Former President Donald Trump gets a legal advantage as Judge Arthur Engoron allows him to potentially appeal a civil fraud ruling, citing a “due process violation,” attorney Sol Wisenberg reports.
Wisenberg, a former Whitewater lawyer, raises constitutional concerns regarding the ruling, which accuses Trump and senior executives of inflating asset values to gain favorable deals from lenders and insurers.
Newsweek provides analysis on Judge Engoron’s decision on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, discussing its constitutional ramifications and legal implications for Trump’s case.
During a Fox News interview, Wisenberg raises doubts about the $355 million fine imposed by Engoron, highlighting the absence of a victim or financial loss.
He suggests that this could constitute a substantive due process violation and warns of the potential precedent it may establish for businesses challenging established norms.
Despite Trump’s pledge to appeal, New York State insists on a 9 percent interest rate on the fine, resulting in a total penalty surpassing $450 million, according to Attorney General Letitia James. She emphasizes that the amount will continue to accrue until the judgment is resolved.
Wisenberg contends, “There appear to be significant constitutional issues with the $355 million judgment given the absence of a victim or any financial loss.” He asserts that a strong constitutional argument could be made if properly presented at trial.
In contrast to Wisenberg’s viewpoint, Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark S. Zaid, disagrees, noting that many white-collar criminal cases lack a traditional victim, and asserts that the public was defrauded in this instance.
Trump’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, intends to appeal, denouncing James’ pursuit as an “unjust political crusade.”
Alina Habba, another attorney for Trump, announces plans for an appeal, expressing concern about the potential repercussions of the ruling on New York’s business environment.
Reacting to the judgment, James declares a “significant victory” and emphasizes that the ruling sends a message that “no matter how big, how wealthy, or how influential you are, no one is exempt from the law. Not even Donald Trump.”
As the legal dispute unfolds, the case raises intricate questions regarding due process, constitutional rights, and the ramifications for prominent individuals facing financial and legal scrutiny.
