A New York judge on Friday formally ordered Donald Trump to pay $454 million, including interest, a move that will give the former president one month to post nearly half a billion dollars to appeal the fraud verdict.

Judge Arthur Engoron’s signed judgment was posted to the court docket Friday, one week after he found Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump liable for fraud in the civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letita James.

Once Trump and the others are served with the judgment, the 30-day clock for them to file an appeal starts. During that period Trump will need to put up cash or post bond to cover the $355 million and additional roughly $100 million in interest he was ordered to pay. The sons were each ordered to pay $4 million back in gains they improperly received because of the fraud. The judge also banned the Trumps from serving as officers of a business entity in New York for several years.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      No no no. Trump actually provided a list of the New York-based properties* he most wants to keep, we should start with those.

      * NY based, because that’s where they’re run from, not necessarily where they’re located. And I think it’s a slightly old list because I believe he sold the Old Post Office, but it’s still a nice list of initial targets that he’ll be most upset by.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is the 30 day clock to put up the entire sun for appeals? If he can’t what’s he repayment plan?

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If he can’t, he doesn’t get to appeal. Putting up the money is a prerequisite to an appeal. If he chooses not to appeal, or can’t put the money in escrow, then the judgment is final and the court starts taking other means to actually collect the judgment, or as much as it can.

      It seems likely to me that he will not be able to appeal, and that furthermore the court will not be able to collect the full judgment amount for the plaintiffs, and in that case they’ll turn him upside down and shake him until every quarter falls out of his pockets.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        I agree. I don’t think he will appeal.

        If he were “very confident” of an easy win then he might put up the money and appeal, but I don’t think anyone has any confidence that an appeal would be successful.

        That being the case, the better move might be to string out payments, hope to become POTUS and just kinda authoritarian your way out of it.

        Regardless, it’s delightful to finally see some consequences beginning to coalesce.

        • modifier@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          That being the case, the better move might be to string out payments, hope to become POTUS and just kinda authoritarian your way out of it.

          This is the entirety of his plan.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Putting up the money is a prerequisite to an appeal.

        I’m not familiar with this area of law. What’s the reasoning behind this rule? From my naive perspective, it seems like whether or not an appeal is justified is independent of whether or not the defendant can afford to pay the full judgement.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          If you didn’t have to pay first, then there would be a financial incentive to appeal even if you don’t think you can win - just to delay payment.

          Make appellant’s pay first to remove the financial incentive to appeal.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Because otherwise everyone would just appeal every verdict for years just to delay payment. “Skin in the game” ffs.

          • treadful@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I know it’s not the same, but I’ve had to pay tickets before challenging them in court, too. If you win, you get it back.

            Annoying af when you’re broke.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I read the other day that he may declare personal bankruptcy to delay payment. Then he can cry to his followers for more money.

        “I had to do it to fight the Commie Nazi Demo-RATS!”

        “SEND ME YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY GRANDMA”

        • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          They can’t send him money, they’re supposed to be using their money for ammo and guns for the upcoming war. At least that’s what my lunatic coworker says.

    • brandon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Either the entire sum or pay someone 10% to post bond. If he doesn’t put up the whole sum 9% interest will continue to accrue (roughly $87k/day). If he doesn’t appeal nor pay, the prosecutor can start asking for assets to be seized.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Came here to say the Saudi money Jared is holding for him from the sale of those classified documents will pay it.

    • Chaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I am also confused. Why was this down voted? According to the dictionary several means more than 2 or 3, however still a low figure number. It was reported to be only 3 years last I saw; meaning to be incorrect? Edit: I’m noticing a plural in “trumps” so assumably they are including his sons as well?