# FACT-CHECK: Trump's $515 million fine struck down on appeal — what is true, what is not

> In early June 2026, a New York appeals court issued a widely discussed ruling in the civil fraud case between Attorney General Letitia James and Donald Trump and his family. That ruling deserves a precise factual examination, because the narratives circulating in partisan media — on both sides — have distorted what it actually says. A fact-check is in order.

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-06-29
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/fact-check-amende-trump-515-millions-annulee-en-appel-ce-qui-est-vrai-ce-qui-ne-

## Introduction: between partial victory and factual reality

### The June 2026 appellate ruling: what actually changed

In early **June 2026**, a **New York appeals court** issued a widely discussed ruling in the **civil fraud** case between Attorney General **Letitia James** and **Donald Trump** and his family. That ruling deserves a precise factual examination, because the narratives circulating in partisan media — on both sides — have distorted what it actually says. A **fact-check** is in order.

Here are the facts: the appeals court **upheld** the central finding that **Trump** committed fraud by systematically inflating the value of his assets over many years. But it **struck down** the financial penalty of more than **$515 million** imposed by judge **Arthur Engoron**, finding it excessive under the **Eighth Amendment**, which protects against disproportionate fines. The ban on **Trump** and his sons holding officer positions in New York corporations, imposed by judge Engoron, remains in effect for several years.

### What Trump's supporters claim — and what is false

Trump's supporters presented this ruling as a **"total exoneration."** That is factually wrong. The appeals court explicitly **confirmed the fraud**. The word **"innocent"** appears nowhere in the ruling. The conclusion that **Trump** deceived banks and partners by inflating his assets is maintained. What was struck down is only the quantum of the penalty — not the finding of liability.

**Letitia James**'s supporters, for their part, portrayed the ruling as a catastrophe. That is equally overstated. The operating ban remaining in force, the confirmation of fraud, and the possibility that the case returns for a reassessment of the penalty are all elements that maintain judicial pressure on **Trump** and his real estate empire.

*Fact-checking in the Trump era is a particularly difficult exercise, because every camp has its own reality filters. My role here is not to defend either side, but to establish what the judicial texts actually say. And what they say is clear: Trump is an established fraudster. The specific financial penalty was revised. Both things can be true at the same time.*

## The confirmed fraud: facts established by the courts

### What judge Engoron established at trial

In **2023**, trial judge **Arthur Engoron** concluded at the end of a civil trial that **Donald Trump**, the **Trump Organization**, his sons **Donald Trump Jr.** and **Eric Trump**, along with other executives, had systematically inflated the value of their real estate assets in financial statements submitted to banks and insurers. That overvaluation ran, according to the judge's findings, from **57% to 2,300%** depending on the property.

For instance, the **Trump Tower** apartment was valued at nearly **$327 million** in the financial statements, while independent experts estimated its actual value at roughly **$75 million**. **Mar-a-Lago** was valued at up to **$739 million**, while realistic assessments placed it at under **$100 million**. These gaps are not good-faith errors. They are deliberate, systematic falsifications.

### The appeals court confirms these findings

The **appeals court**, in its **June 2026** ruling, did not contest these factual conclusions. It did not find that judge Engoron had been mistaken on the numbers. It found no procedural defect in the presentation of evidence. It simply determined that the financial penalty imposed — more than **$515 million** — was disproportionate under the constitutional protections of the **Eighth Amendment**.

That is a crucial legal distinction: one can be found to have committed fraud and still receive a reduced penalty if that penalty is deemed excessive. These two findings coexist without contradiction. The fact that fraud is confirmed is not annulled by the reduction of the penalty.

*I am sometimes discouraged by the sophistication with which disinformation exploits legal nuance. The appeals court ruling is precise, technical, and perfectly clear. Distorting it into an "exoneration" is a deliberate lie. And that lie, repeated often enough, ends up contaminating public discourse.*

## The Eighth Amendment: protection against excessive fines

### What the Eighth Amendment says

The **Eighth Amendment** of the United States Constitution stipulates that excessive fines may not be imposed. This protection, long interpreted in a criminal context, was extended to civil proceedings by **Supreme Court** case law developed since the 1990s. The question is: how does one measure whether a fine is "excessive"?

