan told Trump he wasn’t allowed to interrupt the proceedings.

Trump was the last witness, and closing arguments are set for Friday.

Carroll, 80, claims Trump, 77, ruined her reputation after she publicly aired her account of a chance meeting that spiraled into a sexual assault in spring 1996. At the time, he was a prominent real estate developer, and she was an Elle magazine advice columnist who’d had a TV show.

She says they ran into each other at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store close to Trump Tower, bantered and ended up in a dressing room, teasing each other about trying on lingerie. She has testified that she thought it would just be a funny story to tell but then he roughly forced himself on her before she eventually fought him off and fled.

The earlier jury found that she was sexually abused but rejected her allegation that she was raped.

Besides Trump, his defence called only one other witness, a friend of Carroll’s. The friend, retired TV journalist Carol Martin, was among two people the writer told about her encounter with Trump shortly after it happened, according to testimony at the first trial.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba confronted Martin on Tuesday with text messages in which she called Carroll a “narcissist” who seemed to be reveling in the attention she got from accusing and suing Trump. Martin said she regretted her word choices and doesn’t believe that Carroll loved the attention she has been getting.

Carroll has testified that she has gotten death threats that worried her enough to buy bullets for a gun she inherited from her father, install an electronic fence, warn her neighbors and unleash her pit bull to roam freely on the property of her small cabin in the mountains of upstate New York.

Trump’s attorneys have tried to show the jury through their cross-examination of various witnesses that by taking on Trump, Carroll has gained a measure of fame and financial rewards that outweigh the threats and other venom slung at her through social media.

After Carroll’s lawyers rested Thursday, Habba asked for a directed verdict in Trump’s favor, saying Carroll’s side hadn’t proven its case. Kaplan denied the request.

Even before testifying, Trump had already tested the judge’s patience. After he complained to his lawyers last week about a “witch hunt” and a “con job” within earshot of jurors, Kaplan threatened to eject him from the courtroom if it happened again. “I would love it,” Trump said. Later that day, Trump told a news conference Kaplan was a “nasty judge” and that Carroll’s allegation was “a made-up, fabricated story.”

While attending the trial last week, Trump made it clear — through muttered comments and gestures like shaking his head — that he was disgusted with the case. When a video clip from a Trump campaign rally last week was shown in court Thursday, he appeared to lip-synch himself saying the trial was rigged.

The trial had been suspended since early Monday because of a juror’s illness. When it resumed Thursday, the judge said two jurors were being “socially distanced” from the others.

Trump attended the trial fresh off big victories in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and the Iowa caucuses last week. Meanwhile, he also faces four criminal cases. He has been juggling court and campaign appearances, using both to argue that he’s being persecuted by Democrats terrified of his possible election.

The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

(AP)

Source link

#Donald #Trump #briefly #testifies #defamation #trial #York

Rundown: The Trump legal cases to watch in 2024

This year promises to be a busy one for the Trump legal team, with the former US president facing accusations of wrongdoing – ranging from the civil to the criminal to the unconstitutional – in multiple states and jurisdictions. Here is a look at the four criminal indictments (and others) that Donald Trump will be facing in 2024, even as he vies to retake the presidency in November. 

Donald Trump has been charged with a total of 91 felony counts in four criminal indictments, with the former president facing possible prison sentences in each case. 

  • Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with four counts related to federal election interference for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential vote (trial set for March 4)
  • Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump on 34 felony counts involving the falsification of business records to conceal hush money payments (trial set for March 25)
  • The special counsel unsealed 37 felony charges related to mishandling classified documents at Trump’s Florida estate (trial set for May 20)
  • Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis brought a total of 41 counts against Trump and 18 others related to election interference (trial requested for August 5).

As his legal team exercises its options for legal challenges, appeal and delays, trial dates are subject to change. 

Trump is also awaiting a verdict in a far-reaching civil fraud case in New York that could see the dismantlement of his business empire. Attorney General Letitia James has requested that Trump be banned from real estate dealings and from operating businesses in the state. 

Adding to his legal woes are individual challenges filed in more than a dozen states alleging that Trump is ineligible to run for president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States after having sworn an oath to support the Constitution as “an officer of the United States”. Trump’s legal defense has argued that a president is not “an officer of the United States” and so the 14th Amendment clause does not apply to him. After the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified him from the 2024 state ballot in December, Trump asked the US Supreme Court to reverse the decision; if the high court agrees to hear the case, its ruling would affect all such outstanding cases at the state level. 

Trump denies wrongdoing in all of the charges he faces.  

Federal election interference: four counts

Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled four felony counts against Trump related to his attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including his actions during the January 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol: 

  • conspiracy “to defraud the United States by using dishonesty” to obstruct the work of the federal government in certifying the results of the presidential election;
  • conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, i.e., “the certification of the electoral vote”;
  • obstruction of an official proceeding regarding same; and
  • conspiracy to prevent others from exercising their constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted.

Smith’s August 2023 indictment focuses on the attempt to substitute fake electors and pressure then vice president Mike Pence not to certify the results of the 2020 election. The indictment also recounts Trump’s infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump asked him to “find 11,780 votes” that would win Trump the state.

The indictment notably avoided charging Trump with inciting an insurrection or “seditious conspiracy”, thereby sidestepping what could have been a First Amendment free-speech defense. It accuses Trump instead of fraudulently pushing claims he knew to be untrue after numerous members of his entourage told him the 2020 election was legitimate.

Trump and his legal team argue the case is politically motivated, an attempt to undermine his 2024 bid for the presidency. His lawyers have also argued that Trump is immune from prosecution because his actions that day were taken as part of his official role as president – the now infamouspresidential immunity” argument. 

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has rejected that argument, saying the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass”. Chutkan “has consistently taken the hardest line against Jan. 6 defendants of any judge serving on Washington’s federal trial court”, according to the AP.

