Thread by @lawofruby

NEW: The New York AG is detailing what should go into a comprehensive relief order and why they are entitled to it. Notably, the degree of scienter — or intent — is a factor under the legal test they say governs, as is whether the wrongful conduct was an “isolated incident.”

Another factor? Repentance, or the lack thereof, or “whether defendant continues to maintain that his past conduct was blameless.”

Wallace says it’s hard to imagine how someone could be more insistent on their blamelessness—and when someone is saying they did nothing wrong, they’re telling you they’ll do it again.

Today, Wallace says the company has no CFO or comptroller. (Hawthorn is not, in fact, the CFO.) It has virtually no internal controls, and the monitor has found ongoing financial irregularities. Kise is on his feet, accusing Wallace of “making the record up as he goes along.”

Wallace moves on to point out that despite the preliminary injunction, the Trump Org. made a $40 million transfer without notice to the court or the monitor. The AG argues the monitorship should be extended.

Now we’re talking about lifetime bars. The AG’s office cites the case of Martin Shkreli, who has been barred from the pharmaceutical industry in a case involving a claim under the same law at issue here.

Wallace says Shkreli’s behavior is echoed by that of Weisselberg, McConney, and Trump, who have demonstrated no remorse.

“There is at least a hope,” by contrast, that a five-year bar would be enough for Eric and Don Jr., who are “grown men in their 40s,” have made millions from their roles and are “fully responsible for their actions.”

Jr., in particular, as trustee, signed certifications and representation letters attesting to the truth of his dad’s financial conditions. Even if he didn’t know, that kind of recklessness “has no business being an officer or director in a New York corporation.”

(Eric’s involvement was both more extensive and done with actual knowledge, Wallace notes.)

On disgorgement, the legal burden shifts. Defendants did not show that the calculations were incorrect.

It’s a federal crime to misrepresent your assets as part of a credit application, Wallace says. We didn’t allege bank fraud, but the existence of that crime — which does not depend on reliance by the bank or any injury to that bank — shows that their “no victim, no problem” argument falls apart.

Wallace is now thanking lawyers and staff members who never got to the podium or counsel table. After calling it a “Herculean effort” by all involved, he is wrapping up. (Shout out to the court reporters!)

Engoron: “I don’t enforce morality; I enforce the law.” How would you compare what happened here to the Madoff Ponzi scheme, Engoron asked. Wallace: It’s smaller in scope, but there shouldn’t be room for those rich enough to get away with it.

Engoron: I will do my best to issue my opinion by Jan. 31 and am “reasonably confident that I will be able to do so.”

And now we wait as the lawyers leave.