The New York judge responsible for imposing a substantial $355 million fine in a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump earlier this month continues to face significant criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.

Aside from imposing the hefty fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also prohibited Trump from engaging in any business activities within the state for a period of three years, while his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, were barred for two years. Additionally, the two sons were individually fined $4 million each after the judge’s ruling last autumn, which found that the Trump Organization consistently engaged in fraudulent practices by manipulating asset values to secure more favorable loans.

During an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg expressed his skepticism towards the ruling, describing it as “extremely dubious” and the imposed penalty as “completely out of proportion.”

“I certainly don’t see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there’s no loss from the bank,” Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.

“The loans were repaid. Now, certainly, you can legally engage in fraud of all kinds if the victim doesn’t lose money, but to impose a penalty of $355 million and to bar him for three years and his sons for two years seems to me to be completely out of proportion to the actual loss here, which was zilch,” he said.

“I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for president?” Wisenberg asked. “Why weren’t these people investigating this alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney’s office in Manhattan, it doesn’t seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he became a controversial political figure.”

“It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose $355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss,” Wisenberg added. “That is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened.”