'He keeps losing': Internet divided as judge rejects Donald Trump’s bid to stave off $454M fraud penalty

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, a New York appellate judge on Wednesday, February 28, declined to halt the collection of his $454 million civil fraud penalty while he pursues an appeal.

Judge Anil Singh of the state's mid-level appeals court ruled that Trump must post a bond covering the full amount to stop enforcement of the judgment, rejecting Trump's bid to post a fraction of what he owes.

Donald Trump's reduced bond proposal

Trump's legal team, led by Clifford Robert, Alina Habba, and Michael Farina, argued that the lending ban imposed by the Feb 16 verdict made it impractical for Trump to secure a bond for the full amount. They proposed a $100 million bond, but Singh insisted on the full sum.

"The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond," the lawyers stated in their request.

However, Singh did grant Trump's request to pause a three-year ban on seeking loans from New York banks, a move that could assist Trump in securing the necessary bond.

The judgment against Trump, his company, and top executives, including his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., stems from an alleged scheme to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements. Judge Arthur Engoron found them guilty of this deception, imposing strict limitations on the Trump Organization's business activities.

Despite Trump's appeal filed on Monday, the appellate court's decision does not automatically halt enforcement of the judgment. Trump's legal team now seeks a review of Engoron's actions, questioning his legal reasoning and jurisdiction, CBS News reported.

The New York Attorney General's office, led by Letitia James, opposed Trump's reduced bond request, arguing that Trump's offer was insufficient to cover the judgment. Dennis Fan, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, stressed the need for a full bond to secure the plaintiff's award.

"These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary," Fan wrote, insisting that Trump's offer would leave the state "with substantial shortfalls" if the verdict is upheld. "A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to have her award secured, and defendants have never demonstrated that Mr. Trump's liquid assets could satisfy the full amount of the judgment," she added.

Social media reactions

Reacting to the decision, social media platforms buzzed with commentary. Critics of Trump celebrated the ruling.

"Trump keeps losing," one posted on X.

"The man that said that he got a lot of money said that he can't pay off the 456 million lol," a comment read.

"Back to crying on his knockoff social media platform," another wrote.

Others expressed sympathy for the former president, alleging judicial bias and unfair treatment.

"Ridiculous!" one commented.

"More grounds of judicial bias in a civil case (not criminal) for use of practice exercised by every big property skip owners and managers," another insisted.

"You can Hate Trump all you want and maybe he isn't a good guy at times but the Fact is he is getting screwed by the NY Judicial system," someone else added.