In Wednesday testimony, an expert witness for the state put a massive, estimated price tag on alleged deception in financial statements connected to ex-President Donald Trump, who’s on trial in the case. New York state Attorney General Letitia James brought wide-ranging allegations of business fraud centering in significant part on allegedly deceptive claims of value for assets tied to Trump.
Trump, characteristically, continues to characterize his often grandiose assertions of value for his portfolio as legitimate. This large price tag from the witness for some of the claimed deception in the context of loan arrangements, if accepted and upheld by the judge at least as one reference point, could help determine the level of any financial penalty on Trump himself and others named in the case. The witness, whose appearance in court was repeatedly upheld by presiding Judge Arthur Engoron, was named Michiel McCarty.
McCarty “ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump’s properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.,” as summarized Wednesday by ABC. These numbers were based on his examinations of facts of the case targeting the Trumps and were oriented specifically around what allegedly occurred in the involved financial institutions having leaned on interest rates lower than the rates that would have been more appropriately based on the Trumps’ actual finances.
A defense attorney later questioning McCarty zeroed in upon the ultimately independent nature of his analysis, asking the witness whether he’d personally questioned individuals from various organizations involved in the scrutinized financial arrangements. McCarty repeatedly answered in the negative. He is the only expert witness appearing on behalf of James and her team, whose case against Trump is civil — rather than criminal — in nature. The challenges to his appearance at trial came in multiple stages from the Trumps’ corner, including outrage from Trump attorney Chris Kise over McCarty’s supposed lack of conclusively relevant experience. The judge kept things moving.
