What remedies did New York Judge Arthur Engoron actually order in the Trump business fraud case?

1. The headline monetary remedy: disgorgement of ill‑gotten gains

Engoron ordered that Trump and the other defendants pay back the profits he determined flowed from fraudulent financial statements — a figure various outlets reported between $355 million and $364 million as the principal disgorgement — and he further required interest to be added, producing totals cited later in appeals filings that grew toward roughly half a billion dollars with accumulated interest ^{[1] [4] [5] [2]}.

2. Bans on management roles: three‑year prohibitions for Trump and others

The judge barred Donald Trump and certain executives, including some family members and longtime associates, from serving as officers or directors of any New York corporation or legal entity for a period of years (reported as three years), a remedy designed to prevent those he found liable from controlling New York business interests during the court’s supervision ^{[2] [6] [7]}.

3. Corporate restructuring, supervision and limits on operations

Rather than dissolving the entire Trump Organization, Engoron imposed structural and supervisory remedies: some companies were to be removed from Trump’s control or dissolved, and others placed under restrictions and court oversight to constrain the defendants’ ability to carry out the kind of transactions the judge found enabled the fraud ^{[3] [1]}. Several reports note the ruling left the organization “constrained” in operating New York businesses and subjected it to years of court supervision ^{[8] [1]}.

4. What Engoron declined to do (and what he initially signaled)

Although earlier filings and advocacy from the attorney general sought the most sweeping remedies — including dissolution of business certificates and multi‑year bans on applying for loans or doing real estate business in New York — Engoron ultimately stopped short of a complete corporate death sentence; he vacated or scaled back some of his prior, broader statements about dissolving the businesses while still imposing significant penalties and controls ^{[9] [8] [3]}.

5. The procedural posture: why remedies looked larger on paper

Engoron issued many remedies in an equitable, non‑jury context under state law that allows judges to fashion preventive and remedial orders rather than criminal punishments, which explains why the case produced injunction‑style controls and a disgorgement amount rather than a criminal fine; media outlets summarized the figure differently as $355M, $363.9M, $364M or $355M plus interest, reflecting rounding and evolving interest accruals in post‑judgment accounting ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

6. Pushback and appeal: remedies stayed and later challenged

Defendants immediately appealed, arguing the remedies were excessive or legally unsupported, and appellate courts later suspended enforcement and — according to some reports — ultimately voided the penalty in a split decision, while leaving avenues for further review by New York’s highest court; that appellate action altered the real‑world effect of Engoron’s orders pending continued litigation ^{[10] [11] [5]}.

7. Competing narratives and legal context

Supporters of the ruling framed Engoron’s remedies as necessary to prevent future fraud and to disgorge gains from deceptive financial statements, while critics — including legal commentators and conservative outlets — argued he overreached by applying remedies in ways more typical of criminal law or by inferring damages without a private lender suing, creating a contest over proper remedial scope that is playing out on appeal ^{[1] [12] [7]}.