Exposing a Decade of Letitia James’ Financial Misreporting

Uncovering Financial Discrepancies in Letitia James’ Property Holdings

When New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump for allegedly misleading financial statements, she declared it a victory for “transparency and accountability.” However, our recent investigations into Letitia James’ financial discrepancies reveal a troubling pattern of transparency issues spanning more than a decade. From hidden mortgages to inconsistent property valuations and unreported rental income, these discrepancies raise serious questions about the state’s top legal officer’s own adherence to the standards she enforces. This article delves into the historical context and uncovers the financial misreporting that has persisted throughout James’ career.

The Missing Mortgage Mystery

Follow the paper trail of James’ Norfolk, Virginia investment property, and you’ll encounter a puzzling contradiction.

Official property records tell one story. In August 2020, James purchased the modest home for $137,000. She financed it with a $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial. The mortgage documentation classified it as a second home, with a specific “Second Home Rider” containing legal attestations about occupancy, though lenders typically allow conversion to investment properties with proper notification.

Her sworn financial disclosures tell another story entirely. From day one, she listed the property exclusively as an “investment” generating rental income. But the mortgage that made the purchase possible? It vanished completely – never appearing on a single financial disclosure despite clear legal requirements to report all mortgages on investment properties.

By law, officials must disclose “all mortgages and encumbrances” on reportable real estate. Under Section 73-a of the New York Public Officers Law, elected officials must file sworn annual statements disclosing all real estate holdings (except personal residences that don’t generate income), all sources of income exceeding $1,000, and all debts exceeding $10,000. These aren’t optional formalities but legal statements signed under penalty of perjury. False statements can constitute a Class A misdemeanor under New York law, punishable by up to a year in jail.

The mystery deepens in her 2023 disclosure. While the property’s value remains unchanged at “$100,000-$150,000,” two entirely new mortgages suddenly materialize:

• Freedom Mortgage ($150,000-$250,000)
• National Mortgage ($100,000-$150,000)

These loans could total up to $400,000 – potentially four times the property’s lowest declared value. Combined with the undisclosed but documented OVM loan of $109,600, the total debt could reach up to $509,600 against a property she valued at no more than $150,000. Yet our commissioned title search found no trace of either mortgage in any public records.

The property that once generated $1,000-$5,000 in rental income during 2020, now reportedly generates $0 – despite supposedly carrying up to $509,600 in total debt. As of 2025, Norfolk tax assessors value the property at just $187,300.

Even using this higher assessment, the loan-to-value ratio could be as high as 272% (considering all three mortgages totaling $509,600) – far exceeding the industry standard 70-80% maximum for investment properties. This type of loan-to-value ratio would be virtually impossible to obtain through legitimate lending channels.

A Decade Earlier: The Same Pattern Emerges

If this were an isolated incident, one might attribute it to clerical error. But our investigation uncovered an eerily similar situation from James’ past.

In May 2013, Crain’s New York Business revealed that then-Councilwoman James had failed to disclose rental income from her Brooklyn brownstone – despite collecting “tens of thousands of dollars every year” from tenants.

The four-story Lafayette Avenue property, purchased in 2001 for $550,000, had housed multiple tenants for years. Public records showed renters registering to vote at the address as early as 2001. Yet James’ financial disclosure reports between 2007 and 2011 made no mention of this substantial rental income, despite city laws explicitly requiring elected officials to report such outside income.

When confronted, her spokesperson claimed she was “previously unclear about whether owner-occupied rental income was subject to council disclosure.” After the Crain’s report, James hurriedly filed an amended disclosure – but even this correction understated her actual rental income of $44,400, reporting it instead in the “$5,000-$43,999.99” range.

That same year, another Crain’s investigation discovered James had underreported her campaign spending by 50% during a two-month filing period. “One neutral observer of the race suggested… that Ms. James’ campaign might have left off a number of expenditures from her original filing in order to minimize from public view her already high campaign burn rate,” Crain’s reported.

Recent Brooklyn Property Red Flags

Our February 8th investigation uncovered yet more irregularities with the same Brooklyn property. According to James’ financial disclosures, the property’s value inexplicably surged by approximately 42% between 2021 and 2022, jumping from “$2.25M-$2.5M” to “$3.25M-$3.5M.”

During the exact same period, New York City’s fiscal year assessments recorded a 7.58% decrease in the property’s market value, dropping from $1,055,000 to $975,000.

Her 2022 disclosure revealed a complex web of financing on the Brooklyn property, with three separate mortgages totaling between $825,000 and $1.25 million:

• A Wells Fargo mortgage, originated in 2019, accounts for the lion’s share at $500,000-$750,000
• A $75,000-$100,000 loan from First Savings Bank first appeared on her 2021 disclosure
• A new $150,000-$250,000 mortgage from Citizens Bank was added in 2022
• Another new $100,00 to $150,000 mortgage from CitiBank was added in 2022

The Disturbing Parallels

The parallels between James’ past and present disclosure issues are unmistakable:

The Questions That Haunt

As James pursues others for financial misrepresentations, her own disclosure history raises troubling questions:

1. Why is the only mortgage that appears in Virginia property records (OVM Financial, $109,600) completely absent from all of her financial disclosures?
2. Where did the two mortgages reported in her 2023 disclosure come from, and why don’t they appear in any property records?
3. How could a property generating no income secure mortgages totaling up to $509,600?
4. Why did she sign a document legally attesting the Virginia property would be a second home, while simultaneously reporting it as a rental investment? If she received permission from the lender to convert it to an investment property, why doesn’t that documentation appear in property records?
5. Why has James reported $0 in rental income from her Norfolk property in recent disclosures, despite initially reporting $1,000-$5,000? Given her history of failing to disclose rental income from her Brooklyn property for years until media scrutiny, is this another case of unreported income?
6. How could someone with legal training repeatedly fail to accurately report basic financial information across multiple properties and multiple years?

The Accountability Double Standard

In the Trump case, James argued that accurate financial disclosures form the bedrock of public trust. She told reporters: “No one is above the law” and “we will continue to hold accountable those who violate the law.”

For ordinary citizens, misrepresentations on financial forms can trigger investigations, penalties, and prosecution. Mortgage fraud often involves exactly the patterns we’re seeing: misrepresenting a property’s use (second home vs. investment) or misstating income and debt levels. For more than a decade, James’ disclosure patterns suggest one standard for others and a different one for herself.

The state’s chief legal officer once declared that disclosure laws “enable New Yorkers to trust that their elected officials are serving the public and not themselves.” Now she faces questions about whether her own disclosures merit that trust.

James has yet to respond to questions about these discrepancies. But as her own prosecution of Trump demonstrated, financial disclosure isn’t optional – it’s essential to maintaining the integrity of public office.

Written by,

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.

Sources: Norfolk City property records; NY State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government financial disclosures 2020-2023; Crain’s New York Business reports (2013); Independent title search report (Feb 2025); Comprehensive UCC filing search