Donald Trump and his co-defendants are facing a civil fraud judgment that they have been ordered to pay, totaling over $464.6 million in fines and interest. In an attempt to pause the enforcement of this judgment, Trump’s attorneys have indicated that they plan to post a $100 million bond. However, this amount is only a fraction of what is required to secure a full appeal bond, which could cost more than $550 million.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the fraud case against Trump, has urged the appeals court to deny Trump’s request to stay the judgment based on the partial bond. James argues that there is no merit to the claim that a full bond is unnecessary because Trump and his co-defendants are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount. She points out that Trump does not have sufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment, and that the defendants would need to “raise capital” to do so.
Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling found Trump, his two adult sons, his company, and its executives liable for submitting fraudulent information on key financial statements. In addition to the hefty fines and interest, the judgment also includes a ban on Trump running a business in New York for three years and applying for loans from financial institutions registered with the state during that period. The interest on the judgment continues to accrue at a rate of 9% annually, adding nearly $112,000 to Trump’s bill each day.
Trump’s attorneys acknowledge that securing a complete bond of over $550 million would be nearly impossible given the exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment. They argue that the bond amount is typically set at 120% of the judgment to cover interest and appeal costs. In light of this, Trump’s legal team plans to secure and post a bond of $100 million, which they believe would be sufficient to secure a stay of the judgment, especially when coupled with oversight measures.
The defense attorneys point to the court-appointed financial monitor overseeing Trump’s vast real estate holdings in New York as a measure to prevent any dissipation or transfer of assets. They argue that this oversight, along with the bond, would provide adequate security in the event that the judgment is affirmed. Trump’s attorneys view the bond as an additional layer of security to reassure the court and the Attorney General’s office.
Donald Trump’s ongoing financial battles highlight the challenges of securing appeals bonds in high-stake legal cases. The dispute over the bond amount reflects the complexities and implications of a civil fraud judgment of this magnitude. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences for Trump and his co-defendants, as they navigate the legal system in an attempt to protect their assets and reputation.
Leave a Reply