New York Attorney General Letitia James has been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for real estate fraud following an investigation from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
The referral could empower the DOJ to prosecute Attorney General James, who formerly used her power as attorney general to prosecute President Donald Trump for issues similar to those she is now being accused of.
James campaigned on prosecuting President Trump, which she subsequently successfully did in a real estate civil fraud case that ruled Trump had to pay roughly $500 million to the New York state government.
Now, the FHFA is accusing James of real estate fraud following an investigation into her real estate properties, filings, and tax records.
FHFA Director William J. Pulte alleged James had “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.”
Specifically, James is accused of having falsified her primary place of residence to secure more favorable loan terms.
James allegedly reported Virginia as her primary place of residence while simultaneously claiming her primary residence was in New York - a requirement for being New York’s Attorney General.
Additionally, James reportedly lied about her New York home, claiming it only had four units when in reality it contains five, in order to evade having to pay higher loan rates.
It remains unclear whether the DOJ will prosecute James, but a guilty verdict against her would provide political and personal vindication for Trump.
James’ office ridiculed the reports against James and stated James “will not be intimidated by bullies—no matter who they are.”
In the Trump civil fraud case, Trump has appealed the decision against him, which appeals Judge Peter Moulton reportedly defined as an “immense penalty” that “is troubling.”
Trump lawyers have consistently held that the charges and subsequent conviction are unjustifiable and often criticized by James and trial judge Arthur Engoron during the civil trial.
The appeals court has yet to decide on the case.
