In a landmark decision, a New York judge has imposed a hefty fine and business ban on former President Donald Trump.

Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling orders Trump to pay $355 million over fraud allegations and prohibits him from business activities in New York for three years.

Alina Habba, representing Donald Trump, voiced her discontent in a discussion with Breitbart News Daily. She challenged the ruling's rationale and dubbed the imposed fine as excessively high.

Engoron's Decision Sparks Controversy

The case pivoted around allegations of fraudulent business practices. Engoron's decision not only entails a significant financial penalty but also temporarily sidelines Trump from New York's business landscape.

Habba's criticism hinges on what she perceives as a misuse of a consumer fraud statute. She argues that the statute was applied in an unprecedented manner, targeting two parties engaged in a contract without any prior breaches, loan defaults, or reported losses.

The Defense's Counterarguments

During the proceedings, it was highlighted by Habba that banks not involved in the lawsuit had testified favorably regarding their business relations with the Trump Organization. This testimony was intended to counteract the lawsuit's implications of fraudulent dealings.

Further undermining the lawsuit's foundation, Habba pointed to the valuation methods used by Letitia James and her team. She dismissed these valuations as baseless, emphasizing that Deutsche Bank, among others, reported no issues or losses from their dealings with Trump.

Questioning Judge Engoron's History

Habba didn't shy away from critiquing Judge Engoron's track record. She cited a previous decision of his that was overturned, questioning his judgment and impartiality.

Furthermore, Habba highlighted Engoron's willingness to disregard jury verdicts if he disagreed, painting a picture of judicial overreach.

In her fiery critique, Habba described the ruling's logic as flawed, suggesting political motives and a dual justice system were at play. This argument aimed to frame the legal action as part of broader political interference rather than a straightforward legal proceeding.

Habba's Plan for Appeal

Habba has made it clear that this is not the end of the road. Her statements indicate a strategic plan to appeal the decision, which she promises will be both thoughtful and methodical. This suggests a legal battle that could extend far beyond the current proceedings.

The defense's main argument revolves around the claim that the lawsuit misapplied legal statutes in a manner never seen before. According to Habba, the contract at the center of the case was fully intact, with no evidence of financial harm or victims arising from its execution.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank and Trump have no problems, no lawsuits. No one’s saying they lost money. No one’s saying they were hurt. Everyone’s saying we did our due diligence. Trump’s saying we did our due diligence. Everybody looks at the values. They put a number on it, they get a deal. They make a contract, and then they’re good on the terms of that contract. Where is the harm?

Reflecting on the Legal Strategy

Habba's strategy appears to be multifaceted, combining legal arguments with public relations efforts. By engaging with media outlets like Breitbart News Daily, she aims to sway public opinion and lay the groundwork for the upcoming appeal.

Her comments on the case emphasize a perceived injustice and overreach by the judiciary. By questioning the basis of the lawsuit and the valuation of Trump's properties, Habba seeks to undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Looking Ahead: The Appeal Process

Former President Donald Trump faces a $355 million fine and a three-year business ban in New York following Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling on fraud allegations.

Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, vocally criticized the decision, labeling the fine as excessively high and the use of a consumer fraud statute as unprecedented. Habba argued that the lawsuit unfairly targeted contractual dealings without evidence of financial harm or default, pointing out that banks involved had testified positively about their dealings with the Trump Organization.

She also questioned Engoron's judgment and impartiality, citing a previous overturned decision. Habba's strategy includes plans for an appeal, emphasizing a multifaceted approach that blends legal defense with efforts to influence public opinion, suggesting a prolonged legal contest ahead.