Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
New York v. Trump is a civil investigation and lawsuit by the office of the New York Attorney General (AG) alleging that individuals and business entities within The Trump Organization engaged in financial fraud by presenting vastly disparate property values to potential lenders and tax officials, in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
People of the State of New York v. Trump Court New York Supreme Court Full case name The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump Submitted March 30, 2023 Started April 15, 2024 Decided May 30, 2024 Verdict Guilty on all counts Charge First-degree falsifying business records (34 counts) Citation IND-71543-23 Court membership Judge sitting Juan Merchan This article is part of a series ...
Doe et al. v. Trump Corporation et al. is an ongoing case commenced in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in October 2018, [3] [4] in which plaintiffs Lynn Chadwick, Markus Frazier, Catherine McKoy and Millard Williams [5] filed a previously anonymous lawsuit against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump and three of his adult children — Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka ...
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money case has put off ruling on whether the president-elect's conviction should be thrown out on immunity grounds, enabling ...
Lawyers for Trump on Monday night again sought to move his hush-money case to federal court. An appellate brief reprises arguments from two failed attempts to move the case out of state court.
President-elect Donald Trump's Nov. 26 sentencing date in his New York hush money case is on hold as prosecutors face a Tuesday deadline to advise the judge on how to proceed in light of Trump's ...
In February 2024, the New York Daily News carried an opinion piece by Nick Akerman, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and assistant special Watergate prosecutor, who commented on the similarities with the Watergate case, and stated that Trump was facing almost certain conviction. [71]
After denying requests by the defense to treat Trump's tuition payments for Weisselberg's grandchildren as gifts [91] and to have a corporate liability law declared "constitutionally vague", [94] Merchan instructed jurors regarding the application of New York's corporate liability law to their verdict. [67] [95] The jury began deliberations on ...