A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
New York Attorney General Letitia James on Wednesday opposed former President Donald Trump’s attempt to stay the collection of a business fraud judgment against him, arguing the presumptive GOP presidential nominee can split a bond among multiple surety companies or try other options.
Mr. Trump says the $464 million bond he needs to avoid collection is “ridiculous” and impossible to satisfy. He wants to post $100 million instead.
In reply, Ms. James’ attorneys said there is no reason Mr. Trump should be allowed to post a smaller bond and that his assertions about his predicament aren’t grounded in facts.
“Defendants’ new factual allegations and legal arguments fail to support their extraordinary request for a stay based on a bond or deposit of less than one-fourth of the money-judgment amount,” Dennis Fan, a senior assistant solicitor general in Ms. James’ office, wrote in a filing to the New York appellate courts. “Defendants’ argument that obtaining a full bond is purportedly impossible is based on the false premise that they must obtain a single bond from a single surety for the entire judgment amount of $464 million.”
Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in February that Mr. Trump and his namesake company submitted fraudulent documents to secure favorable terms on loans and insurance.
The former president was ordered to pay nearly $355 million. The amount continues to gain interest while it doesn’t get paid.
Mr. Trump often boasts about his wealth, but the sheer amount of the bond could force him to burn through his cash stores and seek the balance from other sources, such as a rich supporter or selling one of his properties. He chafed at the idea of selling off a property through a “fire sale,” saying he wouldn’t get it back if he won on appeal.
In its filing, the state attorney general’s office said Mr. Trump failed to explain his efforts to secure the bond.
“Defendants supply no documentary evidence that demonstrates precisely what real property they offered to sureties, on what terms that property was offered, or precisely why the sureties were unwilling to accept the assets,” Mr. Fan wrote. “Even accepting defendants’ assertion that real estate is difficult for a surety to accept as collateral, defendants fail to propose a serious alternative to fully secure the judgment.”
Unless the courts offer the ex-president a lighter remedy, Ms. James could move on Monday to freeze Mr. Trump’s assets, such as properties or bank accounts, to ensure collection of the judgment if Mr. Trump fails on appeal.
The former president says the civil case is part of a Democratic plot to thwart his reelection campaign. He faces four criminal cases involving his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and other matters. None of those cases have gone to trial, but he’s been ordered to pay millions by civil courts in New York.
Earlier this month, Mr. Trump posted a nearly $92 million bond to satisfy the courts while appealing a massive jury decision that found him liable for defaming former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll.
Mr. Trump is fuming over the higher bond in his fraud case. He wrote on Truth Social that the amount is “unConstitutional, un-American, unprecedented and practically impossible.”
The state disagreed, pointing to several cases involving high-profile corporations that involved big-money bonds.
“There is nothing unusual,” Mr. Fan wrote, “about even billion-dollar judgments being fully bonded on appeal.”
• Tom Howell Jr. can be reached at thowell@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.