Former President Donald J. Trump is facing a civil trial in New York in October where New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, seeks to bar him and his children from leading their family business, the Trump Organization, and to impose a fine of around $250 million. This comes after allegations that Trump and his family fraudulently overvalued their assets by billions of dollars.
In a recent court filing, James argued that a trial is unnecessary to prove that Trump and his co-defendants inflated the value of their assets, securing favorable loans and insurance arrangements. According to James, Trump falsely increased his net worth by hundreds of millions to billions of dollars each year for a decade.
However, Trump’s lawyers have motioned for the entire case to be dismissed, relying on a recent appellate court decision that potentially limits the scope of the trial due to a legal time limit. They argue that Trump received most of the loans in question too long ago for the matter to be considered in court.
Both James and Trump’s lawyers have sought summary judgment, a ruling from the judge based on undisputed evidence. If James is successful, it could be a significant victory for her and impact the remaining claims.
The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, is set to hold a hearing in late September and may make a ruling at that time. The lawsuit disputes the value of properties such as Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower, with James alleging significant overvaluations.
Trump’s lawyers argue that transactions involving loans for a golf resort, a hotel in Washington, and a hotel in Chicago should be excluded from the case, again citing the recent appellate court ruling. They contend that any loans secured before July 2014 should not be included.
Furthermore, Trump’s lawyers claim that his lenders did not heavily rely on his financial statements and that they profited from their dealings with him. They suggest that fraud cannot be established solely based on the New York Attorney General’s interpretation.
During a deposition in April, Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination but answered questions from James’s office. His responses were sometimes non-sequiturs and centered around political grievances.
The trial in October carries significant implications for the former president and his family business, potentially impacting their future leadership and finances. The outcome of the summary judgment motions and the subsequent trial will shape the course of the case.