Running Interference: How The Real Deal Shields NY Attorney General Letitia James from Financial Disclosure Scrutiny

The Real Deal recently published an article by Erik Engquist titled “How the city’s wacky property taxes confuse even fraudsters,” which fundamentally misrepresented my investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James’ financial disclosures. Instead of examining the documented pattern of financial disclosure inconsistencies I uncovered, The Real Deal chose to run interference for a powerful public official by attacking my character and distorting my findings.

What’s particularly concerning is how the publication abandoned basic journalistic standards to shield a high-ranking government official from legitimate scrutiny. Rather than engaging with the serious documentation and evidence I presented, the article attempts to deflect by focusing solely on the complexities of New York City’s property tax system while dismissing my findings through personal attacks – a tactic that serves to protect public officials from accountability rather than to inform the public.

Correcting the Record: How The Real Deal Deflects Legitimate Scrutiny

Erik Engquist’s article in The Real Deal, published on March 3, 2025, claims:

“Antar was suggesting she should have paid more taxes — a topic he knows well, having been convicted of a felony for his role in his cousin Eddie Antar’s famously tax-cheating electronics business.”

Let me be absolutely clear: Nowhere in my reporting did I suggest James should have paid more taxes. My investigation focused exclusively on transparency and adherence to financial disclosure laws—laws she is obligated to follow as Attorney General and has used to prosecute others. This deliberate misrepresentation by The Real Deal is a classic interference tactic: create a straw man argument, then attack the messenger’s credibility to avoid addressing documented evidence.

Engquist further wrote:

“But even accountants can be confused by New York City’s property tax system, in which a property’s ‘market value’ and assessed value can move in opposite directions, and neither one in line with the real-world value change.”

This assertion deliberately mischaracterizes my investigation and serves as another example of deflection to shield a public official. I never said a word about James needing to pay more taxes, nor was my investigation related to tax assessments in any way. By focusing on NYC’s tax system, The Real Deal creates a smokescreen to divert attention from serious disclosure violations.

Far from being confused by NYC’s property tax system, my analysis explicitly acknowledges the differences between market values and assessed values. I specifically addressed this issue in my public comments, noting: “in NYC, the market value used for property tax purposes differs from the market value for sales, but they generally follow similar trends.”

While NYC’s property tax system can create valuation complexities, a 42% self-reported value increase contradicts not just the city’s 7.58% assessment decrease, but also defies standard real estate market trends during that period. This isn’t a tax assessment issue—it’s a fundamental reporting inconsistency that demands explanation.

The article reduces my comprehensive investigation to a single point about property values moving in opposite directions, when my actual work examined a pattern of concerning discrepancies across multiple properties and years.

My investigation centered solely on James’ repeated failure to disclose mortgages, rental income, and inconsistencies in self-reported property values—violations of financial disclosure laws that have nothing to do with NYC’s tax structure. These are the same types of financial disclosure issues that AG James has aggressively prosecuted others for.

Another misleading statement from the article:

“I believe townhomes in gentrified neighborhoods would rise, delivering a one-time hit to their real-world values, while in non-gentrified areas, taxes could fall, giving values a boost.”

This irrelevant tangent about hypothetical tax reform effects completely sidesteps the actual issues I raised: undisclosed mortgages, phantom loans that don’t appear in property records, and a documented pattern of financial disclosure violations. The tax assessment system—flawed as it may be—has absolutely nothing to do with James’ failure to disclose her actual financial obligations accurately.

The Real Issues My Investigation Uncovered

My research revealed a troubling pattern of financial disclosure issues spanning more than a decade across two separate properties owned by AG James. Here are the facts:

Property #1: The Norfolk, Virginia Investment Property Discrepancies

In August 2020, AG James purchased a property at 3121 Peronne Avenue in Norfolk, Virginia for $137,000. According to official Norfolk property records (which I’ve made publicly available), the only mortgage that appears is a $109,600 loan from OVM Financial. This loan includes a “Second Home Rider,” a legal document in which James explicitly attested under penalty of law that the property would be used as a second residence, not primarily as an investment.

