Donald Trump was indicted twice this month on serious, historic criminal charges. On Wednesday, a New York court threw out the entirety of one such civil fraud penalty against him, ordering a significant reduction. At first, Trump was found liable for $355 million for committing financial fraud. On his part, he denounces in the strongest terms the idea that his financial statements were ever misleading and says the case against him is politically motivated. This ruling comes as part of a pattern of legal challenges that Trump has faced in 2023.
In September, Judge Arthur Engorgon ordered a record-breaking penalty of upwards of $527 million. This was an enormous fine, which has personally affected Trump and other executives of the Trump Organization. Yet a five-judge panel in New York’s mid-level appellate division had the gall to call the $36 million verdict “excessive.” In this ruling, the court agreed to reduce the penalty. This action further underscores the continuing arguments over the veracity of the allegations and the suitability of the financial damages levied against Trump.
As for the $250 million in initial penalties, Trump postponed payment by posting a $175 million bond while he appealed the ruling. The defense countered that all the financial statements provided by his team had disclaimers on them. They highlighted that every participating lender was paid back in full and argued that his reported assets were overvalued. One of these assets included an inflated valuation of his Trump Tower penthouse—which was allegedly tripled in size.
“The court struck down the outrageous and unlawful $464 million penalty, confirming what we have said from the beginning: the Attorney General’s case was politically motivated, legally baseless, and grossly excessive,” said Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney.
Beyond the New York civil fraud case, Trump’s legal troubles run deep. His justice department has now subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James for all records relating to the investigation. He was recently given an unconditional discharge from a criminal hush-money payment while he was a candidate. A federal court ruled that he had done nothing wrong.
Even with these developments, Trump was unable to succeed in getting the Supreme Court to re-consider its denied appeal. He maintains his innocence to this day, claiming that he has been unjustly persecuted through these legal conflicts.
“This is a case of election interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT,” Trump stated.
Trump’s defense emphasizes his perspective on these legal challenges as a continuation of what he describes as a “Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense.” His fans are deeply invested in this story. It’s increasingly been a hallmark of his public rhetoric concerning the legal challenges he’s now encountering.
The ramifications of this decision go beyond Trump alone. The financial penalties serve as a broader message regarding corporate accountability and the obligations of business leaders to provide accurate financial disclosures.
“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order… is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” commented judges Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton in their decision.