A New York appeals court seemed skeptical about the massive $454 million civil fraud judgment former President Donald Trump was ordered to pay this year after being found liable of falsifying business records, with one judge calling the penalty "troubling."
Trump is trying to reduce or cancel the $354 million judgment, plus $100 million in interest, after Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in favor of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who claimed in a lawsuit that Trump improperly overinflated his net worth in order to secure better terms for loans and insurance policies.
Trump's lawyers appeared before a court of appeals in Manhattan on Thursday to make their case.
The New York Post reported that some on the five-judge panel appeared open to changing the judgment, which Trump's lawyers have called "draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional."
Judge Peter Moulton reportedly questioned if James' lawsuit did "something it was not meant to do," and said the "immense penalty in this case is troubling."
With "no victims" and "no complaints" about Trump's businesses from lenders or insurers, the former president's lawyer D. John Sauer argued that the New York attorney general's lawsuit was a "clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations" and a misuse of the state's consumer protection laws.
"People can't do business in real estate" confidently if the verdict is not reversed, Sauer reportedly said.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty in the case and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, was not present in the courtroom, according to the Post.
Engoron found that Trump, the Trump Organization and its top executives, including the former president's sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, defrauded banks by inflating Trump's net worth on financial statements, allowing them to secure more favorable loan terms from which they profited.
Trump's attorneys described the judgment as "unprecedented for a private company" and said coming up with the full amount was a "practical impossibility."
If anything, the financial statements Trump submitted to banks understated his wealth, his legal team argued in a July brief to the Appellate Division, the mid-level state appeals court. There was also no indication that any of the banks were harmed financially, it said.
Trump's lawyers have also argued that James' lawsuit was politically motivated.
To alter the outcome of the case, three of the five judges who heard arguments on Thursday must agree. A final decision could come before Election Day on Nov. 5, as the Appellate Division generally issues decisions about a month after arguments conclude.