The most serious of the four charges carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison but is subject to a judge’s discretion.

Read the full indictment here.

Falsifying business records in New York: 34 felony counts

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought 34 felony counts against Trump in April 2023 for falsifying business records “to conceal criminal conduct” from voters in the runup to the 2016 election. The falsified records “mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature” of payments made to tabloids to suppress damaging information about Trump as well as hush money paid to conceal his extramarital affairs.

While falsifying business records is a misdemeanor under NY law, it becomes a felony if the records were falsified as part of committing separate crimes, in this case violations of NY election laws, exceeding caps on campaign contributions or making false statements to tax authorities. The indictment alleges that Trump representatives organised a “catch and kill” scheme to pay off tabloids that were preparing to run stories damaging to Trump. Trump “then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws”, Bragg’s statement said.

This indictment marked the first time a former US president has ever been charged with a crime.

Longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations in 2018 – among them a $130,000 payment he made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through a shell corporation – and served a three-year prison sentence, most of it under house arrest. Bragg’s indictment also alleges that Trump asked Cohen to try to delay the payment to Daniels until after the 2016 election, saying that “at that point it would not matter if the story became public”.

Cohen has since testified against Trump in a separate civil fraud case filed by NY Attorney General Letitia James (see below).

Trump faces up to four years in prison for each count if convicted on fraudulent bookkeeping charges, but a judge could impose these sentences to be served consecutively.

Read the full indictment here.

Mishandling classified documents: 37 felony counts 

Trump was indicted in June 2023 on 37 felony charges related to the removal and retention of classified documents, including 31 violations of the Espionage Act. The documents were stored haphazardly in unsecured areas of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and residence, including in a ballroom, a bathroom, his bedroom and a storage room. On at least two occasions, Trump shared some of these documents – including a “plan of attack” and a “classified map related to a military operation” – with individuals who did not possess a security clearance.

The FBI opened a criminal investigation into the unlawful retention of classified material at Mar-a-Lago in March 2022 and a grand jury subpoena ordered Trump to return all documents with classified markings. According to the indictment, Trump then “endeavored to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents” by, among other things, suggesting his attorney hide or destroy the requested documents and instructing others to conceal them. 

“Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States, and they must be enforced,” said Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led the investigation. “Violations of those laws put our country at risk.”

Trump faces up to 10 years in prison for each count of “willfully” retaining national defense documents under US espionage provisions and up to 20 years for each count of obstructing justice for refusing to turn over the documents.

Read the full indictment here.

Election interference in Georgia: the most complex case

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others – including Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows – with 41 counts related to conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including impersonating a public official, forgery and pressuring public officials to violate their oaths.  

The charges, 13 of which are against Trump, include violations of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, often used to target organised crime. The use of the RICO act was an unusual move that alleges the defendants were part of a “criminal enterprise” focused on keeping Trump in office and allows each defendant’s statements to be used against the other accused.

The Georgia indictment is arguably the most complicated of the criminal cases Trump is facing: it details 161 separate acts across seven states that were allegedly part of a sweeping conspiracy to overturn the election. Some of the defendants, which include fake GOP electors, are accused of illegally accessing voter data, sharing that stolen data with other states, and of breaching voting machines.

Some of Trump’s co-accused have already pleaded guilty, agreed to testify and promised to cooperate with the prosecution. Perhaps even more ominously for Trump, a RICO conviction in Georgia carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

Read the full indictment here


In addition to the charges outlined above, Trump is facing both civil and criminal cases related to his business dealings as well as allegations of sexual abuse.

  • Trump Organization found liable for fraud; trial verdict expected

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed suit against Trump, the Trump Organization and his three adult children for fraud in September 2022 alleging that Trump systematically inflated his assets and net worth to reap tax benefits and persuade banks to offer Trump entities better terms. James’s office documented more than 200 examples of misleading valuations, among them 23 assets whose values were “grossly and fraudulently inflated”.

In a pretrial summary judgment in September 2023, Justice Arthur Engoron found that Trump and his sons Donald Jr. and Eric inflated the value of Trump assets by between $812 million and $2.2 billion. The overvaluations included Trump’s Florida property at Mar-a-Lago, his penthouse apartment in Trump Tower as well as various golf courses and commercial buildings.

Trump inflated the value of Mar-a-Lago by more than 22 times, according to some estimates, placing its worth between $420 million and $1.5 billion. One independent assessor found its market value to be closer to $27 million while some Palm Beach realtors say it could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. James has argued Trump’s valuation of the property does not take into account the restrictions on its deed, including the stipulation that it cannot be sold or used as a private residence. 

Justice Engoron reportedly took particular exception to the overvaluation of the former president’s Trump Tower penthouse by as much as $207 million, based on the claim that it is almost three times larger than it actually is. “A discrepancy of this order of magnitude by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades can only be considered fraud,” Engoron wrote.

The judge rejected Trump’s argument that his real estate holdings are not overvalued because he could always find a “buyer from Saudi Arabia” to pay the inflated prices.

Engoron also ordered the cancellation of certificates allowing some Trump entities, notably the Trump Organization, to do business in New York and ordered a receiver to be appointed who will manage the dissolution of Trump companies. James has requested that the former president and his sons be removed from managing the Trump Organization.

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified against his former boss in late 2023, saying he and others were specifically told to overvalue Trump’s assets.

“I was tasked by Mr. Trump to increase the total assets, based upon a number that he arbitrarily elected,” Cohen told the court, saying he and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg would “reverse-engineer the various different asset classes” to increase the value of those assets to “whatever number Trump told us to”. 

The case went to trial in October and closing statements were delivered in January 2024. James was seeking $370 million in penalties and asking that Trump be banned from any real estate dealings and from operating businesses in the state of New York.

