Trump will dispute judge’s definition of ‘fraud’ in appeal of $355M fine: report

Former President Donald Trump will contest Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron’s definition of “fraud” when he appeals the $355 million judgment made against him last week in his civil trial, according to his lawyer. 

“The case raises serious legal and constitutional questions regarding ‘fraud’ claims/findings without any actual fraud,” Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, told Newsweek Monday. 

Kise further charged that Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James – both Democrats – are attempting to force Trump out of New York to the detriment of the city.

The lawyer did not specify exactly when an appeal would be filed, noting that the timing “will depend on many factors” but will “fall within the 30-day clock” allowed by the court, the outlet reported. 

On Friday, Engoron, a 74-year-old cab driver-turned-judge, ordered Trump, 77, to pay the massive fine and barred the former president’s sons – Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump – from doing business in the state for two years after finding that the Trump Organization overvalued assets to secure loans and deals from banks and insurers in the Empire State. 

The judge’s verdict also ordered Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump to pay $4 million apiece and banned Trump Organization executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney from serving as company officers for three years.

Trump’s appeal will need to demonstrate that James does not possess the power to punish him “without showing the traditional elements of fraud: (1) scienter—basically intent to defraud, (2) false statements of fact rather than opinion or trade puffing, (3) reasonable reliance by the victims, (4) materiality, (5) causation, and (6) damages,” Syracuse University of Law Professor Greg Germain told Newsweek. 

“I think he has a strong argument that when the attorney general seeks to punish for past use, rather than prevent future use, she would have to show all of the traditional elements of fraud,” he added.

The New York AG is likely to counter that under state law, her broad powers to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged civil fraud don’t require her to prove that all six elements exist, according to Germain.

Trump railed against the Empire State’s fraud law last October, suggesting it was unconstitutional. 

“NY Executive Law 63 (12) does not require a victim, traditional elements of fraud are eliminated (the only such law!), the law allows a politically elected partisan prosecutor to convince a politically elected judge, who may be friends to destroy even a Political Opponent,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“This law may not be Constitutional and is not FAIR, and that is why terrible A.G. James chose to use it against me!!!” he raged.