MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York judge has denied former President Donald Trump’s bid to stay the $464 million penalty against him and his co-defendants, ordered by a civil judgment that found them liable for fraud.
On Wednesday, Trump offered to pay a $100 million bond to stay the enforcement of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron’s scathing ruling against him.
“The judgment orders unprecedented and punitive disgorgement of nearly $460 million and overbroad permanent injunctive relief against appellants in the absence of legal authority or factual support,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a Wednesday appellate court filing.
In response, New York Supreme Court Associate Justice Anil Singh temporarily lifted aspects of Engoron’s ruling, which will allow Trump to take out bank loans in New York and continue conducting business there for the time being. But he denied Trump’s request to halt the financial penalties and the installation of a compliance officer at his company.
“The interim stay is denied as to the enforcement of the monetary judgment and the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance,” Singh wrote Wednesday.
Earlier this month, Engoron ruled that Trump and his co-defendants must pay more than $363 million in disgorgement for lying on annual financial statements. With more than $100 million in interest, which steadily increases with every passing day, the defendants are on the hook for more than $464 million total.
Trump himself owes around $455 million of that sum.
His team on Monday moved to appeal Engoron’s ruling and asked the judge for a stay on the financial penalties, pending the appeal. Engoron smacked down their ask.
When that failed, Trump’s lawyers tried their luck in the appellate division on Wednesday. Typically, a stay would require fronting a bond at least the amount of the judgment. But that would be “impossible” given the scale of the penalties, according to Trump’s attorneys.
“To account for post-judgment interest and appeal cost, a surety will often set the bond amount at 120% of the judgment or more, i.e., more than $550 million,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond.”
Instead, they offered a $100 million bond, which they claimed to be more than sufficient given the existing court-ordered oversight of Trump’s business.
“Appellants nonetheless plan to secure and post a bond in the amount of $100 million,” they wrote. “The ongoing oversight by the monitor, which has and will continue to preclude any dissipation or transfer of assets, would alone be sufficient to adequately secure any judgment affirmed. Appellants’ bond would simply serve as further security.”
Singh disagreed — his ruling means that Trump will still have to post a bond for the full amount to stay the ruling, according to state plaintiffs. But Trump will have more flexibility to secure that bond with the loan bar temporarily paused.
Trump’s lawyers referenced “widespread public criticism” of Engoron’s ruling in their Wednesday filing, attaching several conservative op-eds and articles from publications like Newsmax and Fox News as proof.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case against Trump, his adult sons and their namesake business in 2022, wrote in a Wednesday letter to the appellate court that there is “no merit” to Trump’s request to post “less than a quarter of the judgment amount.”
“Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so,” James said. “These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary, where defendants’ approach would leave OAG with substantial shortfalls once this court affirms the judgment.”
James added that there is “substantial risk” that Trump and his co-defendants might try to skirt enforcement of Engoron’s judgment if the penalties are paused. She cited Trump’s behavior under the court-appointed monitor, as well as his attempt to move various New York-based entities to Florida following the Feb. 16 ruling.
“As the court recognized earlier in this case, there is unfortunately a distinct need to ‘ensure that defendants do not dissipate their assets or transfer them out of this jurisdiction,’” James wrote. “And even now, in claiming urgency, defendants have made no efforts to be forthcoming with this court about their specific efforts to obtain a bond, such that this court could properly assess their motion.”
Engoron’s judgment came after a 10-week trial in the New York Supreme Court, in which Trump was found liable for civil fraud after shorting banks and insurers out of millions with phony yearly financial statements.
“The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience,” Engoron wrote in his 92-page decision.
Follow @Uebey
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
