Donald Trump’s impending appeal of the $453.5 million real-estate fraud judgment against him is poised to bring to the forefront a crucial question: whether the case can be considered a victimless crime. Legal analysts anticipate that Trump’s legal team will emphasize the absence of traditional victims in the case as a central strategy to mitigate or annul the damages.
The case, prosecuted by New York Attorney General Letitia James, centered on Trump’s deliberate inflation of his assets when applying for loans, arguing that Trump should relinquish the gains acquired through fraudulent means. State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, presiding over the case, characterized the fraud as extensive and unrepentant, bordering on pathological.
However, notable financial entities such as Deutsche Bank, among others, refrained from suing the former president for crafting the inflated statements of his net worth that influenced their lending decisions. The debate over who Trump harmed among these sophisticated financial institutions is expected to be a pivotal point in the appeal process.
Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, underscored the significance of questioning the extent to which large financial institutions are responsible for conducting their due diligence in such matters. This aspect gains prominence considering Trump’s reputation as a braggart.
To delay payment of the judgment during the appeal, Trump must request the appeals court to halt Engoron’s order, typically requiring a bond to ensure payment if he loses. However, given the absence of traditional victims in the fraud case, the appeals court might demand a bond that is a fraction of the judgment.
Germain remarked that this situation could be viewed as a windfall for the attorney general, as she faces no losses while recovering Trump’s unjust enrichment.
Engoron’s ruling on the case outlined Trump’s years-long perpetration of fraud by overstating the value of properties in his real estate business. The judgment ordered Trump to pay $453.5 million in penalties and interest for the ill-gotten gains, including profits from lower interest rates secured through false statements of net worth, gains from property conversions, and windfall profits from property sales.
Trump’s legal team has vowed to appeal, contesting the assertion of victimless offense, highlighting that banks were repaid with interest. They argue that there is no real-world impact or victims of fraud.
James countered, emphasizing that the statute does not mandate specific victims, but rather a finding of wrongdoing. She maintained that timely loan repayment does not erase the harm caused by false statements in the marketplace.
As the appeal process unfolds, legal experts anticipate Trump’s defense to challenge the attorney general’s authority to sue and the entitlement of the state to the restitution. While the government effectively demonstrated Trump’s inflation of property values, critics point out that sophisticated financial institutions did not insist on third-party appraisals typical of mortgage transactions.
In essence, the appeal is poised to revolve around the central question of whether the absence of traditional victims in Trump’s fraud case mitigates his culpability. This pivotal issue underscores the complexities and nuances inherent in white-collar crime prosecution and appeals, shaping the trajectory of Trump’s legal battles.