Business Law Expert Warns of Potential Backlash If New York Attorney General Seizes Trump Assets
As the deadline approaches for Donald Trump to secure a bond to prevent the enforcement of a $454 million civil judgment against him, speculation is mounting over the potential consequences if no collateral is obtained. New York Attorney General Letitia James has made it clear that she will freeze Trump’s bank accounts and pursue the seizure of his properties if he fails to pay the demanded amount or obtain a bond. However, this move could backfire and actually benefit Trump politically, according to business law expert Charles Trzcinka.
Trzcinka, who chairs the finance department at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, believes that the volatility in the real estate market is to blame for the reluctance of insurance companies to accept Trump’s assets as collateral. Trzcinka argues that if no bond is obtained, Trump will be forced to sell assets or face seizure. However, he suggests that this could evoke sympathy for the former president and potentially boost his chances of re-election.
Trzcinka also highlights concerns within the real estate profession regarding the prosecution and the massive penalty Trump faces. He argues that the case is politically driven and questions the limits of the law, suggesting that law enforcement officials are empowered to decide industry standards and enforce them arbitrarily. Trzcinka predicts far-reaching consequences for the New York real estate market, with some lenders potentially relocating to jurisdictions where the rule of law is enforced regardless of politics.
It is worth noting that Trzcinka’s views are not universally shared. Keith Naughton, principal of Silent Majority Strategies, suggests that there is no evidence in polls to suggest that these civil judgments are hurting Trump politically. While they provide ammunition for anti-Trump media outlets, they are unlikely to sway his supporters. Naughton does acknowledge, however, that the steep penalty may dampen enthusiasm among some donors who do not want their contributions to go towards legal fees.
Mark Graber, a professor at the Francis King Carey School of Law at the University of Maryland, finds it troubling that a presidential candidate is facing such severe financial difficulties. He warns that candidates in such positions can become vulnerable to financial inducements and suggests that Trump may try to use politics to recoup the money.
The potential seizure of Trump’s assets by the New York attorney general has significant implications, both politically and for the real estate market. While some experts predict a backlash and sympathy for Trump, others caution against the potential consequences of such a move. As the deadline approaches, the outcome remains uncertain, and the implications for Trump’s presidential campaign and the real estate industry are yet to be seen.
