初审法官七个月后对唐纳德·特朗普罚款4.54亿美元对于法官所说的“震撼良知”的商业欺诈，纽约上诉法院周四似乎对纽约总检察长起诉前总统的一些论点表示怀疑。
纽约上诉庭第一部门的五名法官组成的陪审团听取了特朗普的上诉，并向双方表达了对案件的担忧——似乎质疑该州案件的一些关键要素，包括消费者欺诈法规的适用，检察官寻求的经济处罚的正当性，以及所涉交易的私人性质，反映了在今年漫长的案件审判中失败的陈词滥调。
特朗普本人没有出席周四在纽约举行的听证会。
“我们的情况是没有受害者，没有投诉，”d .约翰·绍尔说，他也是成功为特朗普辩护的律师总统豁免权上诉今年早些时候提交给最高法院。"当你有这些明确的免责声明时，怎么会有欺骗的能力或倾向?"
虽然法官对辩方的一些说法表示了一些怀疑——一名法官评论说，事实上的不准确可能导致特朗普的陈述“完全错误”——但辩方的一些论点在法官的问题中得到了回应。
“被告的陈述不是为普通人准备的，”助理法官大卫·弗里德曼指出他们针对的是商界一些最老练的演员。"
副检察长朱迪思·维尔(Judith Vale)代表纽约司法部长莱蒂夏·詹姆斯(Letitia James)强调了特朗普涉嫌错报的程度及其对贷款给前总统数亿美元的银行的重要性。
淡水河谷表示:“如果财务实力没有被夸大，德意志银行不会发放这些贷款。”。“每年都会收到财务报表，这些报表非常重要，对每年的贷款都至关重要。”
一系列的问题也集中在纽约欺诈法令——执行法63 (12)上，司法部长用它来提起她的案子。特朗普的律师坚持认为，该法律不应适用于金融机构和特朗普集团之间的盈利交易。
“我们如何划定一条线或设置一些护栏，以了解司法部长何时在其广泛的范围内或63(12)内运作，或进入她没有管辖权的领域?”助理法官约翰·r·希吉特问道。
淡水河谷回应称，特朗普的欺诈行为通过向市场插入虚假和误导性信息影响了消费者，特朗普的罚款具有威慑作用。
淡水河谷表示:“这些法规的一大要点是，在交易对手受到伤害之前，司法部长可以迅速介入，阻止欺诈和非法行为。”。
当大法官彼得·莫尔顿就罚款的“令人不安”的规模以及它是否与和特朗普有业务往来的银行造成的有限伤害“挂钩”提问时，淡水河谷辩称，交易的盈利能力不应给特朗普使用虚假信息的自由通行证。
“这不是说我们的欺诈真的成功了，所以我们应该得到一些钱的借口，”淡水河谷说。
虽然有时批评该州的论点，但法官们经常反驳特朗普关于案件诉讼时效的论点。首席大法官戴安·伦威克似乎为该州利用反欺诈法进行辩护。
“它确实始于‘在市场中保护诚实和正直’，”伦威克一度插话道。
在2月份结束的为期11周的审判中，纽约法官亚瑟·恩戈伦(Arthur Engoron)发现，特朗普、他的长子和特朗普组织的两名高管夸大了特朗普的财富，以从贷款人那里获得更好的条件，为此他对前总统罚款4.54亿美元。
特朗普在裁决后获得了1.75亿美元债券当他上诉的时候。
Judges press New York AG as Trump appeals his $454M fraud judgment
Seven months after a trial judgefined Donald Trump $454 millionfor business frauds that the judge said "shock the conscience," a New York appeals court appeared skeptical Thursday of some of the arguments underpinning the New York attorney general's case against the former president.
A panel of five judges at New York's Appellate Division, First Department heard Trump's appeal and peppered both sides with concerns about the case -- appearing to question some of the key elements of the state's case, including the application of a consumer fraud statute, the justification for the financial penalty prosecutors sought, and the private nature of the transactions in question, mirroring well-worn defense arguments that failed during the case's lengthy trial this year.
Trump himself did not attend Thursday's hearing in New York.
"We have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints," argued D. John Sauer, the same attorney who successfully argued Trump'spresidential immunity appealto the Supreme Court earlier this year. "How is there a capacity or tendency to deceive when you have these clear disclaimers?"
While the judges expressed some skepticism about some of the defense's claims -- with one judge remarking that factual inaccuracies could have resulted in Trump's statements being "completely fallacious" -- some of the defense arguments were echoed in the judges' questions.
"The defendants' statements were not made for ordinary people," noted Associate Justice David Friedman. "They were directed at some of the most sophisticated actors in business."
Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for New York Attorney General Letitia James, emphasized the magnitude of Trump's alleged misstatements and their importance to the banks that loaned the former president hundreds of millions of dollars.
"Deutsche Bank would not have given these loans without the financial strength being inflated," Vale said. "The financial statements were coming in each year, and they were important, critical to the loans each year."
A series of questions also focused on the New York fraud statute -- Executive Law 63 (12) -- that the attorney general used to bring her case. Trump's lawyers have insisted the law should not apply to profitable transactions between financial institutions and the Trump Organization.
"How do we draw a line or put up some guardrails to know when the attorney general is operating within her broad sphere or 63(12) or going into an area where she doesn't have jurisdiction?" asked Associate Justice John R. Higgitt.
Vale responded by arguing that Trump's frauds impacted consumers by inserting false and misleading information into the marketplace, and that Trump's fine has a deterrent effect.
"A big point of these statutes is for the attorney general to go in quickly to stop the fraud and illegality before the counterparties are harmed," Vale said.
When pressed by Justice Peter Moulton about the "troubling" size of the penalty and whether it was "tethered" to the limited harm incurred by the banks that did business with Trump, Vale argued that the profitability of the transactions should not give Trump a free pass to use false information.
"It is not an excuse to say our fraud was really successful so we should get some of the money," said Vale.
While at times critical of the state's arguments, the justices often pushed back against Trump's arguments about the case's statute of limitations. Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick appeared to defend the state's use of the fraud statute.
"It does start off with 'To protect honesty and integrity in the marketplace,'" Renwick interjected at one point.
In an 11-week trial that concluded in February, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump, his eldest sons, and two top Trump Organization executives exaggerated Trump's wealth to secure better terms from lenders, for which he fined the former president $454 million.
Trump, following the ruling, secured a$175 million bondwhile he appeals the judgment.
