Monitor For Trump Business Upheld By Judge After Letitia James Reveals Fraud


New York Judge Angela M. Mazzarelli has temporarily upheld a decision by state Judge Arthur Engoron to impose new monitoring requirements on the Trump family business in response to concerns raised by New York state Attorney General Letitia James about the potential for further corrupt conduct beyond what she has already outlined in a lawsuit.

The official’s underlying case alleges the Trump company engaged in a years-long scheme of artificially changing statements of value for dozens of assets, setting the firm up to receive unearned tax benefits and favorable terms on loans. Trump’s side has argued in court that James’s case doesn’t represent a legitimate public interest on the part of the people of New York, although she’s spoken about possible impacts to the level of resources available for everyday residents when an interest like the Trump company benefits from what James has said is hundreds of millions of dollars tied to the deceptive statements of value.

She is hoping for the return of $250 million if successful in her case, but concerns arose after Trump unveiled a new company apparently primarily headquartered or at least first established outside of the state. Christopher Kise, an attorney for Trump’s side, claimed the new business entity — known as Trump Organization II — was for payroll purposes, but it also apparently provided an opportunity for Trump to move assets outside of New York, evading James.

Engoron agreed to the establishment of an independent monitor role overseeing Trump Organization finances, including potential asset transfers and further statements of value in contexts like continuing obligations associated with past loans, but Trump predictably appealed. Now, Mazzarelli has denied the former president the opportunity for a temporary hold on Engoron’s decision while the appeals process continues. “The application for an interim stay is denied pending determination of the motion by a full bench,” she said. Trump originally sought both an interim stay and a longer-term stay halting Engoron’s decision. (Imposing a “stay” means putting a judicial conclusion on hold.) It’s apparently the push for a longer-term halt to Engoron’s decision now going before a larger group of judges. The original application for a stay claimed Donald’s side “will be severely prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm” without imposing a halt on the lower court’s demands.

In further consideration of the ex-president’s attempt at undoing the order for a monitor,  James is required to submit her arguments in opposition by November 18, and the former president must provide his reply by November 25. Trump was already unsuccessful in trying to get the case moved from before Engoron, who has dealt with disputes arising from James’s preceding investigation and once held Trump in contempt of court for refusing to sufficiently comply with demands in the attorney general’s probe.