Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News’ calculations based on the judge’s lengthy ruling in the case.

Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump’s net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.

Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain – with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction – as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.

  • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think you’re getting a little carried away with your analogy here.

    It’s more like, say, you decide to pirate some movies or software because you can’t afford them right now. But over time you become proficient in using the software, and you manage to land a well paying job with your skills. Now you can afford to pay for it, so you decide to clean up your act and pay for a license, and you also buy all the movies you watched for free. None of the movie studios or software companies had to shut down or went out of business because of lost revenue.

    Suddenly, there’s a knock on your door. It’s the FBI. “Sir, we’ve been going over BitTorrent logs from five years ago and found a number of movies and software that was downloaded from an IP address we traced to you. Piracy is a federal crime as you know, and we decided we’re going to press charges.” And then they fine you not only the total amount that those items would have cost if you had bought them back then, but also all of the salary you’ve earned up to this date, plus interest.

    Oh, and none of that money goes to the movie studies or software companies you stole from, it all goes to the government. Still cool?

    • CileTheSane
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s more like, say, you decide to pirate some movies or software because you can’t afford them right now.

      I love how in your made up analogy you introduce unnecessary details to make the fictional scenario sound more innocent. “If the fictional analogy is innocent then the thing that actually happened is innocent too” right? Are you actually trying to suggest that self proclaimed billionaire Donald Trump couldn’t afford loans?

      It’s more like, say, you decided physically rob local businesses. Over time you become proficient and thievery and fencing and manage to land a well paying job doing technically legal work. You decide to white wash your past by sending money to all the businesses your previously robbed. Do you think it would be inappropriate for you to be charged for the crimes you very much did commit just because you “paid it back”?

      Also, during the trial, you kept insisting that you didn’t do anything illegal. Yes, you took things that belonged to other people, but it’s perfectly legal because {Insert made up reason here].

      • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Okay, so maybe you CAN afford it but you’d rather use the money for something else. The rest of the analogy stays.

        He invested the money legally into real estate, he didn’t buy drugs and sold them or anything like that.

        Your analogy still doesn’t make sense, you’re doing the same thing you accuse me of: making it worse than it is in order or imply guilt. And no, he didn’t physically rob anybody, the profits the bank missed out on are purely theoretical, just like the profits a software company misses out on when you don’t buy an app you wouldn’t have bought anyways if you couldn’t have pirated it.

        • CileTheSane
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          “there was no victim” is not a legal defense. You’re trying to compare it to piracy because you’re trying to change the argument from “no one was hurt” to “this shouldn’t be illegal.”

          People will argue that piracy shouldn’t be illegal, nobody is arguing that fraud shouldn’t be illegal. As the judge said: just because it worked out for the bank this time, doesn’t mean it will work out okay next time. He did a crime, everyone agrees that it should be a crime, and he needs to face consequences so he and other people don’t do it again in the future. It’s not only a crime if it doesn’t work out for you.

          As for no one being harmed: he also undervalued his property to avoid taxes, so the American public was harmed. Hence the DA pressing charges on their behalf.

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            The bankers testified that they did their own due diligence and did not rely on Trump’s exaggerated claims. They knew the figures he gave them were broad estimates and not necessarily correct.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-deutsche-bank.html

            He didn’t default on the loan and paid it back in its entirety, with interest. I fail to see who the victim is? Yes, perhaps the bank could have made more money but if they aren’t interested, who got hurt?

            That’s why I think the piracy analogy holds up, because if you DO end up paying for the stuff you consumed for free at some point, the studios or software companies only have a temporary loss, but they are missing out on potential interest or investment return they could have earned in the meantime, and whatever amount inflation has devalued the money in the meantime.

            • CileTheSane
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              As the judge said: just because it worked out for the bank this time, doesn’t mean it will work out okay next time… It’s not only a crime if it doesn’t work out for you.

              Also:

              As for no one being harmed: he also undervalued his property to avoid taxes, so the American public was harmed. Hence the DA pressing charges on their behalf.