Read the full lawsuit here.

  • Trump found liable for sex abuse, defamation of E. Jean Carroll

A jury unanimously found Trump liable in May 2023 for sexually abusing and defaming prominent columnist E. Jean Carroll in the late 1990s, awarding her $5 million in damages in a civil case. The federal trial included testimony from two other women who also say Trump sexually assaulted them. 

A second defamation trial, in which Carroll is seeking $10 million in damages, began in mid-January.

  • Trump Organization convicted of criminal tax fraud 

The Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp., both sub-entities of the Trump Organization, were convicted in December 2022 on all 17 counts for tax crimes including conspiracy and falsifying business records. The Trump Organization was eventually fined the maximum penalty of $1.6 million; the company has said it will appeal. 

The Trump Organization, which is now run by Trump sons Donald Jr and Eric, was accused of hiding much of the compensation it paid executives between 2005 and 2021. Longtime CFO Allen Weisselberg lived rent-free in a Trump building in Manhattan while he and his wife drove Mercedes-Benz leased by the Trump Organization. Weisselberg admitted to not paying taxes on $1.7 million in remuneration during his testimony, adding that he and others also conspired to falsify W-2 tax forms. Weisselberg was sentenced to five months in prison in January 2023 and agreed to pay $2 million in fines.

Following the verdict, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he didn’t think the $1.6 million fine went far enough. “Our laws in this state need to change in order to capture this type of decade-plus systemic and egregious fraud,” he said outside the courtroom.

Source link

#Rundown #Trump #legal #cases #watch

Judge threatens to kick Trump out of NY courtroom during defamation trial

Donald Trump was threatened with expulsion from his Manhattan civil trial Wednesday after he repeatedly ignored a warning to keep quiet while writer E. Jean Carroll testified that he shattered her reputation after she accused him of sexual abuse.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told the former president that his right to be present at the trial will be revoked if he remains disruptive. After an initial warning, Carroll’s lawyer said Trump could still be heard making remarks to his lawyers, including “it is a witch hunt” and “it really is a con job.”

“Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,” Kaplan said in an exchange after the jury was excused for lunch, adding: “I understand you’re probably very eager for me to do that.”

“I would love it,” the Republican presidential front-runner shot back, shrugging as he sat between lawyers Alina Habba and Michael Madaio at the defense table.

“I know you would. You just can’t control yourself in these circumstances, apparently,” Kaplan responded.

“You can’t either,” Trump muttered.

Afterward, Trump ripped the judge in brief remarks to reporters at an office building he owns near the courthouse. He called the Bill Clinton appointee “a nasty judge” and a “Trump-hating guy,” echoing his own social media posts that Kaplan was “seething and hostile,” and “abusive, rude, and obviously not impartial.”

Trump has made similar comments about the judge in another case: a state of New York lawsuit accusing him of inflating his property values to get better rates on insurance and loans.

On Wednesday, Judge Kaplan denied a request from Trump’s lawyers that he step aside from the case involving Carroll, a longtime Elle magazine advice columnist.

Kaplan cracked down after Carroll lawyer Shawn Crowley complained for a second time that Trump could be heard “loudly saying things” throughout her testimony as he sat at the defense table, frequently tilting back and leaning over to speak with his lawyers.

Crowley suggested that if Carroll’s lawyers could hear Trump from where they were sitting, about 12 feet (3.7 meters) from him, jurors might’ve been able to hear him, too. Some appeared to split their focus between Trump and the witness stand.

“I’m just going to ask that Mr. Trump take special care to keep his voice down when conferring with counsel to make sure the jury does not hear it,” Kaplan said before jurors returned to the courtroom after a morning break.

Earlier, without the jury in the courtroom, Trump could be seen slamming his hand on the defense table and uttering the word “man” when the judge again refused his lawyer’s request that the trial be suspended on Thursday so he could attend his mother-in-law’s funeral in Florida.

Trump, fresh from a win Monday in the Iowa caucuses, has made his various legal fights part of his campaign. He sat in on jury selection Tuesday, then jetted to a New Hampshire rally before returning to court Wednesday and repeating the cycle with another Granite State event Wednesday night.

Carroll was the first witness in a Manhattan federal court trial to determine damages, if any, that Trump owes her for remarks he made while he was president in June 2019 as he vehemently denied ever attacking her or knowing her. A jury last year already found that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her in a round of denials in October 2022.

Carroll’s testimony was somewhat of a tightrope walk because of limitations the judge has posed on the trial in light of the previous verdict and prior rulings he’s made restricting the infusion of political talk. Habba lobbed multiple objections seeking to prevent the jury from hearing details of Carroll’s allegations.

“I’m here because Donald Trump assaulted me and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened. He lied and he shattered my reputation,” Carroll testified.

“He has continued to lie. He lied last month. He lied on Sunday. He lied yesterday. And I am here to get my reputation back and to stop him from telling lies about me,” Carroll said.

Once a respected columnist, Carroll lamented: “Now, I’m known as the liar, the fraud and the whack job.” She became emotional as she read through some of hundreds of hateful messages she’s received from strangers, apologising at one point to the jury for reading the nasty language aloud.

Carroll said Trump’s smears “ended the world” she knew, costing her millions of readers and her “Ask E. Jean” advice column, which ran in Elle for more than 25 years. The magazine has said her contract ended for unrelated reasons.

Carroll said her worries about her personal safety after a stream of death threats led her to buy bullets for a gun she inherited from her father, install an electronic fence, warn her neighbors of threats and unleash her pit bull to roam freely on the property of the small cabin in the mountains of upstate New York where she lives alone.

She also brought security along for the trial this week and last May and said she’d thought often about hiring security more often to accompany her.

“Why don’t you?” her attorney, Roberta Kaplan — no relation to the judge — asked.

“Can’t afford it,” Carroll answered.

