How did Judge Engoron identify and quantify specific overvalued assets in his written opinion?
Executive summary
Judge Arthur Engoron identified and quantified overvalued assets by leaning on documentary evidence assembled by the New York Attorney General (OAG), comparing those internal Statements of Financial Condition (SFCs) to independent appraisals, tax assessments and physical measurements, and then expressing the discrepancies as both percentage and dollar ranges (for the aggregate and for particular properties) [1] [2]. He rejected defenses that valuation is inherently subjective or insulated by disclaimers, treating extreme mismatches—like alleged square‑footage tripling or a club valued thousands of percent above county assessment—as objectively indefensible inflation [3] [4].
1. Evidence and method: documentary comparison, appraisals and measurements
Engoron’s written opinion frames his fact‑finding around “conclusive” documentary evidence submitted by the OAG: the SFCs prepared by Trump Organization officers, internal documents and third‑party appraisal or assessment figures against which the SFC numbers could be measured; where those comparisons showed systematically larger values in the SFCs, Engoron treated the gap as overvaluation [1] [5]. He emphasized objective yardsticks—county tax assessments, competent appraisals and square‑footage measures—rather than accepting the defendants’ claim that value is purely subjective, citing controlling precedent that valuations are judged by objectively reasonable appraisals [1].
2. Asset‑by‑asset calculations: Mar‑a‑Lago, the Trump Tower triplex and other properties
The opinion drills into specific assets: for Mar‑a‑Lago Engoron found valuations on certain SFCs that exceeded county assessments by orders of magnitude—he cited an instance where a county assessment between roughly $18 million and $27.6 million was contrasted with SFC values in the hundreds of millions, producing an effective overstatement as high as 2,300% on a given statement [6] [2]. For the Trump Tower penthouse Engoron zeroed in on claimed square footage (30,000 sq. ft.) versus actual measurements, translating that inflated size into an overvaluation range of roughly $114 million to $207 million for the years in question [4] [3]. He also named other properties—40 Wall Street, Trump Park Avenue, multiple golf courses and a Westchester estate—where SFC figures diverged substantially from appraisal or market indicators [2].
3. Rejecting subjective defenses and disclaimers
The defendants advanced several arguments—value is subjective; differences between fixed asset versus market approaches are permissible; and SFC disclaimers shifted responsibility—but Engoron dismissed these as insufficient to excuse the scale and pattern of the discrepancies, saying the disclaimers did not “insulate defendants from liability” and that decades of authority require objective valuation standards [3] [1]. He characterized defensive explanations (for example, that a discrepancy could be remedied by finding a willing buyer from abroad) as “wholly without basis” and impermissible attempts to rationalize large, documentable inflations [4].
4. Aggregating the overvaluation and judicial remedies
Using the OAG’s evidence and his itemized findings, Engoron adopted aggregate ranges for the overvaluation across the period 2014–2021: percentage overstatements between about 17.27% and 38.51% and a dollar discrepancy estimated between $812 million and $2.2 billion [1] [2]. The ruling fed into remedies and monetary calculations: subsequent proceedings prosecuted damages and injunctions, and later orders imposed significant monetary penalties and business‑operation restrictions tied to the findings—including a multi‑hundred‑million dollar disgorgement figure and bans on running New York companies for set periods [7] [5].
5. Limits, counterarguments and the surrounding legal‑political context
Engoron’s opinion is explicit that his findings rest on documentary comparisons and his chosen objective benchmarks, but the defense has continued to contest the legal and factual conclusions on appeal and to frame the litigation as politically motivated—points the opinion and later coverage acknowledge and which have shaped subsequent appeals and narrowed some claims [5] [8]. Reporters and legal analysts note the judge’s pointed tone and skepticism of defendants’ credibility, which the judge himself used to buttress findings about intent and pattern; readers should understand both the evidentiary mechanics Engoron used (documents v. appraisals/assessments/measurements) and that appellate review remains the mechanism for testing whether his methods and conclusions will stand [8] [9].