Donald Trump held in civil contempt by New York judge, faces $13,900 daily fine

Donald Trump has been blasted by a judge who declared that the former US president must pay a sizeable fine every single day.

A New York judge on Monday held Donald Trump in contempt – and fined him $US10,000 ($A13,940) a day – for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in Attorney-General Letitia James’ probe of his company’s business dealings.

“Mr Trump, I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously. I hereby hold you in civil contempt and fine you $10,000 a day,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron said before striking the gavel.

Ms James asked for the civil contempt order earlier this month, arguing that the former US president failed to meet a court-ordered March 31 deadline to turn over materials as part of her office’s investigation into the Trump Organisation.

Stream more business news live & on demand with Flash. 25+ news channels in 1 place. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer ends 31 October, 2022 >

The civil contempt fine is the latest controversy to hit the former US president. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP

Mr Trump has blasted the investigation as a “witch hunt” while fighting it in court.

Defence lawyers for Mr Trump, who wasn’t at Monday’s hearing, claimed he didn’t have any of the documents requested in the AG’s civil probe.

But Mr Engoron ruled there wasn’t evidence to show that Mr Trump had conducted a proper search of his documents when he responded to Ms James’ subpoena by claiming he had nothing to turn over.

“In particular there is no admissible evidence of who, what, where, when and how any search was conducted,” the judge said, noting that Mr Trump’s response of minimal effort to the subpoena, “just doesn’t cut it”.

“Thus Mr Trump didn’t comply,” the judge said.

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba maintained that her client was in the clear because any documents he might have were already being turned over to the AG’s office through the Trump Organisation.

But Mr Engoron pressed Ms Habba on why Mr Trump hadn’t submitted a sworn affidavit attesting to that fact.

“I feel like there is an 800-pound gorilla in the room here. Why don’t we have an affidavit from [Trump]?” the judge said, noting that the ex-president has been running the company for decades.

“I’m happy to, if they ask for it,” Ms Habba said of the AG’s office. “I would be happy to do so because he doesn’t have anything left to give.”

Mr Engoron responded: “How do you know he will swear to that?”

“Because my client is an honest person, much to the dismay of some of the people in this room,” Ms Habba said. “We have nothing to hide.”

Mr Engoron said: “There is a difference between saying something and saying something under oath.”

The judge said Mr Trump failed to produce the documents required by the Attorney-General’s subpoena. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP

During oral arguments, Ms Habba called the AG’s probe a “political crusade” that “continues to grow and expand” and has cost the Trump Organisation millions of dollars in legal fees.

“This is a poor utilisation of tax payers’ dollars,” Ms Habba said of the investigation, noting it “cannot be allowed to aimlessly go on when the cost to my client and the public is so high”.

Andrew Amer, a lawyer for the AG’s office, said investigators were being hampered “because we don’t have evidence from the person that sits at the top of this organisation”.

“Our patience is at an end and so should the court’s be,” he said.

Getting documents from the Trump Organisation has been like “pulling teeth”, he added, explaining why the investigation has been dragging on. The probe is extremely complex since each of the company’s assets “is like a Russian nesting doll, that leads to further investigation,” Mr Amer said.

“For years, Donald Trump has tried to evade the law and stop our lawful investigation into him and his company’s financial dealings,” Ms James said in a statement after Mr Engoron’s decision. “Today’s ruling makes clear: No one is above the law.”

Outside court, Ms Habba said that Mr Trump’s legal team plans to appeal the ruling.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision today,” Ms Habba told reporters. “This does not even come close to meeting the standard on a motion for contempt. And thus we intend to appeal this decision.”

Ms James opened up an investigation in 2019 after Congressional testimony from Mr Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen that Mr Trump exaggerated company assets to get an advantage on taxes, loan applications and for insurance purposes.

The AG then filed suit in 2020 against the company and Eric Trump claiming they were stonewalling the probe.

This post originally appeared on the New York Post and has been republished with permission