She took the stand after a hostile encounter between Habba and the judge — culminating in Trump’s desk slam — over his refusal to adjourn the trial on Thursday so Trump could attend the funeral for former first lady Melania Trump’s mother, Amalija Knavs, who died last week.

Habba called Judge Kaplan’s ruling “insanely prejudicial” and the judge soon afterward cut her off, saying he would “hear no further argument on it.”

Habba told the judge: “I don’t like to be spoken to that way, your honor.” When she mentioned the funeral again, the judge responded: “It’s denied. Sit down.”

Carroll’s testimony came nine months after she was in the same chair convincing a jury in the hopes that Trump could be held accountable in a way that would stop him from frequent verbal attacks against her.

Because the first jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her in 2022, the new trial concerns only how much more — if anything — he’ll be ordered to pay her for other remarks he made in 2019 while he was president.

Carroll accused Trump of forcing himself on her in a luxury department store dressing room in 1996. Then, she alleges, he publicly impugned her honesty, her motives and even her sanity after she told the story publicly in a 2019 memoir.

Trump, 77, asserts that nothing ever happened between him and Carroll, 80, and that he never met her. He says a 1987 party photo of them and their then-spouses “doesn’t count” because it was a momentary greeting.

Trump did not attend the previous trial in the case last May, when a jury found he had sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. The jury said, however, that Carroll hadn’t proven her claim that Trump raped her.

Carroll is now seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and millions more in punitive damages.

(AP)

Source link

#Judge #threatens #kick #Trump #courtroom #defamation #trial

Cardinal is convicted of embezzlement in Vatican financial trial

A Vatican tribunal on Saturday convicted a cardinal of embezzlement and sentenced him to 5 ½ years in prison in one of several verdicts handed down in a complicated financial trial that aired the city state’s dirty laundry and tested its justice system.

Cardinal Angelo Becciu, the first cardinal ever prosecuted by the Vatican criminal court, was absolved of several other charges and his nine co-defendants received a mixed outcome of some guilty verdicts and many acquittals of the nearly 50 charges brought against them during a 2 ½ year trial.

Becciu’s lawyer, Fabio Viglione, said he respected the sentence but would appeal.

Prosecutor Alessandro Diddi said the outcome “showed we were correct.”

The trial focused on the Vatican secretariat of state’s 350 million euro investment in developing a former Harrod’s warehouse into luxury apartments. Prosecutors alleged Vatican monsignors and brokers fleeced the Holy See of tens of millions of euros in fees and commissions and then extorted the Holy See for 15 million euros to cede control of the building.

Becciu was accused of embezzlement-related charges in two tangents of the London deal and faced up to seven years in prison.

In the end, he was convicted of embezzlement stemming from the original Vatican investment of 200 million euros into a fund that invested in the London property. The tribunal determined canon law prohibited using church assets in such a speculative investment.

He was also convicted of embezzlement for his 125,000 euro donation of Vatican money to a charity run by his brother in Sardinia and of using Vatican money to pay an intelligence analyst who in turn was convicted of using the money for herself.

The trial had raised questions about the rule of law in the city state and Francis’ power as absolute monarch, given that he wields supreme legislative, executive and judicial authority and had exercised it in ways the defense says jeopardized a fair trial.

The defense attorneys did praise Judge Giuseppe Pignatone’s even-handedness and said they were able to present their arguments amply. But they lamented the Vatican’s outdated procedural norms gave prosecutors enormous leeway to withhold evidence and otherwise pursue their investigation nearly unimpeded.

Andrea Tornielli, the Vatican’s editorial director, said the verdicts showed the defense had ample space to present their case and that the defense rights were respected. 

“The outcome of this trial tells us that the judges of the tribunal, as is right, acted with full independence based on documentary proofs and witnesses, not pre-confectioned theories,” he wrote in an editorial in Vatican News.

Prosecutors had sought prison terms from three to 13 years and damages of over 400 million euros to try to recover the estimated 200 million euros they say the Holy See lost in the bad deals. 

In the end, the tribunal acquitted many of the suspects of many of the biggest charges, including fraud, corruption and money-laundering, determining in many cases that the crimes simply didn’t exist. 

But it nevertheless ordered the confiscation of 166 million euros from them and payment of civil damages to Vatican offices of 200 million euros. One defendant, Becciu’s former secretary Monsignor Mauro Carlino, was acquitted entirely.

The trial was initially seen as a sign of Francis’ financial reforms and willingness to crack down on alleged financial misdeeds in the Vatican. But it had something of a reputational boomerang for the Holy See, with revelations of vendettas, espionage and even ransom payments to Islamic militants.

Much of the London case rested on the passage of the property from one London broker, Raffaele Mincione, to another in late 2018. Prosecutors allege the second broker, Gianluigi Torzi, hoodwinked the Vatican by maneuvering to secure full control of the building that he relinquished only when the Vatican paid him off 15 million euros.

For Vatican prosecutors, that amounted to extortion. For the defense — and a British judge who rejected Vatican requests to seize Torzi’s assets — it was a negotiated exit from a legally binding contract. 

In the end, the tribunal convicted Torzi of several charges, including extortion, and sentenced him to six years in prison. Mincione was convicted of embezzlement for the original London investment but was absolved of, among other things, of inflating the cost of the building when the Vatican bought into it.

It wasn’t clear where the suspects would serve their time, if the convictions are upheld on appeal. The Vatican has a jail, but Torzi’s whereabouts weren’t immediately known and it wasn’t clear how or whether other countries would extradite the defendants to serve any sentence.

The former heads of the Vatican financial intelligence agency, Tommaso di Ruzza and Rene Bruelhart, were absolved of the main charge of abuse of office. They were convicted only of failing to report a suspicious transaction involving Torzi to prosecutors and fined 1,750 euros apiece.

