Prominent investor and personality behind Shark Tank, Kevin O’Leary, expressed his concern recently over the staggering $350 million fraud ruling against former President Donald Trump in New York. The ruling made O’Leary question the feasibility of any future investment ventures in what he described as the ‘mega loser state’ of New York. He expressed confusion and disbelief during a Fox Business Network interview on ‘Cavuto Coast To Coast’, stressing he wasn’t alone in his sentiment.
O’Leary made it clear that regardless of the statements made by the state’s governor, he viewed New York, along with other states like California, as unattractive for investment due to their policies, hefty tax systems, and restrictive regulations. These factors, he believes, inevitably elevate these states to the top of the ‘loser states’ list and could deter potential investors, himself included.
O’Leary’s comments should serve as a wake-up call for the citizens of New York, urging them to question why their state is no longer appealing to investors. It’s not only about keeping existing businesses from moving to more affordable states like Texas and Florida but also about attracting fresh investments.
O’Leary offered a hypothetical of refusing placement of a hypothetical $4 billion-dollar data center to emphasise his point. According to his reasoning, not only existing establishments but prospective major investments are less likely to opt for New York under the present circumstances.
Calling on responsible bodies, O’Leary points out that the state has substantial work cut out to reroute the current trajectory which has been largely formed in the aftermath of the pandemic. He calls for a comparison with prospering states like Tennessee, whose capital, Nashville, is becoming a fast-growing city thanks to sensible policies and competitive taxes.
With regard to the standpoint of former President Trump, it’s clear that he intends to challenge the definition of fraud that led to the colossal $355 million judgment in a New York civil trial. The case has yet to unfold fully under the hands of Chris Kise, Trump’s lead attorney.
Further update suggests that the timing of the appeal will be determined by a variety of factors and it will work within the 30-day appeal window that the court allows. The lead attorney levelled accusations at both New York Attorney General Letitia James and presiding Judge Arthur Engoron, stating that they appear committed to expelling Trump from New York.6
Kise maintains that the case brings to light critical legal and constitutional queries in terms of ‘fraud’ allegations, without any genuine fraud being established. He further laments it as an unfortunate day for the city.
Rewinding to September 2022, Letitia James initiated a legal suit against Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, the Trump Organization, and two firm executives – Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney. It transpired in trial that Trump had overstated his belongings to secure more favourable business loans, as found by Judge Engoron.
The trial that spanned late last year into early January was aimed at figuring out the monetary damages to be paid by the former president and his associates. A decision issued on February 16 stated Donald Trump was to pay a fine of roughly $355 million, making a significant impact.
Additionally, Trump, Weisselberg, and McConney faced injunctions from holding positions as officers or directors of any New York corporation for three years. Trump’s progeny, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were liable for payments exceeding $4 million each, with their business activities in the state halted for 2 years.
Significantly, Trump disputes all claims of misconduct, calling the entire situation a politically fuelled campaign. The outcome of the appeal rests largely on the interpretation ‘fraud’ used in the proceedings.
Legal expert Greg Germain, from the Syracuse University of Law, gave insights to Newsweek, stating that Trump would have to demonstrate that the New York AG does not have the authority to penalize him without showing conventional elements of fraud, which include causation, damages, intent to defraud, and others.
Interestingly, James’ team counters by asserting they are not obligated to establish all six components due to New York’s Executive Order 63.12. The order simplifies the procedures of prosecuting fraud with civil claims and subpoenas, with one banking official alleging that loan qualifications were not based solely on Trump’s declarations.
