What business fraud cases has Donald Trump faced in New York?

1. The state civil suit brought by the New York attorney general

In September 2022 New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil complaint alleging the Trump Organization and individuals including Donald Trump and members of his family submitted Financial Statements that fraudulently inflated asset values to obtain favorable loans and insurance terms, invoking New York Executive Law § 63 in a market‑integrity enforcement action ^{[1] [5]}. James’s office framed the case as protecting New Yorkers and the marketplace after a three‑year probe that it says uncovered “significant evidence” of materially false valuations used in business dealings ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Trial findings, injunctions and the money judgment

After an 11‑week bench trial, Manhattan Justice Arthur Engoron found Trump, the Trump Organization and several executives and family members liable for business fraud and false financial statements, ordering substantial remedies including disgorgement and pre‑judgment interest that totaled well into the hundreds of millions and imposing prohibitions on running New York‑based companies for set periods ^{[4] [2] [5]}. The trial court’s remedies included both monetary penalties — described variously in reporting as roughly $350–$464 million at different calculation points — and injunctive relief such as limits on obtaining loans from New York banks and expanded monitoring of the organization ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

3. Appeals, bond stays and an appellate split over the penalty

The defendants appealed immediately, arguing the judgment was legally unsound and politically motivated; the case advanced to the Appellate Division, where judges questioned the size of the disgorgement even as they affirmed liability in later opinions, ultimately narrowing some enforcement and, in August 2025, tossing the half‑billion‑dollar monetary penalty as excessive while leaving the fraud findings intact for further review ^{[6] [7] [8] [9]}. The appellate process produced interim moves — bond reductions, stays of some injunctive orders and continued litigation over whether the penalty violates constitutional limits — and both sides signaled plans to seek further review at the state’s highest court ^{[1] [7] [8]}.

4. The separate criminal falsifying‑business‑records prosecution

Separately, Trump was criminally indicted in New York on 34 felony counts accusing him of falsifying business records in connection with payments intended to influence the 2016 presidential campaign, a case premised on concealment of payments and related record‑keeping rather than the valuation theories at issue in the James civil suit ^[3]. That prosecution led to a high‑profile arraignment and trial proceedings in Manhattan and is legally distinct from the civil fraud litigation even though both involve business records and New York courts ^[3].

5. Competing narratives: law, politics, and defense claims

Prosecutors and the AG’s office have portrayed these actions as law‑enforcement efforts to curb long‑running deceptive business practices, arguing documentary and testimonial evidence showed intentional inflation of asset values ^{[2] [5]}. Trump’s legal team and supporters have labeled the civil and criminal matters politically motivated, arguing the remedies are excessive or outside the AG’s authority and that counterparties were sophisticated market participants who accepted the deals — arguments formalized in lengthy appellate filings ^{[6] [10]}.

6. What remains unresolved and why it matters

Although trial courts have produced significant findings and provisional penalties, the ultimate legal landscape is unsettled: appeals have limited some penalties, liability findings remain under appellate review, and the state’s highest court could yet reshape remedies or jurisdictional questions — outcomes that will determine practical consequences for Trump’s ability to do business in New York and the durability of enforcement tools against alleged corporate fraud ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Reporting does not yet provide a final statewide resolution; ongoing appeals and separate criminal case developments will decide whether the judgments are reinstated, reduced or further altered ^{[7] [8]}.