New York Attorney General Donald J. He asked the judge overseeing Trump's civil fraud investigation to fine the former president about $370 million, saying the trial proved he obtained that amount through illegal conduct.
The attorney general, Letitia James, was more than $250 million estimated in the fall of 2022, which Mr. Trump was sued, accusing him of inflating his net worth to get favorable treatment from banks and insurers.
The trial began in October and proceedings concluded last month, but Mr. Trump's fate is still undecided. The attorney general's request for fines came in a post-trial brief filed Friday. Mr. Trump's lawyers, in their own filing, wrote that “the Attorney General has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to any relief, including any financial penalty.”
For a request for comment on the $370 million, Mr. Trump's attorney did not immediately respond.
The following week, attorneys for trial Judge Arthur F. They will present their final arguments before Engoron. Mrs. The nature of James' case meant that there was no jury; Justice Engoron has said that he will try to issue a verdict on the case by the end of this month.
With a steep financial penalty, Democrat Ms. James, a Republican Mr. Trump is calling for a ban on participating in New York's real estate industry and holding any company in the state.
Justice Engoron, also a Democrat, has been persuaded by Ms. James's arguments in the past. Before the trial began, he inflated the value of his assets and thereby, Mr. Found that Trump had committed fraud and ruled in his favor. Much of the investigation concerns whether the former president's conduct violated other New York laws and the potential consequences of his wrongdoing.
The trial was a contentious affair as lawyers for Ms. James and Mr. Trump clashed on issues large and small, and the former president often attended proceedings using the sidewalk outside the courtroom as a campaign stop. There, he prosecuted the Attorney General, the judge and the judge's chief law clerk, whom he attacked as politically biased, prompting Justice Engoron to issue a scathing order barring him from commenting on court staff.
The former president's lawyers argued that the actions stemmed from Ms. James's political affiliation, and they repeatedly derailed the trial, repeatedly calling for a favorable verdict because of insufficient evidence. Judge Engoron was not convinced. Dec. On 18, five days after the trial, the judge, Mr.
He wrote that some lawyers' arguments “revealed frivolity,” and took issue with the testimony of their financial experts, and Mr.
“Let no one be fooled,” Judge Engoran wrote. “Evaluations such as ad nauseam, as elucidated in this trial, may be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways. But a lie is still a lie.
