Judge Arthur Engoron handed down his judgment in the New York civil fraud trial of serial sex abuser Donald Trump (SSAT) brought by New York state attorney general Letitia James alleging that SSAT, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and his company indulged in fraudulent business practices. They had already been found guilty of fraud in an earlier trial and this part of the process was to determine the extent of the fraud and what fines, if any, they would pay.

It was hefty.

James had asked for $370 million and Engoron awarded $364 million. Engoron also “barred SSAT and and two other executives from serving as officers or directors of any corporation or entity in New York for three years. His sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr, were banned for two years.” He is also “ordering the appointment of two court monitors to oversee the business: former judge Barbara Jones, and an independent compliance director to ensure “good financial and accounting practices””.

The judge was scathing in his opinion.

The former president “rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial,” Engoron wrote in his 92-page decision. “His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility.”

The judge was equally unsparing in his assessment of the evidence provided by Trump’s eldest sons, who have led the Trump Organization since their father entered the White House in 2017.
Eric Trump “severely damaged” his credibility on the stand, according to Engoron, by repeatedly denying that he had known before the case arose that his father had compiled financial statements valuing his assets and net worth.

Only when confronted with “copious” documentary evidence that he had known about the financial statements as early as August 2013 did Eric Trump “begrudgingly” acknowledge that it “appears” he had known, the judge noted.

On the stand, Donald Trump Jr claimed he did not know how or why Weisselberg left the business after being criminally indicted. The court found this “entirely unbelievable,” Engoron said.
…

Trump and his sons as witnesses also argued that it was the job of their outside accountants to get the financial statements right. But Engoron pointed out that there was “overwhelming evidence adduced at trial demonstrating that [the accounting firms] relied on the Trump Organization, not vice versa, to be truthful and accurate, and they had a right to do so”.

“The buck for being truthful … stopped with the Trump Organization, not the accountants,” Engoron wrote.
…

“Absolute perfection, including with numbers, exists only in heaven,” Engoron wrote. “If fraud is insignificant, then, like most things in life, it just does not matter.”

But these frauds were not merely significant: they “leap off the page and shock the conscience,” he continued.

In the face of this, what truly rankled Engoron was Trump and his allies’ refusal to acknowledge almost all the errors at the heart of this case. “Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” the judge wrote. “They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money.

“The documents prove this over and over again.

One wonders why SSAT and his lawyer Alina Habba went out of their way to irritate the judge during the trial, even to extent of attacking his aide. Yes, it may have played well to his supporters but it still seems foolish to me.

SSAT’s costs are steadily rising. The first E. Jean Carroll trial resulted in $5 million in damages. The second Carroll trial resulted in $83.3 million. And now this one makes a total of $452 million. SSAT will appeal but to do so requires him to put in escrow 110% of the amount pending the results of the appeal. That amounts to almost $500 million. He can choose to put up the full amount himself or get a private company to put up a surety on his behalf. This bond company explains what is involved.

An appeal bond or supersedeas bond is a type of safety net bond, which is in place to protect the court from frivolous appeals that would cost the court time and money. In other words, it protects the court from being abused by individuals who could file an appeal to stall the payment of the court-ordered sum. An appeal is a request from one of the parties in a case to have the final judgment reviewed by a higher court because they believe the verdict is wrong and should be changed. The appeal bond is required under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 by the appellant, who is the one appealing the judgement of the court. The appeal court bond is required to ensure the responsible party will pay the court-mandated sum if the appeal fails. This bond is typically in the amount of the original judgment, but could be more and may also include interest.
…

The cost of an appeal surety bond varies from case to case. Typically, the amount the appellant will be responsible for is 1-2% of the surety bond amount that is needed. For example, if the appeal bond is in the amount of $1,000,000 then it would cost between $10,000 and $20,000 annually. Unlike other surety bonds, the applicant’s credit score doesn’t affect the cost of the bond because collateral for 100% of the bond amount must be posted in order to qualify for an appeal, which is the initial judgement amount. Requiring full collateral from an appellant is in place to discourage anyone from abusing the appeals court system. Since the price is high for making an appeal, it will persuade them against it unless it is necessary.

In the first Carroll. case, SSAT apparently put up the $5.5 million himself. It is not clear if this is because he did not want to pay the 1% fee ($55,000) to the bond company or because no bond company was willing to take the risk for such a large amount on behalf of someone notorious for not paying his bills. Suing SSAT for not paying the company would be a tedious and expensive process.

The size of these later two judgments will make it even more difficult for SSAT to find a bond company to provide surety even if he wanted to do so and so SSAT may have to cough up $500 million himself. Although he constantly boasts about how rich he is, and he is surely worth more than that, it is not clear how much ready cash he has at his disposal or whether he might have to sell some assets to meet the obligation.

While SSAT has been raising money to pay his legal bills, federal law prevents someone from using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses. Legal niceties have not prevented SSAT from violating the law before but now he will be under very close scrutiny and even a notorious scofflaw like him might think twice before putting himself in further legal jeopardy.