On Thursday, the Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the offer of former President Donald Trump and his two adult children to avoid being forced to answer questions under oath by New York Attorney General Leticia James as part of her civil investigation into Trump’s business practices.
The decision was the last legal loss for Trump in his efforts to limit the investigation of James, who is focused on accusations that Trump’s organization illegally manipulated the stated estimates of various real estates for financial gain.
In addition to Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and his daughter Ivanka Trump must comply with court summons issued by James seeking their testimony, according to a four-page warrant issued by more than four judges of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Division. Manhattan Supreme Court.
The verdict rejected arguments that Trump’s lawyers made at a hearing earlier this month that James should be banned from interviewing him and his children because she is also cooperating with the Manhattan District Attorney in the criminal investigation of Trump’s organization.
Donald Trump Jr. is currently running the Trump family business with his brother Eric Trump, who previously answered questions from undercover investigators from James. Ivanka Trump, who worked as a senior adviser to the White House during her father’s presidency, is a former executive director of Trump’s organization.
Trump could ask the New York Court of Appeals to hear an appeal seeking the annulment of Thursday’s verdict, but there is no automatic right for that court, which is the highest in the state, to consider such an effort.
“The courts have once again ruled that Donald Trump must abide by our laws investigating his financial affairs,” James said in a statement on the appellate court’s ruling.
“We will continue to follow the facts of this case and ensure that no one can evade the law,” the state prosecutor said.
James’ office said last Friday that Trump had paid a $ 110,000 fine for contempt of court imposed on him for failing to comply with a subpoena issued to him to seek documents he wanted to see as part of his investigation. However, Trump did not fulfill all the steps requested by the judge of the first instance court to eliminate that contempt of court, risking to return the fine of 10,000 dollars per day that was originally determined by the judge.
Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Appeals Chamber’s order on Thursday.
The decision confirmed the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of Manhattan, Arthur Engoron, from February 28, 2022, by which Trump was ordered to submit testimonies.
“After all, the state prosecutor is starting an investigation into the business entity, revealing ample evidence of possible financial fraud and wants, under oath, to interrogate several entity directors, including his namesake. She has a clear right to do so, “Engoron wrote at the time.
In its decision from Thursday, the Appeals Chamber said: “The existence of a criminal investigation does not preclude civil disclosure of related facts.”
The verdict states that Trump could invoke his constitutional right against self-accusation when giving testimony, refusing to answer questions.
The Appeals Chamber also said that Engoron “properly rejected” the request of Trump’s parties to hold a “hearing on the scope and degree” of coordination between James’ office and the Manhattan prosecutor.
A civil investigation was launched in March 2019 after testifying before Congress of Michael Cohen, a former executive director and special adviser to Trump’s organization, in which Cohen claimed that
Defendant The Trump Organization, Inc. issued false financial reports, “the ruling said.
“This sequence of events suggests that the investigation was legally launched at the very beginning
and well-founded, except for any parallel criminal investigation undertaken by the district attorney. “
The panel also said that there was no justification for throwing court summons based on the claim of Republican Trump that the investigation of James, a Democrat, was motivated by political animus.
“James began the investigation after the public testimony of a senior corporate insider and reviewed significant amounts of evidence before issuing subpoenas,” the verdict said.
“The complainants did not identify any similarly involved corporations that have not been investigated, nor the leaders of such corporations who have not been removed.
“Therefore, the appellants failed to show that they were treated differently from any person in a similar situation.”