What specific charges are included in the $310 million civil suit against Donald Trump and his companies?

1. The case behind the headline: New York AG’s civil fraud claim

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, the Trump Organization and related defendants alleging they falsified financial statements to inflate net worth and secure better loan terms and insurance — the office framed the litigation as state civil fraud, not a criminal racketeering indictment ^{[1] [2]}. The trial-level rulings had produced a multi-hundred-million-dollar civil judgment that the state argued reflected restitution, penalties and disgorgement tied to the alleged misrepresentations ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The numbers dispute: $515 million, appeals, and the absence of a clear $310m line-item

Coverage records the trial court’s original large monetary outcome as over $515 million — not $310 million — and that a New York appeals panel later called the penalty “excessive” and threw it out, signaling significant appellate pushback on the scale of monetary relief ^{[1] [2]}. The reporting in the assembled sources does not break that sum into a publicly cited $310 million charge, and available sources do not mention a separate or itemized $310 million civil suit against Trump and his companies ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What the complaint alleged in substance

The complaint alleged systematic inflation and misrepresentation of asset values across Trump-related entities so executives and lenders saw a richer balance sheet; Attorney General James accused Trump of “lying, cheating, and staggering fraud” as the legal theory for civil liability ^[1]. The state cast the case as market and investor protection — seeking remedies civil courts provide, including financial penalties — rather than criminal punishment ^{[1] [2]}.

4. The appellate response and competing interpretations

An appellate panel of New York judges concluded the monetary sanction at trial was excessive and reversed or trimmed the judgment, underscoring judicial skepticism about the scale of the remedy even where some judges said the underlying misconduct findings had merit ^{[1] [2]}. That split between factual findings and penalty-size illustrates a common appellate dynamic: courts may affirm liability but reduce or vacate damages as disproportionate ^{[1] [2]}.

5. How media and parties frame the stakes

Prosecutors framed the suit as protecting consumers, lenders and the public from corporate misrepresentation; Trump and his allies portrayed the litigation as politically motivated and argued the penalties were unjustified and aimed at destroying his business ^{[1] [2]}. The appeals panel’s language — that the penalty was “excessive” and some judges questioning James’ authority to seek the full remedy — fed Republican and defense narratives that the case represented overreach ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What’s uncertain or absent from current reporting

The assembled sources do not provide an itemized breakdown that yields a $310 million line-item labeled as a distinct civil "charge" against Trump and his companies; they instead discuss a larger monetary judgment ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention specific components (for example, exact amounts for disgorgement, penalties, or interest that would sum to $310 million) tied to that precise figure ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Why precision matters: legal labels and public perception

Civil lawsuits seek remedies (damages, disgorgement, injunctions) rather than “charges” in the criminal sense; quoting round or shifting numbers without source context fuels confusion. The appellate reversal of the large penalty demonstrates that trial awards can be substantially altered on appeal — a crucial caveat when citing headline dollar figures ^{[1] [2]}.

If you want, I can pull the specific complaint filings or the appellate decision language (delineating exactly what damages were awarded, what was vacated, and whether any $310 million figure appears in court documents) — but those documents are not present in the set of sources you provided (available sources do not mention the underlying filings that would show itemized dollar allocations).