The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”

At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.

“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.

“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.

He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.

“No,” Williams replied.

James wants the judge to impose over $300 million in penalties and to ban Trump from doing business in New York — and that’s on top of Engoron’s pretrial order that a receiver take control of some of Trump’s properties. An appeals court has frozen that order for now.

___

Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.