Sorry. It won’t happen again.
The defendants in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case have asked the judge to delay the enforcement of penalties in the case, including Trump’s $354 million fine and temporary ban on running a business in New York.
A lawyer for the defendants in the case asked Judge Arthur Engoron to delay the enforcement of penalties by 30 days, to allow for an “orderly post-judgment process.”
Any guesses on whether the Judge will agree to this?
Not a chance.
Sure there’s a chance. Engoron is trying to make this as appeal-proof as possible. With a court monitor in place, there’s no real harm in allowing the delay. If Trump loses, the interest meter is still running…
AKA Trump wants more time to hide his assets before declaring bankruptcy.
Good luck hiding Trump Tower or 40 Wall Street or Bedminster Golf Club. They’re too big! 
Seriously, I know what you’re getting at: burying those, and other assets, deeper under a myriad of corporations, holding companies, shifting ownership to other entities, and so on. But if James and her staff are on the ball, they’ll be looking for such shenanigans—and they’ve been looking for such shenanigans for the last six months, at least. I cannot speak for New York, but in my jurisdiction, a debtor “protecting” his or her assets by various means shortly before a court decision that is unlikely to go in the debtor’s favour, is guilty of what is known as a fraudulent preference.
A simple example would be the debtor selling his car to his brother for a nominal sum of $1, to keep it out of reach of the creditor; with the promise that once all this blows over, the brother will give the car back. Thing is, if the transfer took place six months or less (in my jurisdiction) prior to the court’s decision, that’s taken as a fraudulent preference, and the debtor is guilty of committing it.
I don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that James has had a few staffers watching Trump’s, Trump Org’s, and other Trump entities’ business dealings for the last number of months, just to make sure that he hasn’t been trying to hide assets in case of a decision unfavourable to Trump. As this one certainly was.
I am a lawyer, but IANAUSL. Anyway, I have done collections in the wake of judgments before. I’ve had to be aware of, and look for, fraudulent preferences. I’m sure that all states and provinces have some sort of similar legislation in place.
If this is real it’s freaking hilarious.
But to stay on topic…
I do not post frequently, and I know the news is almost week old now, but I would like to take this chance to send into the infinite ether of the internet a heartfelt and genuine “Thank You” to Leticia James and her entire office. What she has done is a grand service to the United States and to the entire world.
I hope to be able to send more such thank yous to other legal offices in the months and years to come.
There was a thing with a guy in Idaho recently who tried to sell his property to a pal through a shell company but the court voided the sale as a fraudulent conveyance, allowing it to be seized in the course of satisfying the judgement. The sale had taken place a year before the claim was posted on the property. It looks like assets are vulnerable any time they are held during the actual trial and cannot be obfuscated a mere six months before the judgement, because lawyers are notorious for dragging things out if that is their intent.
Time to call in David Copperfield?
There’s a court-appointed independent monitor named Barbara Jones who’s been doing a bangup job on this. Part of the judgement extends her oversight for three more years.
AIUI Jones’s oversight is not only continued, but strengthened. Until the judgment they merely had to inform Jones of material transactions; now they need to get her permission before effecting them.
In some ways, appointing her as a hall monitor for at least three years is one of the most punishing aspects of the order. The order says the appointment is at least three years, because there’s a provision in the order requiring her to prepare a report at the end of the period, and if there’s any evidence of any hinky accounting practices or more phantom $50 Million loans, she can recommend extending that period. What do you think the odds are the Trump Org is miraculously going to learn how to operate a business entirely above board in the next three years (or three decades for that matter)?
I’m not entirely convinced the Trump organization is capable of doing business without fraud. Fraud is their modus operandi and I’m not sure they can stay in business without it. Maybe if they get some competent business leaders, you know, people who understand what GAP means, a chief financial officer, and others who will implement and follow through with policies designed to prevent fraud, but I don’t think they’ll do that.
That was my thought as well. Their business model depends on fraud. How successful can they be if they are required to abandon the fraud model, and compete fairly, within the law?
One more agree here. It’s kind of like Michael Corleone (only stupider) telling Kay that soon they’d be completely legit. No, you won’t. That’s not what you do.
Legit business practices are going to destroy the guy capable of bankrupting a casino.
I say, let Trump try this.
The look on his face when Eric refuses to “give it back” would be priceless!
“I learned it from you, dad!” Gen Xers will appreciate that.
Even if Trump Org had the skills to run a business profitably under normal fair terms, the public record of the fraud judgment is now going to make financing more expensive for them than their competitors. There may be bankers like the Axos guy favorably disposed to them politically, but unless they can find a friendly true billionaire, virtually all lenders will have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or investors. If someone lends money to Trump Org and it defaults, if they have made preferential loans at interest rates that do not fairly reflect the risk of lending to a company with a known history of fraud, they are personally at risk.
YOU DAD, I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU.
ETA, you, alright, I learned it by watching you.
You’re one of those people who nitpicks the Vader Quote, aren’t you?