Connect with us

Finance

Trump plans to file a $100 million lawsuit against the Justice Department over Mar-a-Lago search and ‘witch hunts’

Published

on

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump walks toward the stage to speak at a rally at the Brick Breeden Fieldhouse at Montana State University on August 9, 2024 in Bozeman, Montana. 

Michael Ciaglo | Getty Images News | Getty Images

An attorney for former President Donald Trump has filed a legal notice announcing that his client plans to sue the Justice Department and the FBI for $115 million for alleged “malicious political prosecution” and “abuse of process.”

The notice, a copy of which NBC News obtained Monday, baselessly accuses DOJ leadership and Special Counsel Jack Smith of having perpetrated a “malicious political prosecution aimed at affecting an electoral outcome to prevent President Trump from being re-elected” — a frequent accusation that Trump makes online and during campaign events.

“This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation,” Trump attorney Daniel Z. Epstein wrote in a notice of claim against the department. Epstein is a former Trump White House lawyer who is now vice-president of America First Legal, the legal group founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

The filing complains that the FBI’s court-approved search for classified documents at Trump’s Florida estate in August of 2022 was improper, as was Trump’s subsequent indictment for the scores of sensitive classified documents that agents turned up during the search. Trump had pleaded not guilty.

The filing, which was first reported by Fox News, said the search violated “well-established protocol” involving former presidents and cites a Trump social media post after the search saying the government could have had the records “anytime they wanted.”

“All they had to do was ask,” the Truth Social post said. The filing does not mention the multiple requests from the National Archives and the Justice Department for Trump to return the records. The DOJ had also issued a subpoena for the return of such documents in May of 2022, and an attorney for Trump signed a declaration stating they had all been returned that June. The search warrant was executed after investigators got information that they had been misled.

The notice of claim maintains DOJ’s “process” was “unconstitutional.”

It says Smith “brought a lawless criminal indictment” that stemmed from the search in July of last year, and noted that the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon last month. Cannon, who Trump nominated to the bench, dismissed the case on the grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel and the funding for his probe were illegal.

Other federal judges have rejected similar arguments involving previous special counsels. Smith is appealing Cannon’s decision.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, said the action is part of Trump’s fight against the “weaponized Department of Justice” and that the criminal case against Trump “should be immediately dismissed in order to bring unity back to our Nation.”

The notice filed by Trump is a necessary step in filing most civil damages claims against the government. There is no concrete time limit for a response, but if a claimant has not received a “final disposition” within six months of sending the claim, then the claimant can treat that silence as a denial and file suit. The filing suggests that the suit would be filed in the same Florida district where Cannon sits.

The filing was signed on Aug. 7, one day before the two-year anniversary of the search. The claim form says “Failure to completely execute this form or to supply the requested material within two years from the date the claim accrued may render your claim invalid.” 

The filing says Trump is seeking “$15 million in actual harm due to his legal costs in defending the Special Counsel proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.” It’s unclear how much of that money came from Trump personally. NBC News has reported previously that Trump appeared to be using money from a political action committee for his legal fees.

He’s also seeking $100 million in punitive damages.

In a pending appeal of writer E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million defamation verdict against Trump, his attorneys have argued the verdict should be reduced in part because the punitive damages are about four times the amount of the compensatory damages. The amount he’s seeking in this case is over six times the amount of compensatory damages.

It’s unclear what would happen to the action if Trump is elected president again in November, and whether he would be able to direct the Justice Department to pay what he’s seeking.

Continue Reading

Finance

China’s EV race to the bottom leaves a few possible winners

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: WOOF, TSLA, CRCL, LULU

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Swiss government proposes tough new capital rules in major blow to UBS

Published

on

A sign in German that reads “part of the UBS group” in Basel on May 5, 2025.

Fabrice Coffrini | AFP | Getty Images

The Swiss government on Friday proposed strict new capital rules that would require banking giant UBS to hold an additional $26 billion in core capital, following its 2023 takeover of stricken rival Credit Suisse.

The measures would also mean that UBS will need to fully capitalize its foreign units and carry out fewer share buybacks.

“The rise in the going-concern requirement needs to be met with up to USD 26 billion of CET1 capital, to allow the AT1 bond holdings to be reduced by around USD 8 billion,” the government said in a Friday statement, referring to UBS’ holding of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds.

The Swiss National Bank said it supported the measures from the government as they will “significantly strengthen” UBS’ resilience.

“As well as reducing the likelihood of a large systemically important bank such as UBS getting into financial distress, this measure also increases a bank’s room for manoeuvre to stabilise itself in a crisis through its own efforts. This makes it less likely that UBS has to be bailed out by the government in the event of a crisis,” SNB said in a Friday statement.

‘Too big to fail’

UBS has been battling the specter of tighter capital rules since acquiring the country’s second-largest bank at a cut-price following years of strategic errors, mismanagement and scandals at Credit Suisse.

The shock demise of the banking giant also brought Swiss financial regulator FINMA under fire for its perceived scarce supervision of the bank and the ultimate timing of its intervention.

Swiss regulators argue that UBS must have stronger capital requirements to safeguard the national economy and financial system, given the bank’s balance topped $1.7 trillion in 2023, roughly double the projected Swiss economic output of last year. UBS insists it is not “too big to fail” and that the additional capital requirements — set to drain its cash liquidity — will impact the bank’s competitiveness.

At the heart of the standoff are pressing concerns over UBS’ ability to buffer any prospective losses at its foreign units, where it has, until now, had the duty to back 60% of capital with capital at the parent bank.

Higher capital requirements can whittle down a bank’s balance sheet and credit supply by bolstering a lender’s funding costs and choking off their willingness to lend — as well as waning their appetite for risk. For shareholders, of note will be the potential impact on discretionary funds available for distribution, including dividends, share buybacks and bonus payments.

“While winding down Credit Suisse’s legacy businesses should free up capital and reduce costs for UBS, much of these gains could be absorbed by stricter regulatory demands,” Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, said in a note preceding the FINMA announcement. 

“Such measures may place UBS’s capital requirements well above those faced by rivals in the United States, putting pressure on returns and reducing prospects for narrowing its long-term valuation gap. Even its long-standing premium rating relative to the European banking sector has recently evaporated.”

The prospect of stringent Swiss capital rules and UBS’ extensive U.S. presence through its core global wealth management division comes as White House trade tariffs already weigh on the bank’s fortunes. In a dramatic twist, the bank lost its crown as continental Europe’s most valuable lender by market capitalization to Spanish giant Santander in mid-April.

Continue Reading

Trending