Crime & Justice

New York Prosecutor’s Office seeks $370 million from Trump after fraud trial

New York, Jan 5 (EFE).- The New York Prosecutor’s Office demanded a $370 million fine from former President Donald Trump (2017-2021) on Friday after the civil trial for fraud in the Trump Organization. This figure is higher than initially demanded, and includes a lifetime ban from participating in the New York real estate industry.

Judge Arthur Engoron is expected to issue a written verdict on Jan. 11 following closing arguments from both sides and to finalize a potential million-dollar fine for Trump, his two grown sons and two former executives, whom he already found liable for fraud, the main charge, in a pretrial ruling.

The New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has pushed the case and initially demanded $250 million in penalties, argued Friday in a lengthy court document that Trump should pay more because it has been proven at trial that he made illicit profits.

The prosecution also demands a lifetime ban for Trump, as well as the two former executives of his company, Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConey, who have been accused.

This ban would prevent them from participating in real estate or holding leadership positions in any company or legal entity within the state of New York.

After the approximately two-month trial, six charges related to the manipulation of asset figures in the financial documents of the Trump Organization to gain advantages with insurers and banks are yet to be resolved.

The possible fine and restrictive measures on business will depend on the outcome of that ruling.

According to the prosecutor’s new argument, the majority of the claimed $370 million corresponds to the interest that the Trump Organization saved on four commercial loans, totaling $168 million, and the profits it gained from the sale of a building in Washington D.C., amounting to $139 million.

Trump’s lawyers criticized the figure in another document, calling it a “gross overreach.” They argued that the transactions analyzed were bilateral between the defendants and their banks, with no public or market impact, and reiterated their position that the case should be dismissed.


Related Articles

Back to top button