A panel of five judges in New York reviewed arguments regarding former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a ‘civil fraud’ case brought by state Attorney General Letitia James on Wednesday and expressed a healthy dose of skepticism.

During the review, some of the judges questioned key elements of the state’s case and voiced concerns about the application of a consumer fraud statute, the extent of the financial penalties sought by prosecutors, and the confidentiality of the transactions in question.

The questions reflected key arguments from the defense, which, while not successful in the initial trial, appear to carry significant weight. Notably, Trump was absent from Thursday’s hearing.

The appeals judges carefully reviewed the reasoning behind the $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump while questioning the basis for such a significant penalty. They also sought clarification on the actual harm caused, which is particularly important considering that the transactions in question reportedly did not result in any financial loss for either party.

In February, Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay over $454 million in penalties and interest, ruling that he had inflated his net worth to obtain more favorable terms from lenders and insurers.

The appeals judges rigorously questioned New York Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale about various facets of the case against Trump. They expressed skepticism regarding the scope of James’s authority, the lack of clear victims from the alleged conduct, and the scale of the penalty.

At least two judges were notably critical, interrupting Vale’s opening statement to inquire whether there were precedents for using a law designed to protect market integrity in lawsuits involving private transactions between sophisticated parties.

Justice Peter Moulton expressed his concern during the proceedings, asking, “The immense penalty, in this case, is troubling. How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?” according to the Daily Mail.

Vale countered, stating, “Although this is a large number, it’s a large number for a couple of reasons. One, because there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”

Justice David Friedman asked Vale whether there was any precedent for the attorney general pursuing legal action over transactions between sophisticated parties when neither side “lost any money.” He added: “Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace. … We don’t have anything like that here.”

Attorney D. John Sauer, who earlier this year successfully argued Trump’s presidential immunity appeal before the Supreme Court, was also in the courtroom. “We have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints. How is there a capacity or tendency to deceive when you have these clear disclaimers?” Sauer said, according to ABC News.

He further argued that the lawsuit was filed too late and that imposing a “crippling financial penalty” on the former president for his decades-old financial statements, which Engoron deemed illegally inflated, would be unjust.

“This case involves a clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations and relevant case law,” Sauer contended.