New York AG says: Donald Trump inflated property values by up to $2.2 billion.
In a legal maneuver that could have profound implications, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has petitioned a judge to render a verdict without a full trial, asserting that the former president, Donald Trump, and his associates engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the value of their assets.
Before his name became synonymous with multiple indictments, Donald J. Trump faced a lawsuit from New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. The suit alleged that Trump, along with his family and business, had for years deceptively exaggerated the worth of their assets by staggering billions of dollars.
While criminal trials loom on the horizon, a civil trial is slated for October in New York. During this trial, Letitia James will contend that Donald Trump and three of his children should be legally barred from overseeing their family enterprise, the Trump Organization. Additionally, she seeks a fine of approximately $250 million.
This week, Letitia James initiated her legal offensive, asserting that a trial isn’t necessary to conclude that Trump and his co-defendants manipulated their annual financial statements, leading to unjustifiably favorable loans and insurance deals.
The extent of this deception, James argues in court documents, is so substantial that it artificially inflated Trump’s net worth by anywhere between $812 million and $2.2 billion annually over a ten-year span.
According to the filing, “Given the undisputed evidence, the court can ascertain that the defendants deliberately presented grossly exaggerated asset values without the need for a trial.”
Conversely, Trump’s legal team, in their response, seeks a complete dismissal of the case. They largely lean on a recent appellate court decision that seemingly restricts the lawsuit’s scope due to a legal statute of limitations. Trump’s lawyers contend that the majority of the loans in question date back too far to be subjected to court deliberation.
Christopher M. Kise, Michael Madaio, and Clifford S. Robert, Trump’s attorneys, noted, “The appellate division has now limited the reach of the N.Y. A.G.’s crusade against President Trump and his family.”
Both sides are pursuing a legal avenue called “summary judgment,” which means they’re asking the judge to rule in their favor based on established and indisputable facts before a full trial.
Letitia James is seeking this judgment for the pivotal aspect of her case — the allegation that Trump’s financial statements were fundamentally deceptive. If she prevails, this would be a significant triumph and potentially bolster her position for the forthcoming trial on the remaining claims.
A partial summary judgment in Trump’s favor, on the other hand, could significantly diminish the stakes of the impending October trial.
Alternatively, the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, could reject both requests for early judgments, leading to a trial. The judge is slated to conduct a hearing in late September, at which point he might make a decision.
James’s lawsuit takes direct aim at the valuation of some of Trump’s most notable properties, including Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower. In her recent filing, she alleges that the 2018 valuation of Trump Tower was artificially inflated by nearly $175 million. The following year, she claims, its value was fictitiously boosted by almost $323 million.
The filing asserts, “Ultimately, this is a case centered around documents,” and it maintains that these documents leave no room for doubt that Trump’s yearly financial statements were grossly inconsistent with the actual worth of his holdings.
James also scrutinizes Trump for employing these fraudulent financial statements to secure loans for projects like a golf resort near Miami, a Washington hotel, and a Chicago hotel.
However, Trump’s legal team argues that Justice Engoron should exclude these transactions from the case based on the recent appellate court decision. This ruling resulted in the dismissal of a case involving Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, due to the time elapsed since the alleged actions. Loans obtained by Trump and his company prior to July 2014, the court ruled, fall outside the legal scope.
While the appeals court left the case against Trump, his company, and his two adult sons intact, Trump’s lawyers highlight that the loans for the Chicago and Florida projects were negotiated before the July 2014 cutoff.
Furthermore, Trump’s legal team contends that his lenders didn’t heavily rely on his financial statements to grant him loans and that these lenders profited immensely from their dealings with the former president.
In a turn of events, Trump, who initially invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, eventually responded to James’s queries in an April deposition, the transcript of which was disclosed this week.
By: M Z Hossain, Editor Sky Buzz Feed
