By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division upheld the ruling that Donald Trump and others committed business fraud by inflating the value of real estate assets. While the court upheld non-monetary sanctions, it voided the $464 million fine imposed on the defendants, stating that the calculation of the disgorgement was not a reasonable approximation. The decision, delivered by a five-judge panel, prompted a mixed response, with one judge dissenting and the Attorney General planning to appeal the fine ruling to the state’s highest court. Trump and his son, Eric Trump, celebrated the partial victory on social media.
Read the original article here
The appeals court threw out the half-billion-dollar civil fraud penalty against Trump, and that’s a real head-scratcher. The court said the fine was too much, violating the Eighth Amendment, which deals with excessive punishment. But, how can a fine, even a large one, for financial fraud – basically recovering ill-gotten gains plus some interest – be considered excessive? It’s like the opposite of what you’d expect. The whole point of penalties like these is to deter this kind of behavior, and a slap on the wrist, or even a significant financial hit, isn’t enough to stop the corruption.
This whole situation highlights a frustrating pattern. When it comes to white-collar crime, it often feels like the consequences are minimal. The ruling might be that the fine itself was too harsh, but the core finding of fraud remains in place. The original judge determined that Trump’s financial statements significantly inflated the value of his assets, by hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, over several years. If any of us made such blatant misrepresentations of our finances, we’d be in deep trouble. But not Trump. It really drives home the point that there seems to be a two-tiered justice system, one for the wealthy and powerful, and another for everyone else.
The fact that Eric Trump declared this a “total victory” is almost comical. He’s essentially celebrating the reduction in the punishment for a crime. It feels like the penalty should be more than the profit made from the fraudulent activity, otherwise, it’s just another cost of doing business, incentivizing more illegal activity. It is frustrating that the appeals court didn’t simply order the penalty to be recalculated.
The appeals court, while reducing the fine, did uphold the finding of business fraud and the other penalties ordered by the original judge. This is an important distinction that is often being missed. The initial judge did his job. It’s easy to see why people are left feeling like the system is rigged, that justice isn’t blind, and that the powerful can get away with anything.
The constant cycle of investigations, findings of wrongdoing, and then minimal consequences is exhausting. We’ve been dealing with almost a decade’s worth of this, and the lack of accountability is disheartening. It reinforces the feeling that there’s no real check on those in power. It makes you wonder what the point is of upholding the law if certain individuals are essentially above it.
The key takeaway here is that the fraud was confirmed. While the monetary penalty was thrown out, the court still found that Trump and the others had committed business fraud, overstating the value of his assets. That’s not a complete exoneration. It’s like they’re saying, “Yes, you broke the law, but the fine is too big, so we’re not going to make you pay a lot of it.” It’s not a perfect ruling by any means.
The irony is that this ruling, whether intentional or not, just reinforces the perception of a system that protects the rich. It will embolden those who feel like the system is stacked against them. They are learning the American Justice system does not exist to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, it exists to protect the rich and exploit the poor.
The argument of “excessive fine” is being used as a shield. It does not change the fact that the fraud took place. It doesn’t change the fact that this case could be used as further evidence of the two tiers of justice. It adds another layer of frustration and apathy.
It’s no surprise that this ruling would lead to questions about the courts, with people becoming increasingly disillusioned.