After several months in court, Trump’s Fraud case finally ended. Judge Arthur Engoron gave his final verdict, placing a fine of $350 million. It also came with a three-year ban from doing business in New York.

While many feel this penalty is justified, others claim it’s too harsh. More specifically, MSNBC host Katy Tur contests Judge Engoron’s decision. She asked, “Is it fair?” as it may be an improper use of the statute. Read on for more details on the argument.

The Court Case Against Donald Trump

Let’s contextualize Trump’s situation before dissecting Katy Tur’s comment. The US district attorney sued Donald Trump and his businesses in 2020. He claimed that they used illegal documents to take loans from different banks.

Source:MSNBC News

These documents mainly lied about the former president’s wealth. In fact, most of them undervalue their assets. After several months in court, Judge Arthur Engoron gave his final verdict.

Trump Must Pay A Fine Of $350 Million

Judge Engoron gave his final opinion on Trump’s Fraud Case. He deemed the former president guilty of fraud and then gave two penalties. The first punishment is that Trump must pay the court $350 million.

Source: Paul J. Richards

The $350 million fine also comes with an additional cost of approximately $100 million. This extra fee is an interest for the civil fraud lawsuit, and it must come from his fortune. So, what’s the second penalty?

Trump Can’t Do Business For Three Years

Alongside the $350 million fine, the judge also barred Trump from doing business. The restriction prevents him from being a leader in any business for three whole years.

Source: Chip Somodevilla

However, it is worth noting that this verdict doesn’t apply nationwide. According to the court document, Trump cannot do business in New York. So, he’s free to make money elsewhere, not in the concrete jungle.

Katy Tur Finds The Penalty To Be Unfair

MSNBC host Katy Tur recently raised a question about the verdict. “Is it fair?”. She worries that $500 million plus being barred from doing business for three years may be too much for one man.

Source: Flickr/Haddad Media

For context, Kathrine Bear Tur is an American journalist who anchors for MSNBC. She was NBC and MSNBC’s embedded reporter on the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. Tur also informed Trump about Hollywood’s secret tape on his comments about women.

Katy Tur’s Argument

Katy Tur mentioned that Judge Engoron may have abused the law he used to pronounce his verdict on Trump. How? She claims that the 70+-year-old rule has never been used on someone who’s not harmed any person or entity.

Source: Flickr/nrkbeta

Tur’s argument hinges on Trump’s primary defense. The former president claims that his fraudulent practices didn’t harm banks and insurers. If this were true, Trump’s case would be the first time this law was used this way in 150 cases.

‘Judge Engoron May Have Used The Statute Incorrectly’

Katy Tur explains that she’s spent hours studying the law used against Trump. Naturally, it doesn’t need the prosecutor to show that anyone got harmed by their behavior. Therefore, Engoron operated within the legal scope.

Source: Gregory P. Mango

However, she revealed that the law was used in about 150 cases. According to the host: “there was no case where there was a ban on doing business where there wasn’t harm shown.” Therefore, Engoron may have made an unfair verdict.

‘So, Is It Fair?”

Tur supported her point by stating that even if the threshold shows harm done, there’s still a problem. How? In the past, it has only been used to ban someone from doing business that hurts people.

Source: Flickr/Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate

For example, if someone sells cosmetics that poison the users, the seller will be banned. After finishing her point, Tur stated: “Is it fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment?”

A Counter-Argument For Katy Tur

Katy Tur raises some valid questions about Trump’s case. Perhaps Judge Engoron used a wrong interpretation of the law. If that’s the case, Trump’s legal team could push for a lighter penalty.

Source: X/Andrea Mitchell

Snell clarified the law for Tur. He said: “The legal standard is whether there was a tendency to deceive. That’s what it is. The legislature in New York made a choice…to vindicate the public good in this situation.”

Susanne Craig Made Her Case Against Trump

MSNBC contributor Susanne Craig attempted to make her case against Trump. She stated: “I think, too, the interesting thing about victims is, there were victims here. They were the banks. They’re just not the most popular victims in society.”

Source: NBC News

This counters both Trump’s and Tur’s comments. He claims that the banks were hurt financially but gained no sympathy from the people. Nevertheless, they remain victims. Therefore, it’s enough to justify the penalty.

Tur Disagrees With Both Counter-Arguments

Both contributors on the panel made compelling points. They shed more light on the law’s interpretation and how it sees victimhood. Nevertheless, Tur disagrees. Her main contention is with the “people” harmed in this case.

Source: Flickr/Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate

Katy Tur responds with another of Trump’s defenses. She pointed out that the banks “don’t feel like they lost.” Many find this response to be weak and defiant. Proving how much damage Trump caused is unnecessary. He has stolen money deliberately and repeatedly.

Trump’s Fraud Case Is Over

It’s important to encourage live political debates. These varying opinions help people shape their perspective on current affairs. It also educates them on legal matters, giving them a better grasp of complex issues.

Source: Nicholas Kamm

But in Trump’s case, the matter is over. Trump was found guilty of fraud as he was required to pay over $350 million plus interest. He’s also not allowed to run another business in New York for the next three years. However, this isn’t the end of his career. The former president recently launched his line of sneakers. Now he’s all over the news again.