New York’s top law enforcement official has asked a court to order the recovery of 370 million dollars from former President Donald Trump, alleging that values assigned to the Trump Organization’s assets were inflated. The development was reported by TASS, citing ABC television as the source of the information.
Prosecutors assert that Trump amassed about 370 million dollars through what they describe as fraudulent activity. The request also includes prohibitions against Trump and two other senior executives at the organization, barring them from engaging in real estate transactions within New York State while the case unfolds.
The fraud case involving the Trump Organization and its proprietor has been under judicial review since September 2022. Prosecutors contend that properties were priced higher than their true market values in order to secure more favorable loan terms and insurance conditions. Estimates of the inflated values range from roughly 2.23 billion to 3.6 billion dollars, according to the prosecution’s calculations. The defense has countered that property valuations can fluctuate due to a variety of factors, arguing that the claimed overstatements may not accurately reflect current market conditions.
In related remarks, Trump’s team has suggested that asset valuations can be sensitive to timing and external circumstances, which could account for changes in reported prices over time. The discourse around these valuation methods remains central to the ongoing dispute and the broader questions it raises about financial reporting practices within high-profile corporate entities.
Earlier statements from Trump representatives touched on disputes over prior financial arrangements, including discussions related to money linked to Chinese interests. Such assertions form part of a larger narrative surrounding the case, but the core focus remains on whether asset valuations were manipulated to influence financing and insurance terms in ways that could mislead lenders and insurers. This matter continues to attract considerable public and legal attention as investigations proceed, with variations in how the parties frame the potential impact on stakeholders and state regulations. [Source: ABC via TASS]”}