New developments have emerged as a New York appeals court deliberates on a potential reversal or reduction in the substantial $454 million civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump.

The possible decision could substantially -- and positively -- affect Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, with a decision on a reversal anticipated before Election Day, Nov. 5, as Fox News reports.

The case, originally initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James, accuses Trump and his associates of prolonged fraudulent activities. These activities allegedly involved the falsification of business records and insurance and financial statement manipulations.

Trump's legal representatives argue that the initial verdict was excessively harsh. They describe Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling as "draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional."

Oral Arguments Heard by Appeals Court

The appeal was presented before a panel of five judges in Manhattan. Trump was absent from the proceedings, represented instead by his legal counsel.

During the hearing, Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, criticized the application of New York consumer protection laws to the case, asserting that the transactions involved were outdated and thus breached the statute of limitations.

Sauer highlighted the absence of any victims or formal complaints from the lenders or insurers involved, challenging the grounds of the lawsuit.

Judges Express Concern Over Original Verdict

Judge Peter H. Moulton, one of the appellate judges, voiced concerns regarding the lawsuit's scope and the considerable size of the penalty, which he found "troubling."

The state’s representation countered by insisting that the evidence adequately supported the hefty verdict against Trump.

Trump's defense has been fervent, with his legal team appealing the judgment and requesting a stay while also preparing for the possibility of taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Financial Statements and Fraud Allegations

Before the September 2023 trial, Engoron ruled that Trump had committed fraud in his dealings with banks and insurers, notably overvaluing assets and exaggerating his net worth to gain financial advantages.

The original penalty, calculated at $355 million, has swelled with daily interest, now approaching $470 million. However, in March, an appeals court reduced Trump’s bond payment to $175 million, which he has since paid.

Despite the serious allegations, Trump and his family have consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that their assets were actually undervalued rather than exaggerated.

Expert Testimony Challenges Prosecution Claims

During the trial, Trump’s defense team brought forward witnesses and experts, including NYU Professor Eli Bartov, who testified that there was no evidence of accounting fraud in Trump's financial statements.

Bartov emphasized that the financial statements were not materially misstated, which contradicts the prosecution’s claims of fraudulent exaggeration.

This testimony supported Trump's argument that the banks involved were fully aware of the financial dealings and were keen to continue their business relations with him.

Legal Perspectives on Statute of Limitations

Sauer, in addressing the judges, mentioned that if the verdict stands, it will sow fear among those engaged in real estate, hindering business operations due to legal uncertainties.

The attorney's remarks in court included concerns about a "clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations," arguing that the case has stretched beyond its legal time frame.

The judges are expected to deliver their decision about a month after the arguments, closely coinciding with the upcoming presidential election, adding a layer of political significance to their ruling.