Yet her sworn financial disclosures tell a completely different story:

• Contradictory Property Use: She consistently reported the Norfolk property as an “investment” property in all financial disclosures from 2020-2023, directly contradicting her mortgage attestation
• Missing Documented Mortgage: She never disclosed the OVM Financial mortgage that actually appears in property records—a clear violation of disclosure requirements
• Phantom Mortgages Appear: In her 2023 disclosure, she suddenly claimed the Virginia property carried two entirely different mortgages (Freedom Mortgage $150K-$250K and National Mortgage $100K-$150K) that appear nowhere in public records
• Implausible Financing: She provided no explanation for how a Virginia property she valued at only $100K-$150K could secure mortgages totaling up to $509.6K—a loan-to-value ratio that defies standard lending practices
• Vanishing Income: She initially reported $1K-$5K in rental income (2020) from the Norfolk property, then inexplicably reported $0 income (2023) despite continuing to claim it’s an income-producing investment property

To verify these findings, I commissioned an independent title search in February 2025, which conclusively confirmed the OVM mortgage as the only loan of record on the Norfolk property, with no evidence whatsoever of the two mysterious mortgages she reported in her 2023 disclosure.

Property #2: The Brooklyn Brownstone Disclosure Issues

This isn’t an isolated incident. AG James owns a second property—a four-story brownstone on Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn that she purchased in 2001. In 2013, Crain’s New York Business revealed that then-Councilwoman James had failed to disclose rental income from this Brooklyn brownstone for years, despite collecting “tens of thousands of dollars annually” from tenants.

The Crain’s article stated:

“Brooklyn Councilwoman Letitia James collects tens of thousands of dollars every year in rent from tenants of a four-story brownstone in Fort Greene that she owns, but has failed to report that income to the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board.”

When confronted, James claimed she was “previously unclear about whether owner-occupied rental income was subject to council disclosure” – a curious claim from an attorney with clear legal obligations to understand disclosure requirements.

My recent investigation also found troubling valuation issues with this 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.

Another Crain’s investigation uncovered that James had underreported her campaign spending by 50%, amending her filings only after media exposure. That article noted:

“Recently updated records show that Ms. James had previously only reported half of her spending during the campaign finance filing period that ended in mid-March.”

The article continued with a telling observation:

“One neutral observer of the race suggested to The Insider 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.”

These earlier investigations establish a troubling pattern of financial disclosure issues that spans more than a decade and involves multiple properties.

Summary of Key Disclosure Issues: The Pattern Media Organizations Help Conceal

What transforms these discrepancies from potential isolated errors to a serious pattern of misconduct is the remarkable consistency across time and properties. What’s equally concerning is how publications like The Real Deal ran interference when such patterns are exposed, choosing to shield powerful officials from legitimate scrutiny rather than investigating these documented inconsistencies.

From the 2013 Crain’s investigation revealing undisclosed Brooklyn rental income to the 2024-2025 discoveries of Norfolk property mortgage and valuation inconsistencies, we see a persistent approach: underreporting income, mischaracterizing property usage, and creating financial narratives that diverge significantly from official records. This pattern has persisted in part because media gatekeepers often act as barriers to accountability rather than as vehicles for it.

This isn’t a series of mistakes, but appears to be a systematic approach to financial disclosure that consistently minimizes transparency. Each instance follows a similar pattern: initial non-disclosure, complexity-based deflection when challenged, and eventual partial or reluctant amendment only after media scrutiny.

The remarkable similarity of these disclosure issues across different properties and different periods suggests these are not random errors, but a deliberate methodology of financial reporting.

Why This Matters: Double Standards in Law Enforcement

The significance of these disclosures extends far beyond technical reporting requirements:

1. Legal Enforcement Integrity: As Attorney General, James has aggressively prosecuted individuals for similar financial misrepresentations, securing a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump specifically for allegedly misleading financial statements about property values and liabilities. In announcing that judgment, James herself stated: “The scale and scope of Donald Trump’s fraud is staggering. For years, he falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system.” The striking parallels between those allegations and James’ own disclosure issues cannot be ignored. The public deserves to know if the state’s top legal officer holds herself to the same standards she enforces on others.
2. Transparency and Trust: Financial disclosure laws exist to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure public officials act in the public’s interest rather than their own. These laws are not optional or mere technicalities—they are fundamental safeguards of governmental integrity. When these disclosures contain unexplained contradictions from the very official responsible for enforcing transparency laws, it fundamentally undermines public trust.
3. Accountability: The Attorney General’s office wields tremendous power to investigate, prosecute, and penalize individuals for financial misrepresentations. Financial transparency is a critical check on that power. Without it, the public cannot know whether enforcement actions are being applied evenly or selectively.
4. Pattern of Behavior: What makes these findings particularly troubling is that they reveal not isolated mistakes but a pattern of disclosure issues spanning more than a decade and involving multiple properties. This suggests either a systematic disregard for disclosure requirements or a deliberate attempt to obscure financial information from public view.