They had argued they couldn’t tip off Vatican prosecutors to the transaction because they had initiated their own cross-border financial intelligence-gathering operation into Torzi after Francis asked them to help the secretariat of state get possession of the property.

A Vatican official, Fabrizio Tirabassi, was convicted of extortion along with Torzi and a money-laundering charge. The Vatican’s long-time financial adviser, Enrico Crasso was convicted of several charges including embezzlement and sentenced to seven years in prison.

The original London investigation spawned two other tangents that involved the star defendant, Becciu, once one of Francis’ top advisers and himself considered a papal contender.

Prosecutors accused Becciu of embezzlement for sending 125,000 euros in Vatican money to a Sardinian charity run by his brother. Becciu argued that the local bishop requested the money to build a bakery to employ at-risk youths and that the money remained in the diocesan coffers.

The tribunal acknowledged the charitable ends of the donation but convicted him of embezzlement, given his brother’s role.

Becciu was also accused of paying a Sardinian woman, Cecilia Marogna, for her intelligence services. Prosecutors traced some 575,000 euros in wire transfers from the Vatican to a Slovenian front company owned by Marogna and said she used the money to buy luxury goods and fund vacations.

Becciu said he thought the money was going to pay a British security firm to negotiate the release of Gloria Narvaez, a Colombian nun taken hostage by Islamic militants in Mali in 2017.

He said Francis authorized up to 1 million euros to liberate the nun, an astonishing claim that the Vatican was willing to make ransom payment to al-Qaida-linked militants.

(AP) 

Source link

#Cardinal #convicted #embezzlement #Vatican #financial #trial

Ivanka Trump Testifies: Ex-President’s Daughter Distances Herself From Fraud Allegations As Emails Show Concerns About Trump’s Net Worth

Topline

Former President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump took the stand at her father’s ongoing civil fraud trial Wednesday, repeatedly claiming she couldn’t recall any involvement with business deals at the heart of the New York Attorney General’s allegations about the case—as emails show she played a key role.

Key Facts

Ivanka Trump, formerly an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, testified Wednesday in the civil case, in which the attorney general alleges her father, brothers and the Trump Organization committed fraud by misstating valuations on financial statements prepared for financial institutions, which were used to obtain more favorable business deals and reflect a higher net worth for the ex-president.

Ivanka Trump—who was previously a defendant before being dismissed from the case—distanced herself from those statements of financial condition, denying she played a role in preparing them or had any recollection of them, and repeatedly denied any recollection of email exchanges shown at the trial that show her playing significant roles in deals that involved the financial statements, including at Trump National Doral resort in Miami and the company’s former hotel in Washington, D.C.

Her husband Jared Kushner introduced the ex-president to the head of Deutsche Bank’s Private Wealth Management division, which ultimately lent the company and ex-president money at a better rate than its commercial real estate, though Ivanka Trump claimed she “[didn’t]

Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management division required Trump to have a net worth of at least $3 billion in order to secure a loan with favorable rates through them for the Doral resort—which Trump Organization attorney Jason Greenblatt had concerns about, according to an email shown at trial, writing to Ivanka Trump that the requirement “would seem to be a problem?”

“That we have known from day one,” Ivanka Trump responded in an email, saying guaranteeing the deal was “the only way to get proceeds/term and principle where we want them,” though she asked Deutsche Bank to lower the requirement from $3 billion to $2 billion—even as the company claimed on its financial statement the ex-president’s net worth was over $4 billion.

Deutsche Bank also expressed concerns with a request from Ivanka Trump in 2016 for a $50 million unsecured loan—which would not require any collateral—writing in an email that the request suggests that “liquidity is an issue for your Dad” and former President Donald Trump didn’t have sufficient cash flow.

Tangent

The attorney general’s office also suggested that Trump’s presidential candidacy played a role in Deutsche Bank’s consideration over whether to expand its loan to the Trump Organization. Emails showed that bankers were wary of approving an unsecured loan for the company during the election, writing the bank’s decision against extending the loan was “a global corporate decision to maintain neutrality to any political situation and not lend money to a highly politically exposed person.” (Deutsche Bank declined to comment to Forbes on the emails.)

Chief Critic

Attorneys for the former president strongly opposed the state’s questioning of Ivanka Trump Wednesday morning, claiming it went beyond the scope of the attorney general’s subpoena for her testimony and the statute of limitations, with the ex-president’s daughter at one point being briefly excused from the courtroom as lawyers quarreled with the judge over what they believed was an irrelevant question. Former President Donald Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise argued Ivanka Trump had been “dragged here to testify,” after she tried to fight her subpoena. After saying the Trump Organization transformed a “hulking relic” into its D.C. hotel, Judge Arthur Engoron responded he was “starting to sound like your client.”

What To Watch For

Ivanka Trump’s testimony is scheduled to continue on Wednesday and potentially into Thursday, with the defendants’ attorneys slated to question her once the state has wrapped up. The former president’s daughter marks the state’s final witness before Trump’s attorneys present their case to the court, and the trial is scheduled to continue through mid-December. The trial carries potentially high stakes for the Trumps if Judge Arthur Engoron rules against them, with consequences including a $250 million fine and barring Trump and his sons from running New York businesses.

Key Background

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, his children—including Ivanka Trump prior to her dismissal from the case—other business associates and the Trump Organization, arguing the ex-president and his co-defendants misstated the values of assets on financial documents more than 200 times between 2011 and 2021. The legal complaint includes allegations over false numbers regarding Mar-A-Lago, the Washington, D.C., hotel and the ex-president’s Manhattan penthouse, among other properties. Ivanka Trump’s testimony caps off a week of the Trump family taking the stand, with brothers Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump testifying in the trial last week and the ex-president testifying on Monday. Similarly to Ivanka, her brothers—who also served as executive vice presidents at the company—denied any involvement with statements of financial condition, even as they signed off on the documents and attested to their accuracy. The former president spent his testimony downplaying his involvement with the financial statements, falsely claiming a disclaimer in them made them “worthless,” as well as sparring with the judge.

