New York (EFE) – On Wednesday evening, New York Attorney General Letitia James urged a state appellate court to uphold a civil fraud penalty of $454 million against former President Donald Trump, asserting that there is “overwhelming evidence” of his wrongdoing. James defended the February ruling that accused the former president of exaggerating the value of his net worth—reportedly inflating it to as much as $2.2 billion—to secure favorable loans and other financial advantages.
In her legal statement presented on Wednesday, James emphasized, “Mr. Trump undoubtedly engaged in fraud,” pointing out that “he, his adult children, and his company (the Trump Organization) employed a diverse array of deceptive strategies” that ultimately “harmed the market.”
James’s remarks coincided with the announcement that the New York appellate court has scheduled September 26 to hear Trump’s oral arguments in this ongoing case, indicating that a final decision is unlikely to be reached before the presidential elections on November 5.
In February, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron of Manhattan restricted Trump’s ability to conduct business in New York for the next three years and levied the significant financial penalty against him as head of the Trump Organization.
Trump has appealed the ruling, claiming that the judge is motivated by political bias against him, contending that he is being punished for “creating a perfect business, substantial wealth, and impressive buildings.” Moreover, Trump contended that his alleged victims—primarily banks that provided him with lower interest rates based on his purported net worth—had benefited from their dealings with him.
Nevertheless, James’s office countered the following day, asserting that the law underpinning the original lawsuit did not require evidence that financial institutions involved with the former president had incurred losses. “The State has the right to demand reimbursement of Trump’s ill-gotten gains from the interests he saved,” they concluded.
Should Trump lose this appeal, he may face a reduction in his cash reserves, and possibly have his bank accounts frozen or certain properties seized. Such outcomes would adversely impact the image he projects as a proficient economic manager, especially in contrast to the “communist policies” he attributes to his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.
Leave a Reply