A New York appeals court hearing on former President Donald Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment raised questions about the case's scope and penalties.
According to Just The News, the five-judge panel expressed skepticism about the attorney general's jurisdiction and the size of the penalty imposed on Trump and his business associates.
The hearing, which began at noon on Thursday, September 26, 2024, focused on Trump's appeal of the February judgment by state Judge Arthur Engoron.
The panel's inquiries centered on the statute used by New York Attorney General Letitia James to bring action against Trump and his organization. Judges questioned the lack of alleged victims and the rationale behind the substantial penalty, given that involved parties reported no financial losses.
Justice David Friedman challenged the attorney general's authority in the case, particularly noting that Deutsche Bank, a key player in the allegations, had not claimed any harm from Trump's actions.
"It hardly seems to justify bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump which is what you have here," Friedman remarked. "You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money."
Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale defended the attorney general's position, arguing that the statute does not require proof of harm and that Deutsche Bank was indeed affected by the financial statements in question.
Justice John Higgitt sought clarification on the boundaries of the attorney general's jurisdiction in such cases. Vale justified the substantial penalty, stating it reflected the extent of fraud and illegal activities uncovered in the case.
The size of the penalty imposed by Judge Engoron was a particular point of contention during the hearing. Vale explained that the large amount was due to "a lot of fraud and illegality" found in the case.
Trump's attorneys are working to overturn the judgment, which found Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and his business liable for fraud, issuing false financial statements, and false business records.
The appeals court's skepticism regarding the case's scope and the imposed penalties suggests a thorough examination of the original judgment's merits. The judges' questions indicate a concern about potential overreach by the attorney general's office and the justification for such a significant financial penalty.
The former president is expected to hold a news conference in New York following the hearing to address the proceedings and their potential outcomes. This event will likely provide Trump's perspective on the appeals process and its implications for his business and political future.
The appeals hearing marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battles facing Trump. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for Trump's business empire and his political aspirations. The judges' focus on the attorney general's jurisdiction and the size of the penalty highlights the complex legal questions at the heart of this case.
