Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump presented their case in a New York City appeals court, aiming to overturn a civil fraud judgment of nearly $500 million. They argued that the verdict violated the statute of limitations and urged the court to dismiss or reduce the costly judgment.
The Washington Examiner reported that the appeal could potentially result in either lowering or reversing the substantial financial judgment against Trump, stemming from allegations of fraudulent financial practices by his organization.
Trump’s legal team, led by attorney D. John Sauer, argued that the case brought against the Trump Organization exceeded the time limits set by law for such claims. Sauer pointed out that the penalty imposed on Trump was not only large but also crippling to his financial interests.
The civil fraud case stems from accusations that the Trump Organization misrepresented financial statements to benefit from better loan terms and financial gains. The nearly half-billion-dollar judgment was ordered earlier in the year, largely based on these alleged misrepresentations.
Sauer's primary argument in court focused on the violation of the statute of limitations, which restricts how long after an event legal action can be taken.
He highlighted what he described as a “critical failure of proof” during the trial process, suggesting that key evidence had been presented beyond the allowable timeframe.
The court panel, led by Judge Peter H. Moulton, pressed Sauer on whether any recent claims might fall within the legal limits. Moulton acknowledged concerns about the significant financial judgment but seemed particularly troubled by whether the lawsuit extended beyond its original scope.
This civil case is part of a broader legal campaign against Trump and his business practices. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who took office in 2019, initiated the case against Trump, with the lawsuit rooted in allegations of fraudulent financial activities.
In 2020, the Trump Organization’s relationship with Deutsche Bank, a key financial partner, came to an end, with James suggesting that Trump's dealings were part of a larger pattern of misconduct. This added pressure to the legal actions Trump faced.
Earlier this year, Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay over $454.2 million in penalties, a decision Trump’s legal team is now appealing.
Alongside this judgment, Trump faces a series of other legal challenges, including federal penalties totaling close to $90 million and felony convictions on 34 counts from earlier in the year.
While Trump did not attend the hour-long appeals hearing, his attorneys, including prominent figures such as Will Scharf and Alina Habba, were present in court. The court’s panel of judges appeared receptive to some aspects of Trump’s appeal, particularly the argument regarding the statute of limitations.
Judge Moulton openly expressed his discomfort with the large judgment, stating that it was “troubling” to him. Legal expert Alton Harmon noted that when a judge uses language like “troubling” or phrases like “it gives me pause,” it often signals that the judgment might be reduced or overturned. Harmon added that the court might consider ordering a retrial or revising the instructions on the applicability of older evidence in the case.
Trump’s legal team pointed to New York Executive Law Section 63(12), which was used as a basis for the fraud case, arguing that the law's provisions were applied too broadly in this instance.
Outside the courtroom, the public’s response was divided, with a small group of anti-Trump protesters gathering outside the courthouse. Despite the protests, the focus remained on the legal proceedings inside.
Election polls show that Trump remains a major political figure as he faces a close race against Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite his legal challenges, Trump’s popularity has not been severely impacted by the ongoing court battles.
The intermediate appellate court is expected to deliver a ruling in the case either by the next month or possibly after the 2024 election. If the court’s decision is not in Trump’s favor, his legal team still has the option to take the case to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Trump’s lawyers are hopeful that the court will agree with their interpretation of the statute of limitations, leading to a reduction or reversal of the judgment. They also believe that the application of fraud statutes in this case has overreached.
