Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News’ calculations based on the judge’s lengthy ruling in the case.

Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump’s net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.

Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain – with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction – as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.

  • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    So your legal defence on behalf of Trump is, “your honour, who did my law-breaking hurt?”

    You’re myopically fixated on a single case, too. Do the other 90 open cases against him somehow bolster your confidence in his innocence here? He’s being “attacked” because he’s a fucking crook. They will win some and lose others, but where he legally fucked up, he’ll face consequences. Period.

    “Who’d he hurt?” Ri-goddamned-diculous.

    • MacN'Cheezus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, that’s literally his own defense, I just happen to agree with it.

      Imagine you lie on your resume and inflate your experience in order to get a certain job. They hire you and pay you 20% over what you would have qualified for based on your actual experience, but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance, and when you leave, they give you a good recommendation for you next job. Five or ten years later, you’re just about to make a downpayment for your first house, and suddenly, not your employer, but the government shows up and sues you because lying on your resume is illegal, and they demand you pay all the extra money you earned PLUS interest and fines.

      That’s sorta how petty this case is. And if you cheer for this kinda stuff, you deserve for it to happen to you.

        • MacN'Cheezus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          9 months ago

          How so? The banks declined to sue and said they’d be happy to work with him again.

            • MacN'Cheezus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.

              • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Being an average law abiding citizen and not an infamous, law breaking billionare, I’m not too worried. See, rules-based societies work great for people who can follow the rules.

                • MacN'Cheezus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Okay, let’s do a little thought exercise here, shall we?

                  Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?

                  Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?

                  • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what’s your point? Your ‘lying on a resume’ example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.

                Quick question: What are your thoughts on Hunter Biden?

                • MacN'Cheezus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  He should probably be in jail, and definitely on some sort of drug rehab program.

                  Also, you gotta wonder what sort of shitty dad Joe was for his son to turn out the way he did.

      • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        You must see how your scenario differs… It isn’t illegal to lie on a resume, and in this case Trump’s not being asked to give back anywhere near the amount his lies earned him.

        • MacN'Cheezus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          Perhaps, but it’s morally objectionable in the same way and for the same reasons as what Trump did. You’re basically just saying “my crime isn’t a crime because it’s technically not illegal”.

          Oh and you’re flat out wrong about the last part, because Trump was fined not only the amount of interest the banks lost out on, but additionally also all of the profit he made from transactions that the money helped facilitate. Plus 9% interest.

          https://fortune.com/2024/02/19/donald-trumps-355-million-civil-fraud-verdict-what-next/

          • charles@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            I mean the definition of crime is literally “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government”. So it being “technically illegal” is the basis for it being a crime or not.

            • MacN'Cheezus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              Cool, I hope you never get caught doing something that’s technically illegal, such as running a red light on an empty intersection.

              Either way, don’t expect my sympathy when you get caught.

                • MacN'Cheezus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Not usually, but I’d be lying if I said I’ve never done it.

      • medgremlin@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        The fraudulent valuations went both ways. He artificially inflated the values for lines of credit and loans, and artificially deflated the values for the purpose of tax evasion. Letitia James pulled an Elliot Ness on him with this case.

        • MacN'Cheezus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          As far as I can tell, this case was only about him inflating the value of his properties in order to obtain more favorable terms on his loan.

          If he did also undervalue them for the purpose of paying less taxes, that would be a separate case. And in that case, I wouldn’t argue that it was a victimless crime.

          • medgremlin@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            The case was about all the fraud involved in the financial statements alongside disingenuous valuations and deed restrictions on his properties.

            • MacN'Cheezus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Why don’t you read it yourself?

              It says nothing about any alleged tax fraud, only fraudulent financial statements used to obtain a lower interest rate on a loan.

              Like I said, if he DID cheat on taxes, that’s a different case, and I wouldn’t be claiming that there were no victims.

              • medgremlin@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                He cheated on his taxes by having the deed to Mar-a-lago restricted to commercial use only while using it and valuing it as if it were a single family residence. It’s a massive difference in value when it comes to taxes and that isn’t the only property he had deed restrictions or easements on.

                • MacN'Cheezus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Okay, perhaps he did, but that’s not what this case is about, is it?

                  • medgremlin@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    His tax evasion is a significant piece of his fraud. Even if you insist on discounting it, the laws and regulations violated in this case are set up to allow enforcement of fair business practices in New York, and in large part were enacted in the 60’s because of how easily businesses were evading the common law fraud regulations. It’s less about whether or not there is a victim, but rather about whether or not outside businesses and interests can rely on fair practices and enforcement in New York as a whole.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Who says lying on your resume is illegal? If it was illegal then you broke the law and face the consequences of your actions, the most “conservative” thing you can do: own up to your life choices.

        All that said, I personally am “stuck” in the position I’m in because I don’t lie on my resume. I don’t want to suffer the consequences of my lie.