The criteria developed by case law include the relationship between the penalty and the actual harm suffered, the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, and the penalties applicable in similar cases. The appeals court determined that the penalty of **$515 million**, calculated on the basis of estimated illicit profits over several years, did not satisfy all these criteria in full.

### Why this ruling is debatable but not absurd

Legal scholars are divided on this ruling. Some argue that the **Eighth Amendment** was not properly applicable in this civil context, and that the appeals court used a criminal constitutional protection to reduce a civil penalty inappropriately. Others maintain that the proportionality principle is legitimate and that the Engoron penalty was indeed outside the usual norms for civil fraud cases in **New York**.

I must honestly admit that I do not have all the elements needed to settle this debate among specialized jurists. What I can say with certainty is that the reduction of the penalty does not constitute moral or legal absolution for the fraudulent acts committed.

*I always distrust overly categorical judgments on complex legal questions. The debate over the applicability of the Eighth Amendment in this civil context is legitimate and serious. What is not legitimate is presenting the penalty reduction as proof of innocence. Those are two entirely different things.*

## The ban on holding positions in New York corporations: maintained

### A significant sanction that remains in force

The appellate ruling maintained the ban on **Trump** and his sons from serving as officers in corporations registered in **New York**. This ban, which applies for **several years** under the terms of the ruling, is a real and significant sanction for a business empire whose architecture is largely centered on the state of **New York**.

The **Trump Organization** is historically a New York company. Its most iconic properties — **Trump Tower**, hotels, golf courses — are located in that state or managed from it. The ban on family executives from sitting on governance boards is a real operational constraint, even if the organization can appoint trusted proxies to formally replace them.

### The practical implications for the Trump empire

In practice, **Trump**'s lawyers have already put in place alternative governance structures to work around the ban without formally violating it. Professional managers have been appointed to certain positions. But effective supervision and control remain in the family's hands, which supporters of Attorney General **Letitia James** denounce as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the ban.

This tension between the letter and the spirit of the ban could give rise to new litigation. New York courts have the power to verify real compliance with their orders, and contempt motions could be filed if substantial violations are established.

*The operating ban is a real sanction. It disrupts the Trump empire. But I must be honest: in the American business world, working around a manager ban while maintaining effective control is not an extraordinary feat. The question is whether New York courts will have the will to verify that the ban is respected in spirit, not just on paper.*

## Judge Engoron and the threats he received

### A magistrate under pressure

Judge **Arthur Engoron**, who presided over the trial at first instance, was subjected to documented threats and intimidation after delivering his ruling. According to a report by **The Independent** published in June 2026, the judge received death threats and required enhanced police protection. These threats originated largely from **Trump** supporters who consider his ruling a political attack.

This situation is deeply troubling for the American rule of law. A federal or state judge must be able to perform their duties without fear for their physical safety. Judicial intimidation is not only a crime against the individuals targeted; it is an attack on the entire judicial institution.

### The degraded judicial environment

Judge **Engoron** is not the only one who was targeted. Attorney General **Letitia James**, District Attorney **Alvin Bragg**, and several members of the judicial staff involved in cases concerning **Trump** have all reported threats, harassment, or unusual political pressure. This pattern constitutes a systemic attack on judicial independence.

The **appeals court** that reduced the penalty acted in this context. If its motivations were purely legal — which I cannot rule out — its decision nevertheless had the effect of partially validating Trump's narrative that the first-instance rulings were excessively punitive. The boundary between law and politics is particularly thin here.

*It is difficult to judge whether the penalty reduction was legally justified without access to the entire dossier. What I do know is that the context of pressure and intimidation surrounding this case bears no resemblance to an ordinary judicial environment. And that should concern everyone who cares about the independence of justice.*

## The parallel fraud cases: what continues

### The anti-weaponization fund proceeding under scrutiny

While the New York civil fraud case followed its appellate course, another case related to **Trump** opened on a different front. In **May 2026**, federal judge **Kathleen M. Williams** in **Miami** reopened a proceeding concerning the **$1.776 billion** settlement between **Trump** and the **IRS**, following a motion by **35 former federal judges** who alleged judicial fraud in that agreement.

