A lawyer for former President Donald Trump responded to claims that New York Attorney General Letitia James may seize some of his properties after a judge ruled against him last week in a civil fraud case.
This week, Ms. James, a Democrat, threatened to seize his assets in the state, even though President Trump has a period of time to pay the $355 million fine that the judge levied against him and within the window to appeal to a higher court.
Speaking to ABC News on Feb. 20, the attorney general insisted that “if he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.”
Other than the fine, New York Judge Arthur Engoron also ruled that President Trump cannot operate any business within New York for the next three years, that both his eldest sons cannot do business for two years, and also handed down fines and punishment against other Trump Organization officials.
In his order, Judge Engoron claimed President Trump defrauded banks and insurers by artificially inflating his net worth and properties, while the Trumps and The Trump Organization denied any wrongdoing.
Judge Engoron, a Democrat, concluded that President Trump and his company were “likely to continue their fraudulent ways” without the penalties and controls he imposed. The judge then concluded that the former president and his co-defendants “failed to accept responsibility” and that experts who testified on his behalf “simply denied reality.”
Ms. James told reporters that “justice has been served” and called the ruling “a tremendous victory for this state, this nation, and for everyone who believes that we all must play by the same rules … even former presidents.”
President Trump reported having about $294 million in cash or cash equivalents on his most recent annual financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. As of today, it’s not clear how much he has on hand.
Lawyer’s Response
After Ms. James’s threat, Trump lawyer Alina Habba said that the attorney general has a “goal of tearing down The Trump Organization” and a “goal of tearing down the individuals that worked so hard, including on his campaign, his family, and the list goes on and on.”
“Her goal is frankly not going to succeed,” she said in a Fox News interview,” adding, “That’s all I’m willing to say.”
On Wednesday, she told Breitbart News that no entity was victimized, and none of the companies filed any lawsuits.
“Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank and Trump have no problems, no lawsuits. No one’s saying they lost money. No one’s saying they were hurt,” the attorney said. “They put a number on it, they get a deal. They make a contract, and then they’re good on the terms of that contract.
“Ms. James and Judge Engoron say Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million?” Ms. Habba then asked, adding they “live in this world where they frankly, have no real knowledge.”
Other Activity
Previously, and before the threat, she told Fox News that President Trump would likely pay a nearly $400 million bond to try and appeal his case, while reports have indicated that interest on the judgment is costing him about $90,000 per day.
“I can tell you what the rules are. Within 30 days, even if we choose to appeal this, we have to post the bond, which is the full amount, and then some. We will be prepared to do that,” Ms. Habba stated.
Also, during the interview, she said that posting a bond is on the table, but “you can tell the judge that you should set aside the verdict because it’s insane, which this is. And all of those options are on the table.”
Another lawyer representing the former president indicated Wednesday to Judge Engoron that they want to negotiate with the judge on a counter-judgment.
“Because the decision ordinarily entails more complicated relief, the instruction contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court,” Clifford Robert argued.
Before that, another lawyer indicated on Feb. 19 that his team plans to appeal the decision and focus on the judge’s definition of fraud in the case. It “raises serious legal and constitutional questions regarding ‘fraud’ claims without any actual fraud,” Christopher Kise said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
From The Epoch Times
