'Not remotely defensible': Donald Trump asks New York appeals court to throw out $454mn civil fraud verdict

Donald Trump's lawyers on Monday (July 22) asked a New York appeals court to throw out the $454 million judgment against the Republican presidential nominee for US Elections 2024. They argue that the monetary policy was unconstitutional and that most of the caseshould be barred because of the time passed since the alleged conduct.

"The award of $464 million in a case with no victims, no proven injuries, and no losses is not remotely defensible," wrote Trump's lawyers.

They argued that "the 'actual harm inflicted' is nil," and thus."any punitive award would result in a ratio that is virtually infinite. The award of $464 million in a case with no victims, no proven injuries, and no losses is not remotely defensible."

Latest attempts to escape verdict

This is Trump's latest attempt to escape the verdict and the $454 million judgment levied by state Judge Arthur Engoron. In February, Engoron found the ex-president and his twosons—Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump—and their real estate business liable of fraud.

Next month, the New York attorney general's office will present their opposition papers. As early as September, the appeals court could take up the case.

His lawyers argue that the judge made an error in not throwing out most of the case after the appeals court ruled last year, before the civil trial, that certain behaviour was outside the legal time limit.

According to them, Trump should have been dismissed as a defendant and that if the statute of limitations was enforced, roughly $350 million of the judgment would be wiped out. Previously, before the trial, a state appeal had dismissed Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump as a co-defendant in the case.

The loans for the Old Post Office building and the 40 Wall Street building were the only timely claims mentioned in the attorney general's complaint, they wrote.

"Applying the correct statute of limitations eliminates $350,980,057 of the $464,576,229 judgment for Appellants bound by the Tolling Agreement, and it eliminates all of the judgment for those not bound by the Tolling Agreement, including the Trust and the individual Appellant," they contend.

However, as per Enrogonruling from before the trial, evenif the loans were closed before the 2014 statute of limitations, fraudulent financial statements that were subsequently issued count as separate fraudulent acts.

The judge said that New York Attorney General Letitia James was not "challenging the loans, the closings, or the disbursements,"butthe financial documents containing false and misleading information.

Unconstitutional

Trump's team has accused JudgeEngoron of enacting a "punitive" penalty against the former president, reports CNN.

"The monetary award is a punitive penalty imposed for retributive and deterrent purposes. It is both grossly disproportional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and grossly excessive under the Due Process Clauses."

As per them, the Judge ordered Trump to pay too much in disgorgement–or the return of ill-gotten gains–for the sale proceeds of the Old Post Office and Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point.

Trump's attorneys argued that Engoron failed to consider the investments made by Trump's company in the properties when ordering the full proceeds to be paid back instead of calculating just the net profit.

In the filing, Trump's lawyers claim that Engoron made uninformed judgments about the valuations of Trump's properties.

Taking issue withEngoron’s judgment opinion that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort was valued at $18 million, they said "Supreme Court engaged in a series of erroneous valuations of President Trump’s properties, including valuing Mar-a-Lago at $18 to $27.6 million, a tiny fraction of its obvious value, and these errors infected the subsequent trial".

Calling for a "complete reversal" of the judgment,Trump attorney Chris Kise said"Such an outrageous miscarriage of justice is profoundly un-American, and a complete reversal is the only means available to restore public confidence in the integrity of the New York judicial system."

(With inputs from agencies)