- Jul 2, 2003
- 152,844
- 19,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat

Trump overstated net worth by up to $2.2 billion, New York attorney general says
New York Attorney General Letitia James raised the allegation in a lawsuit seeking $250 million and sanctions that would halt the Trump Organization's operations in New York.

Former President Donald Trump overstated his net worth by between $812 million and $2.2 billion each year between 2011 and 2021, the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James claims in a filing made public Wednesday.
The allegations were raised in an Aug. 4 filing seeking a partial summary judgment in the office's 2022 lawsuit accusing members of the Trump family and Trump Organization executives of orchestrating an extensive, fraudulent scheme related to valuations of property and Trump's personal financial statements.
James' office is seeking $250 million and sanctions that would halt the company's operations in the state and drastically impair the ability of Trump, Eric Trump or Donald Trump Jr. to do business in New York.
Sounds like fraud. The filing is here:
Since at least 2011, Defendants and others working on their behalf at the Trump Organization have falsely inflated by billions of dollars the value of many of the assets listed on Donald J. Trump’s annual statement of financial condition (“SFC”), and hence his overall net worth for each of these years. Mr. Trump, and in some years the trustees of his revocable trust, submitted these grossly inflated SFCs to banks and insurers to secure and maintain loans and insurance on more favorable terms, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten savings and profits.
The People move for summary judgment on their First Cause of Action under Executive Law § 63(12) for fraud against all Defendants. To adjudicate this claim, the Court need answer only two simple and straightforward questions: (1) were the SFCs from 2011 to 2021 false or misleading; and (2) did Defendants repeatedly or persistently use the SFCs in the conduct of business transactions? The answer to both questions is a resounding “yes” based on the mountain of undisputed evidence cited in Plaintiff’s accompanying 202.8-g Statement.1