This file, distinct from the New York case, raises questions about how the **Trump** administration used the settlement with the **IRS** to create a so-called **"anti-weaponization"** fund that bypasses judicial oversight. Judge **Williams** determined she had the authority to investigate these allegations. It is a significant development showing that the judicial cases concerning **Trump** are evolving on multiple fronts simultaneously.

### Democracy Docket monitors the developments

The **Democracy Docket**, a judicial watchdog organization founded by attorney **Marc Elias**, published several analyses of developments in the cases involving **Trump** and his policies. Its June 2026 reports document notably the **anti-weaponization** fund question and the multiple judicial fronts open against the administration.

Such watchdog organizations play a crucial role in so complex a judicial environment: they provide systematic tracking of proceedings, make decisions comprehensible to the general public, and maintain informational pressure on judicial developments that would otherwise remain buried in court archives.

*The multiplicity of judicial fronts surrounding Trump is both a strength and a weakness for those seeking to establish accountability. A strength because each proceeding advances independently. A weakness because the dispersion makes it hard for the public to follow the whole. It is a judicial landscape I follow closely, trying not to get lost in the details.*

## The New York Supreme Court between politics and law

### A judicial system under political scrutiny

New York's state judicial system is partially elective: certain judges are elected through party mechanisms that can create appearances of partiality. Trump's lawyers used this argument to try to discredit the proceedings conducted before New York courts, contending that the judges were motivated by partisan hostility toward him.

Judge **Engoron** in particular was portrayed as a partisan judge with punitive intent. The reduction of his penalty by the appeals court was interpreted by some commentators as a validation of this criticism. But that interpretation confuses two things: the legitimacy of factual findings (fraud is confirmed) and the appropriate quantum of sanction (which is open to debate).

### The limits of the judicialization of politics

It is inevitable that cases involving a sitting or former president carry a political dimension. What is problematic is when that political dimension leads people to disqualify legitimate judicial proceedings in the public mind. The confusion between "politically motivated" and "legally invalid" is a dangerous rhetorical manipulation.

Judge **Engoron**'s conclusions on **Trump**'s fraud are grounded in **documentary evidence**, appraisal expert testimony, and sworn statements. They survived appellate scrutiny. They are not political opinions. They are established legal facts.

*I fight against the tendency to reduce every judicial verdict involving Trump to a question of partisan politics. The documented facts of fraud in this case are real, verifiable, and confirmed by an appellate court. To minimize them is a form of denial that harms collective understanding of what is truly happening in American courtrooms.*

## The Eighth Amendment as a shield for powerful fraudsters

### A constitutional protection diverted from its purpose

The **Eighth Amendment** was adopted in **1791** to protect the accused — especially the poorest and most vulnerable — against cruel punishments and extravagant fines imposed arbitrarily by an abusive state. Using it to reduce the penalty imposed on a billionaire found guilty of fraud is a historical irony that has not been lost on several constitutional scholars.

Some law professors have published critiques of the New York appeals court ruling, arguing that extending the excessive fines clause to a context of large-scale commercial fraud misreads the nature and historical purposes of that protection. These critiques are not political arguments — they are legal positions grounded in American constitutional history.

### The implications for future corporate fraud cases

If the New York appeals court ruling sets a precedent, it could have significant implications for future corporate fraud prosecutions in **New York**: defendants with sufficient resources could systematically invoke the **Eighth Amendment** to challenge substantial penalties imposed by trial courts.

That potential precedent concerns state prosecutors who rely on significant penalties to deter large-scale corporate fraud. Case law that systematically reduces major fines in the name of constitutional proportionality would weaken the deterrent effect of such prosecutions.

*That the Eighth Amendment — designed to protect the destitute against state abuses — is being used to shield a billionaire fraudster's fortune is a bitter irony. It does not invalidate the appeals court's legal reasoning, but it deserves to be named. The history of law is full of constitutional protections diverted from their purpose by the powerful.*

## What the ruling actually says: a factual recap

### The elements confirmed by the appeals court

To be perfectly clear, here is what the **New York** appeals court **confirmed** in June 2026: first, **Donald Trump** committed fraud by inflating his assets. Second, his sons **Donald Trump Jr.** and **Eric Trump** are also found to have committed fraud. Third, the ban on holding officer positions in New York corporations remains in effect for the defendants. None of these elements are annulled or contested by the appellate ruling.

