Donald Trump’s recent claims that 80% of the case against him has been dismissed by a judge due to statute of limitations has caused quite a stir. However, as the legal community delves deeper into the claims, it seems things might not be as the former president projects them.
Trump celebrated this supposed victory outside the courtroom with his lawyer, Cliff Robert. However, the understanding by his legal team seems to be in stark contrast with the views of professionals in the legal industry. The focal point of the disagreement is over ongoing payments in relation to transactions that took place prior to 2014.
The court case is spearheaded by the New York Attorney General Letitia James. Her argument was that, as long as Trump was making payments towards loans that originated before 2014, these should be considered as ongoing crimes. Interestingly, this standpoint was initially backed by Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron. However, the First Judicial Department overruled this in June, marking these older transactions as time-barred[1].
The strategy from AG James pivoted, subsequently arguing that yearly financial statements that were submitted to lenders for deals prior to 2014, should be processed as separate and ongoing criminal activities. Motive behind this stands from Trump’s requirement to prove his creditworthiness to lenders to prevent collateral calls. It was alleged that Trump used inflated statements of his holdings to appease the banks.
Despite this, Trump’s legal team argued that these later financial statements simply “relate back” to the original notes, and should be therefore, exempt under the statutes of limitation (SOL). The court rejected this argument, with Justice Engoron stating that their interpretation of the “relation back doctrine” was unfounded[2].
The confusion, it seems, stemmed from a debate over evidence, not charges, that were accrued prior to 2014. This centers around testimonies from Donald Bender, an accountant from the Mazars firm which had prepared Trump’s financial statements for a decade. In court, Bender stated that the firm only considered information provided by their client without any verification process. This contentious point created a stir, with the Judge questioning whether the extensive debate surrounding previous documents led to any meaningful discussion.
In spite of Trump supporters heralding this as a victory on the internet, legal professionals worldwide are still deciphering the actual outcomes of this saga. As with every Trump story, it appears the more it is examined, the more complex it becomes.[3].