Surprising Fact

Ivanka Trump has kept a fairly low profile since her father left the White House. She hasn’t attended high-profile events like the Met Gala and declined to join the Trump 2024 campaign.

Further Reading

Live From The Courtroom: Ivanka Trump Testifies In Dad’s Fraud Trial (Forbes)

Ivanka Trump Testifying In Fraud Trial Today—Here’s What To Expect (Forbes)

Ivanka Trump Helped Her Dad Lie About His Net Worth (Forbes)

Trump Thought His D.C. Hotel Would Bring In Twice As Much Money As It Did (Forbes)

Source link

#Ivanka #Trump #Testifies #ExPresidents #Daughter #Distances #Fraud #Allegations #Emails #Show #Concerns #Trumps #Net #Worth

Trump Fraud Trial: AG Argues Ex-President Gained $1 Billion Through Fraud As His Attorney Claims Trump Is ‘Right About Real Estate’

Topline

The trial determining whether former President Donald Trump and his business committed fraud by inflating their assets began with opening statements on Monday, as the New York attorney general’s office argued Trump knowingly committed widespread fraud while his lawyer claimed the former president did nothing wrong.

Key Facts

New York AG Letitia James is suing Trump, his business associates—including his sons—and the Trump Organization, claiming they fraudulently inflated the value of business assets in order to obtain more favorable business terms and boost Trump’s net worth by as much as $3.6 billion.

Though Judge Arthur Engoron has already found Trump and his business liable for fraud by misstating the value of their assets, attorney Kevin Wallace from the AG’s office said Monday prosecutors will argue at trial the “defendants engaged in repeated, persistent illegal acts in the conduct of business,” including falsification of business records and insurance fraud, and that there’s “ample evidence” showing the defendants knew the fraudulent valuations were false, as quoted by the New York Times and Washington Post.

Prosecutors showed testimony from ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen alleging he and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg would inflate the value of Trump’s assets in order to boost his net worth so he would be higher on Forbesbillionaires list, with Cohen testifying they would “use each of [Trump’s]

Reuters reports the AG’s attorney claimed Trump garnered more than $1 billion as a result of his fraudulent reporting, and Wallace alleged the false valuations also resulted in the Trump Organization getting more favorable interest rates and persuading banks to to take on hidden risk “to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars,” as quoted by CNN.

Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise argued in his opening statement the former president has made “many billions of dollars being right about real estate investments” and “did not make any false statements” or act fraudulently, as quoted by the Times, alleging the valuations were subjective and that in real estate, “buyers have a view, sellers have a view, none of them are wrong.”

Kise argued the banks that lent money to Trump made money and that any disparate valuations did not have an impact, noting Deutsche Bank underwrote a loan to Trump even though it valued his net worth as being $2 billion less than he did.

What To Watch For

The trial against Trump and his company is expected to last until December, and Clifford Robert, who represents Trump’s sons in the case, told the court Monday that Trump, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., will all testify as part of the trial. The trial is a bench trial, meaning the judge will decide the case and not a jury, which Engoron noted Monday was because nobody in the case requested a jury. Engoron has already ordered Trump’s business certificates to be canceled as part of his ruling finding the former president liable for fraud, but the trial will determine what other penalties Trump and his company could face, including a $250 million fine and barring Trump from any commercial real estate acquisitions, or blocking him and his children leading any New York companies for the next five years.

Crucial Quote

“While it may be one thing to exaggerate for Forbes magazine … you cannot do it while conducting business in the state of New York,” Wallace said during his opening statement, as quoted by CNN.

Chief Critic

“There was no intent to defraud, there was no illegality, there was no default, there was no breach, there was no reliance from the banks, there were no unjust profits, and there were no victims,” Kise argued in his opening statement Monday, as quoted by Reuters.

Forbes Valuation

$2.5 billion. That’s Trump’s estimated net worth, according to Forbes’ real-time tracker, and he ranked 1217th on our 2023 billionaires’ list. In the years covered by the lawsuit, 2011 to 2021, Trump’s net worth as estimated by Forbes ranged between $2.4 billion in 2011 to $4.5 billion in 2015. Prior to James’ lawsuit, Forbes had exposed previous Trump efforts to misstate the size and value of his real estate properties, including exaggerating the size of his Manhattan penthouse, which has been cited in the attorney general’s case against Trump.

Tangent

Trump was present in court on Monday as the trial got underway and listened to the opening statements, with the Times reporting that during the hearing he alternated between appearing “bored” and “angry” and was seen yawning and “fidgeting in his seat.” The former president addressed reporters after opening statements concluded, saying, “We’re going to be here for months with a judge that already made up his mind. It’s ridiculous.” “Other than that, things went very well,” Trump added.

Key Background

James sued Trump, his business associates and company in November 2022 following a yearslong investigation, alleging the ex-president and his company had made more than 200 false statements that misstated the value of his assets to get more favorable business deals and inflate his own net worth. The AG opened the investigation in March 2019 based on congressional testimony by Cohen, who said Trump had fraudulently inflated or deflated the value of his assets on financial statements for personal gain. The lawsuit makes such claims as that Trump overstated the size of his Manhattan penthouse and overvalued Mar-A-Lago by falsely claiming it’s a private residence. Engoron agreed Trump inflated the valuations in his ruling last week finding Trump and his company liable for fraud, writing Trump’s depictions of the valuations as being merely subjective are out of “a fantasy world, not the real world.” Of his penthouse overstatement, Engoron wrote, “A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.” Trump has maintained the allegations against him and his company are false and a “witch hunt,” repeatedly attacking James and Engoron as being biased against him.

