'Absurd': Expert predicts Trump's last-minute fraud bond will be rejected

Donald Trump's last-minute filing Monday night states that the bond he's offered up in his civil fraud case now has "substantial financial credibility" — but experts aren't so sure.

Trump's $175 million bond, which would allow him to put seizures of his property on hold while he appeals the verdict that hit him with $454.2 million in damages earlier this year, was initially knocked by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who claimed its source — Knight Specialty Insurance Company — was not properly licensed in New York state.

His team refiled before the deadline of midnight Monday, claiming KSIC's KSIC's bond was collateralized by Trump's Charles Schwab account, which it said contained more than $175 million in cash.

Justice Arthur Engoron will decide next week if the newly filed bond meets the requirements. But an expert told Salon there's a good chance it won't.

Gregory Germain, a Syracuse University College of Law professor, told the outlet that Trump's filing has missed the actual concerns that are being raised about the bond.

The former president's claim that "reimbursement obligation to the insurance company" is secured by the account is "simply incorrect," Germain said.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

"The insurance company must have sufficient capitalization and liquidity to immediately pay the bond amount if the judgment is affirmed, and the insurance company they utilized does not have that capacity," Germain said.

Trump's filing bashed James' holdup as unnecessary and that it should "should be set aside with costs."

It goes on: "Her sparse notice identifies no insufficiency other than the failure to enclose a certificate of qualification.

"While a certificate would be dispositive evidence of justification, it is not the only evidence of justification. KSIC was and is authorized to issue the Bond here, and the Bond is more than sufficiently collateralized in the event the Court’s judgment is affirmed."

Germain told Salon that seeking to punish AG James isn't wise.

"Instead of addressing the case properly," he believes "Trump has made absurd arguments to support the validity of the bond and has demanded sanctions, which is typical of his blustering and attacking way of handling his cases."

Germain added: "Unless Trump provides sufficient surety and stops playing games, the Court will and should determine that the bond is insufficient and allow the attorney general to enforce the judgment."