This is a strange trial. Not many trials start out with the judge determining that one side lost. But the evidence of persistent fraud had been proven through discovery.
The trial is about determining if Trump lost by just some or by a lot. Was there intent to deceive and defraud? And it's also about calculating the ill gotten gains.
Now Trump and his attorneys have been arguing there was no harm. That the banks didn't lose any money. That the loans and the associated interest was paid in full.
But this isn't about damages. It is about how much the Trump Organization profited from deceptive business practices that they wouldn't have if they played it straight. Engoron is tasked to calculate how much Trump must pay in disgorgement.
How does one do that?
This is where the testimony of expert Michiel McCarty comes into play.
He determined that Donald Trump and his company benefited more than $168 million by obtaining favorable loan terms on transactions where the former president personally guaranteed the loans.
McCarty analyzed the lending documents related to transactions at issue in this case for the following Trump Organization properties: 40 Wall Street in New York, The Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Florida, Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago, and the Old Post Office project in Washington DC
He determined the Trump Organization saved on interest for the properties:
$72,908,308 for the Doral Resort;
$53,423,209 for the Old Post Office loan;
$17,443,359 for Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago;
and $24,265,291 for 40 Wall Street..
He calculated the Trump Organization benefited to a total of $168 million dollars in lower interest and insurance rates because of the inflated values..
Now I am not a financial analyst. But I do know that both interest and insurance rates rise as risks increase. What I am not sure about is whether intent to defraud affects the disgorgement amount. I know it doesn't affect the determination. But I am wondering if it provides a kicker or multiplier.
Does anyone know the answer? I do know that the statute the State of NY is pursuing this case is unique to the State of NY. Strangely, this is the same statute used in the Trump University case and prohibits the Trump family from running phony charities any more.