Further Reading

Trump Arrives In Manhattan Court As Fraud Trial Kicks Off (Forbes)

Trump Committed Fraud By Inflating His Assets, Judge Rules (Forbes)

How Trump, Master Of Avoiding Paper Trails, Finally Got Caught With One (Forbes)

The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump (Forbes)

How Forbes Exposed Trump’s Lies About The Size Of His Penthouse (Forbes)



Source link

#Trump #Fraud #Trial #Argues #ExPresident #Gained #Billion #Fraud #Attorney #Claims #Trump #Real #Estate

Trump Committed Fraud By Inflating His Assets, Judge Rules

Topline

Former President Donald Trump and his company committed fraud by overstating the value of their assets, a New York judge ruled Tuesday, siding with state Attorney General Letitia James in her wide-ranging suit against the former president and the Trump Organization, which is still set to go to trial next week with a narrower scope.

Key Facts

James sued Trump, the Trump Organization and his business associates—including Trump’s children—for fraud, alleging in civil court the ex-president made hundreds of false statements that inflated the value of Trump Organization assets to boost his net worth and obtain more favorable business deals.

Manhattan-based Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and the other defendants committed fraud, releasing his opinion Tuesday, six days before the case is set to go to trial, after James’ office argued Engoron should rule on the issue now because “no trial is required” to find Trump liable.

Engoron wrote that the documents uncovered in the case “clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business,” and none of Trump’s defenses hold up, including his claim that he could always find a “buyer from Saudi Arabia” for one property or that measuring square footage is a “subjective process.”

The judge pointed to several Trump properties that were overvalued, including Mar-A-Lago, a building on Park Avenue, an estate in Westchester County and his penthouse in Trump Tower—which had an inflated square footage even after Forbes asked him about the exaggeration, Engoron notes.

As a result, Engoron canceled several of Trump’s business certificates and ordered the dissolution of Trump-related LLCs.

Engoron also sanctioned several of Trump’s attorneys $7,500 for making arguments the court had repeatedly tossed out.

Trump and his co-defendants opposed James’ motion to rule on the fraud question right away, arguing in court the valuations were subjective and James is just “uneducated” about real estate, and brought their own motion asking the court to rule in their favor and throw the case out entirely ahead of trial.

What To Watch For:

The trial against Trump and his business allies is set to begin on Monday and run until December, though that date remains slightly up in the air. An appeals court temporarily delayed the trial earlier this month amid a lawsuit between Trump and the judge—the appellate judges will hear arguments this week, and could let the trial proceed as scheduled. While Engoron already ruled on part of the case by finding Trump and his co-defendants guilty of fraud, the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud—as well as determining whether there was intent to commit fraud and the damages Trump and his co-defendants will face. Trump’s attorneys said in a statement Tuesday that “While the full impact of the decision remains unclear, what is clear is that President Trump will seek all available appellate remedies to rectify this miscarriage of justice.”

What We Don’t Know:

What punishments Trump and his business could face at trial. James’ lawsuit asks the court to impose a range of penalties on the defendants, including barring Trump from engaging in any commercial real estate acquisitions for five years, blocking him and his children from serving as officers or directors in any New York business and forcing the defendants to pay an approximately $250 million fine.

Big Number:

$3.6 billion. That’s how much Trump inflated his net worth by overstating the value of his assets on financial documents, James alleged in court filings, calling the number a “conservative” estimate. The AG alleges Trump used the exaggerated assets to inflate his net worth by between $1.9 billion and $3.6 billion per year between 2011 and 2021, including by misstating the value of his properties at Trump Tower and Mar-A-Lago in Florida, which the lawsuit alleges Trump valued as a private residence instead of a social club.

Chief Critic:

Trump’s attorneys argued in court that the ex-president didn’t fraudulently overstate the value of his assets, but rather claimed the valuations were accurate based on Trump’s “perspective [as] a creative and visionary real estate developer who sees the potential and value of properties that others do not.” Trump attorney Christopher Kise argued at a hearing Friday: “The case comes down to prosecuting the defendants for engaging in successful business transactions.” In a statement Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys called the action an “outrageous decision” that is “completely unhinged from the facts and governing law.”

Forbes Valuation:

$2.5 billion. That’s Trump’s estimated net worth, according to Forbes’ real-time tracker. Forbes has exposed previous Trump efforts to misstate the size and value of his real estate properties, including exaggerating the size of his Manhattan penthouse, which was cited in James’ lawsuit.

Key Background:

James sued Trump, his company and his business associates in September 2022, following a years-long investigation that began in March 2019. Trump was deposed as part of the investigation, though he refused to answer questions and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, after being held in contempt of court for not complying with the subpoena. Since James filed the lawsuit, the AG has notched a win in court as Engoron appointed an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s activities, though an appeals court also dismissed James’ claims against Ivanka Trump in the case and forced Engoron to narrow the case. The Trump Organization has separately been found guilty of tax fraud in a different case brought by the Manhattan district attorney, in which the company was ordered to pay $1.6 million for a scheme in which executives were paid through personal expenses that weren’t taxed, such as private school tuition, apartments and car leases.

Further Reading:

Checks & Imbalances: A Forbes Look At The Trump Fraud Lawsuit (Forbes)

Exclusive Recording, Documents Bolster Trump Fraud Lawsuit (Forbes)

Trump Inflated Net Worth By $3.6 Billion, New York Attorney General Says (Forbes)

NY AG James Sues Trump For Fraud (Forbes)



Source link

#Trump #Committed #Fraud #Inflating #Assets #Judge #Rules

Procedural glitch clears French suspects in plot to attack Morocco World Cup fans

A court in Paris has dismissed a high-profile case against seven suspected far-right activists, including a prominent figure in the French “ultra-right”, citing procedural errors in the investigation. The suspects were accused of planning to carry out a racist attack on fans of Morocco during the recent football World Cup, in the latest evidence of rising far-right militancy in France. 

