Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond on Monday in his New York civil fraud case, halting collection of the more than $454 million he owes and preventing the state from seizing his assets to satisfy the debt while he appeals, according to a court filing.

A New York appellate court had given the former president 10 days to put up the money after a panel of judges agreed last month to slash the amount needed to stop the clock on enforcement.

The bond Trump is posting with the court now is essentially a placeholder, meant to guarantee payment if the judgment is upheld. If that happens, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee will have to pay the state the whole sum, which grows with daily interest.

If Trump wins, he won’t have to pay the state anything and will get back the money he has put up now.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The bond Trump is posting with the court now is essentially a placeholder, meant to guarantee payment if the judgment is upheld.

    I’m curious as to how a $175M bond is supposed to guarantee a $454M judgment.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      The idea is the real estate isn’t going anywhere. It is technically not what the bond laws say is needed, but then this is a very large amount. This dude is being reamed and the state is not going to let him off the hook.

      It would be career suicide in NYC. Most of the city and metro area hate Trump’s guts.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        71
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        They are letting him off the hook by not making him bond the whole amount.

        The amount was high because his fraud was high. Why does committing bigger crimes mean less proportionate punishment?

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You have the right idea. Obviously they should have made him pay the full amount. I think they know he literally doesn’t have it.

          Remember, the state has a retired judge watching his bank accounts for a while now. They know what he can pay. $175 million in cash is better than them seizing his property quickly because that process is actually very slow.

          For everyone who thinks the state should just “take Trump Tower”, do you understand that’s not something they’re good at? They would need to find a buyer. You can’t just get a buyer for such a large building in a few days. They really would prefer cash for at least part of the fine.

          The building isn’t going anywhere and this doesn’t affect the judgement.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            8 months ago

            For everyone who thinks the state should just “take Trump Tower”, do you understand that’s not something they’re good at? They would need to find a buyer. You can’t just get a buyer for such a large building in a few days. They really would prefer cash for at least part of the fine.

            Then just take all his shit or admit the system can’t adequately punish the wealthy out loud instead of pretending that this is somehow a reasonable response to someone saying they can’t pay. They can seize regular people’s property after all.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Assume for a moment that the appeal comes back and overturns the judgment. Let’s even assume that it is a completely legitimate reason for it being overturned.

              How do you unwind taking that property and selling it? My understanding is that NY doesn’t have a redemption law for property that is levied and sold.

              The appeals court has to at least consider the possibility of legitimately overturning the case.

              • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                8 months ago

                Idk why you’re being down voted. I just watched a Legal Eagle video that pretty much described the change as being exactly related to this. If the appeal fails, he still owes the original judgement amount and if he doesn’t come up with the money they will seize some property. If the appeal works out for the orange man then they don’t have to try to undo a sale.

                Appeals courts are good things. And everyone, including that a-hole, is entitled to appeal.

                Now, it’s super annoying he can brag about having the money in public but argue in court he doesn’t, but hey, that’s our former president. Talks only out of his ass and never suffers any consequences from it.

                With any luck the appeal will fail miserably and he’ll still be on the hook for the full amount.

              • snooggums@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                Who fucking cares? He is a rich asshole who committed blatant fraud and tried to overthrow the government and worst case is is slightly less wealthy than he was before court while the average person is flat broke from lawyer fees and their lives ruined from the same situation.

                Shilling for Trump should make you embarrassed.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Who fucking cares?

                  About the rule of law? Obviously not you.

                  You want a specific action taken because you don’t like the person involved. Congratulations, you can replace Alito and Thomas when they get off the court. You are fine with changing the law to hurt the people you don’t like.

                  I on the other hand would prefer to preserve the rule of law. There are absolutely no downsides for the action taken by the appeals court, Trump posted $175 million Bond and the properties that they would have seized are still there to be seized in the future if necessary.

                  If the state levy and sells those properties, it is going to be a nightmare to try and unwind if the appeal were successful. In the meantime, if Trump did somehow sell those properties it would be a fraudulent conveyance, and those sales would be overturned. Other than hating Donald Trump (and I’m with you), there is no downside to this, but I’m not willing to destroy our legal system for him.

                  • snooggums@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    The specific action is the standard action in fraud cases. That is caring about the rule of law. You excuse going soft on somebody who committed record breaking levels of fraud because treating him the same as the standard is hard.

                    If the properties can’t get the amount they are claimed to be worth, then they are not worth that much. That is why Trump is having problems getting the bond, because he lied about the value of his properties.

                    Ther is a massive downside, which is rewarding fraud, both by only having a punishment equal to the fraud and also going easy the bigger the fraud is. That just incentivises more fraud, just like giving rideshares a free pass for bypassing laws that apply to cabs and short term rentals for avoiding lawd that apply to hotels encourages those industries.

          • chingadera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            8 months ago

            You have the right idea. Obviously they should have made him pay the full amount. I think they know he literally doesn’t have it.

            SO HE CAN GET FUCKED, ANY OF US WOULD BE FUCKED. I’m so tired of the acceptance.

          • supamanc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            For everyone who thinks the state should just “take Trump Tower”, do you understand that’s not something they’re good at? They would need to find a buyer. You can’t just get a buyer for such a large building in a few days. They really would prefer cash for at least part of the fine.

            I think you don’t understand how asset forfeiture works. Trump tower is worth (reportedly) some $800m. The state seizes and sell it for the $500m he owes. They would find a buyer pretty quickly at that price. Any extra on top of the judgment amount is returned with compliments to Trump.

            • baru@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think you don’t understand how asset forfeiture works.

              I don’t understand. Still, from what I’ve read most of the buildings are anything but fully owned by Trump. And apparently that makes things difficult.

      • elvith@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I bet he will want the interest on the posted money in case he gets his way and gets it back…

    • baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m curious as to how a $175M bond is supposed to guarantee a $454M judgment.

      The appeals court lowered it to this amount. This could be a hint that the judge didn’t calculate the original amount correctly. Meidas Touch on YouTube did a video about it. I haven’t seen any good articles which repeat the same idea.

        • baru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          No they didn’t they lowered the amount he has to put up for an appeal

          I replied to someone stating the same. You’re just repeating what has been said. I never said I wasn’t talking about the bond.