Former President Donald Trump had words of praise for entrepreneur and media personality Kevin O'Leary for denouncing a New York judge’s decision to fine the former president hundreds of millions of dollars and slap him with a temporary business ban.
New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued a ruling on Feb. 16 in a civil fraud trial, ordering President Trump and Trump Organization executives to pay $355 million in damages, and barring the former president from doing business in the state for three years.
The case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who initially wanted to fine the former president $250 million but later increased this to $370 million. She also requested additional penalties against President Trump, including a permanent ban on his doing business in New York state and with any New York-based financial institution.
Judge Engoron granted most of what Ms. James asked for although he stopped short of permanently banning President Trump from doing business in his native New York.
The “Shark Tank” television personality added that the ruling sent a shock wave through the real estate industry, while warning that it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens other real estate developers.
“That fact that he was found guilty, you might as well find guilty every real estate developer on Earth,” Mr. O'Leary said, adding that he believes the ruling will be overturned on appeal.
‘Exodus’
Mr. O'Leary also predicted that, if the ruling isn’t overturned on appeal, it could spark an exodus of businesses from the state, echoing a similar warning President Trump issued late last year.President Trump took to Truth Social on Saturday to praise Mr. O'Leary for his sharp rebuke of Judge Engoron’s ruling.
In his earlier warning, President Trump told reporters outside a Manhattan courtroom on Dec. 6 that businesses were closely watching the case and that, if he were to lose, it would have major ramifications.
“No business will go back into New York, no business will frankly stay in New York, some businesses are talking about leaving New York because of this action, this very serious action,” President Trump said at the time.
Cara Ameer, a broker at Coldwell Banker in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, said that the ruling—including the eye-watering size of the penalty—could have a chilling effect on lenders, who may now operate with a sense that they’re taking on considerably more risk when making valuations and assessments.
Valuation Controversy
The trial centered on allegations that the former president and his company, the Trump Organization, defrauded banks, insurers, and others by allegedly overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth in documents used in deals and to secure loans.He has also stated repeatedly that, if his brand value is taken into account, his net worth is “much higher” than what was stated on the Trump Organization statements of financial condition.
David Williams, a Deutsche Bank executive who worked on at least one of three loans the bank gave to President Trump, testified on Nov. 28 that it isn’t unusual for a bank to cut a client’s stated asset value—even by half—and still approve a loan, just like it did with the former president.
Not only that, but Mr. Williams told the court that it’s standard practice for Deutsche Bank to subject a client’s asset value to an adjustment, saying differences between a client and the bank about a client’s asset values aren’t a disqualifying factor when considering granting loans because “it’s just a difference of opinion.”
Deutsche Bank viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements, Mr. Williams added.
However, in his 92-page legal opinion, Judge Engoron repeatedly repudiated the testimony of expert witnesses called by the defense to uphold the validity of the Trump Organization’s statements of financial condition.
“In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences,” Judge Engoron wrote.
At several points in the ruling, the judge explicitly rejected the argument of defense expert witnesses that statements of financial condition are meant to provide estimates, and that the subjectivity of such statements is widely acknowledged and accepted in commercial real estate.