The Real Deal’s Journalistic Failure: Attacking the Messenger to Shield the Powerful

Instead of engaging with these meticulously documented discrepancies, Erik Engquist at The Real Deal chose to focus on my past legal issues rather than addressing the substance of my findings. This approach reflects a disturbing pattern in modern journalism: using personal attacks to shield powerful public officials from legitimate scrutiny.

A legitimate question must be asked: Why would a large media organization like The Real Deal go out of its way to attack an independent investigator while running interference for a powerful public official? What happens to public accountability when major publications position themselves as protectors of high-ranking officials rather than as watchdogs serving the public interest?

The article’s systematic interference includes:

• Ad Hominem Attacks: Attempting to discredit my findings by referencing my past rather than evaluating the evidence presented
• Deliberate Mischaracterization: Falsely framing my investigation as being about tax payments rather than financial disclosure violations
• No Request for Comment: They never contacted me for comment before publication, a basic journalistic standard
• Paywall Barrier: They placed their misleading article behind a paywall, limiting public access while shielding their reporting from broader scrutiny
• Zero Independent Investigation: They failed to conduct even minimal due diligence into the documented inconsistencies in James’ financial disclosures
• False Equivalence: The article implied that understanding NYC’s complex tax assessment system is somehow equivalent to explaining away clear contradictions in sworn financial disclosures

I only discovered their article through a routine Google search—an approach that falls far short of basic journalistic ethics. The Real Deal appears to have positioned itself not as an independent journalistic entity but as a protective barrier between a powerful official and legitimate public scrutiny.

The Questions That Demand Answers

The documented discrepancies in Attorney General James’ financial disclosures raise several critical questions that deserve substantive answers:

1. Why did AG James never disclose the OVM Financial mortgage that actually appears in public records for her Norfolk, VA property?
2. How did she obtain mortgages allegedly totaling up to $509,600 on the Norfolk property she valued at no more than $150,000?
3. Why do the Freedom Mortgage and National Mortgage loans reported in her 2023 disclosure for the Norfolk property not appear in any public records?
4. Why did she sign a Second Home Rider legally attesting the Virginia property would be a residence, while simultaneously reporting it as an investment property?
5. How does an “investment” property in Norfolk generating no income justify carrying up to $509,600 in debt?
6. What explains the 42% valuation jump for her Brooklyn brownstone between 2021-2022, when city assessments show a decline?
7. Why has this pattern of disclosure issues persisted for over a decade across multiple properties?

Moving Forward: A Call for Journalistic Integrity Over Political Protection

The documented discrepancies in Letitia James’ financial disclosures represent potentially serious violations of laws she is sworn to uphold. These issues deserve thorough investigation by media organizations committed to holding the powerful accountable—not protection through deflection and personal attacks.

As Attorney General James herself said when announcing her case against Donald Trump: “No one is above the law” and “the rule of law must apply equally to everyone.” These principles must apply to the Attorney General herself—without media organizations running interference to shield her from the same scrutiny she applies to others.

Rather than attempting to discredit the messenger through personal attacks, The Real Deal and other media organizations should be investigating these issues as matters of significant public interest. When publications position themselves as defenders of powerful officials rather than as independent truth-seekers, they undermine the very foundation of journalistic purpose.

The integrity of our financial disclosure systems depends on consistent enforcement—regardless of who may be involved. And the integrity of our media depends on their willingness to apply the same standards of scrutiny to all public officials, even those they might prefer to protect.

Written by:

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.

Sources: Norfolk City property records for 3121 Peronne Avenue (2020-2025); NYC property records for 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn; NY State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government financial disclosures (2020-2023); Crain’s New York Business reports (2013); Independent title search report (February 2025); Comprehensive UCC filing search (March 2025); OVM Financial mortgage documentation (August 2020)