If a New York state court does not eventually throw out the $464 million civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump as a textbook case of selective prosecution, the United States Supreme Court surely will. But those decisions won’t come until years from now. In the meantime, New York Attorney General Letitia James is doing grave harm to our democracy.
New York’s Executive Law § 63(12) was passed in 1956 to protect consumers from repeat fraudulent actors. The thinking was that an individual bilked out of $20 might not have an incentive to sue the fraudster because it wouldn’t be worth the time and expense of a private lawsuit. But a prosecutor could protect hundreds or thousands of consumers by prosecuting repeat offenders.
That is how the law has been used in New York for decades, with prosecutors bringing suit against businesses that defrauded unsophisticated consumers. Then along came James, who saw an opportunity to attack Trump for political reasons.
The power of Executive Law § 63(12) derives from the fact that prosecutors don’t have to prove a defendant intended to defraud anyone or that anyone was harmed by the defendant’s actions. All the prosecutor has to show is that a fraudulent act was committed while doing business in New York.
During 11 years of business with Deutsche Bank, Trump signed many loan applications that the trial judge considered fraudulent, including an estimate that his Manhattan penthouse was three times its actual size and that unfinished buildings were complete.
All of the loans secured by the allegedly fraudulent documents were paid back on time, and Deutsche Bank, a financial giant, neither complained about their accuracy nor relied on them in calculating Trump’s worth. As a sophisticated business, Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence on Trump’s assets before lending him money against them.
There is no victim in this case. Executive Law § 63(12) doesn’t require a victim, but it has never before been used when no harm has been done. Everybody knows the only reason James prosecuted Trump under this statute is because she despises him and his politics. It is an abuse of her power.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly held that prosecutions motivated by a “discriminatory purpose,” including discrimination against political beliefs, can be thrown out. This civil judgment will almost certainly be dismissed eventually, but by demanding a ridiculously high bond payment, James is trying to make it impossible for Trump to appeal the trial court’s decision.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
That Trump can’t find a bank or an insurance company to put up the $464 million needed to pursue an appeal isn’t surprising. What company operating in New York would want to be seen helping Trump while James is attorney general? She has proven herself to be a vindictive politically motivated prosecutor willing to stretch the law to inflict financial ruin on those with whom she disagrees. Republicans would be wise to consider moving out of the state.
The desire to see Trump denied another term in the White House is strong. He is not the nominee that this publication wanted. But his fate should be decided by the ballot box, not by abusive misuse of the legal system to impoverish him. They are setting a terrible precedent that will surely be built upon.