Shortly after 10pm on December 14, moments after France defeated Morocco en route to the World Cup final in Qatar, a flood of football fans hit the streets of Paris, converging on the Champs-Elysées, the French capital’s traditional rallying point for jubilant supporters. 

Most were draped in the French tricolour, though a sizeable contingent – including many French citizens of Moroccan descent – waved the red-and-green flag of the Lions of the Atlas. Both were in celebratory mode, with Morocco’s fans determined to pay tribute to an extraordinary World Cup run.  

One group’s attire, however, pointed to other plans. 

Outside a bar in the capital’s swanky 17th arrondissement, about a mile away from the Champs-Elysées, police officers acting on intelligence detained several dozen individuals suspected of planning to carry out a racist rampage.  

Body searches revealed an arsenal of weapons that included batons, tear gas canisters, shin guards and tactical gloves. One was held in possession of stickers with the three letters GUD, standing for “Groupe Union Défense”, a far-right student group notorious for its violence, which became dormant at the start of the century but has recently made a comeback. 

Ten months later, seven of them were brought before the Paris Criminal Court on Friday on charges of “carrying prohibited weapons” and “forming a group with a view to committing violence and damage”, offences punishable with up to 10 years in jail. 

In a startling twist, however, the entire case was thrown out on procedural grounds just hours into the trial, with the presiding judge arguing that police had exceeded their mandate in carrying out the arrests – and ordering the seven suspects to walk free. 

Ultra-right pedigree 

Among the 38 people detained on December 14, about half were known to have belonged to a variety of far-right groups, most of them now outlawed. A dozen were labelled “fiché S”, indicating a potential threat to national security. The majority were from the Paris region, though a handful had travelled from as far as Brittany. 

The seven men in the dock on Friday included Marc de Cacqueray-Valménier, a central figure in the French ultra-droite (ultra-right) – a term used to refer to extreme-right groups with neo-Nazi sympathies. He is believed to have led the militant group Zouaves Paris – a GUD offshoot that was banned last year.

At just 24 years of age, the scion of a family of ultra-Catholic aristocrats has already had multiple run-ins with the law, including a suspended jail sentence for his involvement in violent clashes on the sidelines of a Yellow Vest protest at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris in December 2018. 

In January 2022, Cacqueray-Valménier was sentenced to a year in prison for attacking the Saint-Sauveur bar in Paris, a popular anti-fascist hideout, though he has appealed the conviction. He is also under investigation for a violent attack on anti-racism activists who disrupted a campaign rally in support of far-right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour

Far-right protesters wave a flag of the GUD at a rally in Paris on May 26, 2013. © Thomas Samson, AFP

Police investigating the alleged plot to attack Moroccan fans believe Cacqueray-Valménier summoned his acolytes via a Telegram message that called for a “general mobilisation to defend the flag from the Moroccan hordes”, French daily Libération reported on Thursday, citing transcripts of police interrogations. 

He is also believed to have instructed participants to delete all messages, a tactic that hindered investigators’ efforts to gather evidence – and partly explained the small number of defendants in the dock, one of whom tried unsuccessfully to delete the messaging app before investigators seized it. 

During his interrogation, Cacqueray-Valménier denied any role in the alleged plot, claiming he was “no longer a militant” and that he “identified with no ideology”. Hailing the court’s decision to quash the case on Friday, his lawyer Clément Diakonoff accused politicians of “creating a myth around” Cacqueray-Valménier and “designating him as a target”.

‘Clash of civilisations’ 

Police’s decision to carry out preventive arrests, before any violence had been committed, ultimately undermined the case against the seven suspects. While it may have helped avert disturbances in Paris, racist attacks involving far-right activists were reported elsewhere in France, despite the deployment of 10,000 police officers across the country.

In Lyon, a hotbed of far-right militancy, several dozen men wearing balaclavas attacked fans in a central square to cries of “bleu, blanc, rouge, France for the French”. One officer spoke of a “volatile mix of ultra-right activists and football hooligans”. 

Racist assaults were also reported in Nantes, Montpellier and Nice, where masked men chased after Moroccan supporters shouting “Out with the Arabs”, while hooligans marched through central Strasbourg waving neo-Nazi symbols.  

While the incidents involved only a few hundred people across the country, they reflect the growing visibility and assertiveness of France’s militant far right, with small groups jostling for influence and notoriety in a fragmented landscape. 

In a July interview with Le Monde, Nicolas Lerner, the head of France’s internal intelligence agency, the DGSI, spoke of a “highly alarming rise in violent actions or intimidations by a segment of the ultra-right”, whose targets include immigrants, rights activists and elected officials

Anti-racism advocates and politicians on the left have accused the political far right of spreading inflammatory rhetoric in the run-up to the World Cup match, stoking hostility towards populations of immigrant descent with ties to former French colonies, such as Morocco.  

Damien Rieu, a close ally of Zemmour, described the historic semi-final as a “clash of civilisations”, while Zemmour himself reiterated his complaint that the French squad featured too many players with “foreign-sounding names”. 

When French citizens “have a heart that beats for another country (…) it raises questions about their assimilation” into French society, argued Sébastien Chenu, a lawmaker in Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally and a deputy head of the French National Assembly, speaking on France 2 television. 

“In the week leading up to the France-Morocco game, parts of the far right and some in the media shaped public perceptions by repeatedly warning that incidents were bound to occur,” left-wing lawmaker Thomas Portes, the head of the National Observatory of the Far Right, told FRANCE 24 earlier this year. “When you fan the flames of hatred and blow on embers that are already burning, unacceptable things happen.” 

Source link

#Procedural #glitch #clears #French #suspects #plot #attack #Morocco #World #Cup #fans