What the appeals court **modified**: the quantum of the financial penalty, deemed excessive under the **Eighth Amendment**. The exact amount of the new penalty will have to be determined upon remand to a competent court. This is not a victory for **Trump**. It is a penalty reduction in a confirmed fraud case.

### The elements that remain uncertain

What we do not yet know: what penalty amount will ultimately be imposed at remand. Whether Attorney General **Letitia James** will appeal the reduction ruling, and whether the **New York Court of Appeals** is competent to set a new amount itself or must remand to a lower court. These uncertainties are real and legitimate.

What I can say with certainty is that supporters of both camps who presented this ruling as a total victory or a total defeat were wrong. Reality is more nuanced, and that nuance deserves respect.

*Fact-checking reminds me that truth does not belong to any camp. It belongs to the facts. And the facts, in this case, are at once simple and complex: Trump is a confirmed fraudster. His penalty was reduced. Both realities coexist. Accepting this complexity is the minimum condition for honest reporting.*

## New York real estate fraud: historical context

### New York and the culture of inflated valuations

New York real estate has a long history of creative practices in the area of valuation. Industry actors know that developers and investors sometimes overvalue their assets to obtain better financing or more favorable insurance terms. This cultural context led some of **Trump**'s defenders to minimize his acts, portraying his practices as normal in the industry.

But a crucial difference exists between the optimistic common practices in the real estate industry and the fraud documented in this case. **Trump**'s overvaluations — reaching up to **2,300%** — do not reflect reasonable optimism. They constitute deliberate and systematic falsifications on a scale that far exceeds sector norms.

### Banks and insurers as victims

The documented fraud primarily targeted **banks** and **insurers** that extended financing and coverage based on falsified statements. Whether these institutions actually suffered significant losses — or whether they were sufficiently diligent in their own due diligence — was debated at trial.

Judge **Engoron** concluded that the fraud was real and substantial, regardless of whether the victims were sufficiently vigilant. This principle is fundamental in fraud law: the fact that a victim could have detected the deception does not relieve the fraudster of responsibility.

*The argument that the banks should have done more thorough due diligence is a classic defense in fraud cases. I do not find it convincing. The fraudster's responsibility does not diminish because the victim was not perfectly vigilant. That would reverse the elementary logic of liability.*

## Implications for the future of prosecutions against Trump and his circle

### A constantly evolving judicial landscape

The New York appeals court ruling in the civil fraud case fits into an extremely complex judicial landscape where dozens of proceedings are simultaneously underway. Federal cases, state cases, civil actions, and criminal proceedings intersect, each with its own rules, its own timelines, its own stakes.

In this context, the penalty reduction in the civil fraud case is a tactical victory for **Trump**. But it does not close the judicial chapter that has been open since his return to power. The fronts are numerous, and the outcome of each one remains uncertain.

### The stakes of precedent for state justice

The capacity of states to prosecute fraud committed by national political figures is a major constitutional issue. The New York appeals court ruling, whatever its legal merits, will affect how state prosecutors approach future cases involving powerful political actors. These effects are not yet fully measurable, but they are real and lasting.

What Attorney General **Letitia James** has established — proof of systematic large-scale fraud — remains in judicial archives. The penalty reduction does not erase those archives. They constitute a historical record of what the **Trump Organization** was under the direction of **Donald Trump**.

*I think about what this means for the long view of history. Fifty years from now, when historians look back on this period, they will find in judicial archives confirmed proof that the 45th and 47th President of the United States was a fraudster. That reality will not change, whatever the outcome of the penalty appeals.*

## The Engoron case in the broader context of American democracy

### Trump and the weakening of institutions

The New York civil fraud case perfectly illustrates the tensions that define **America in 2026**: institutions that function, but under extraordinary pressure. Judges subjected to threats, prosecutors who carry on despite political attacks, appeals courts resolving constitutional questions in an environment of hyperpolarization.

These tensions weaken public confidence in judicial institutions. When court decisions are systematically presented as partisan victories or defeats rather than applications of the law, the legitimacy of the justice system erodes. That erosion is a far graver danger to American democracy than any individual court ruling.

### The responsibility of media in judicial disinformation

Part of the responsibility for distorting judicial realities falls on **media outlets** — partisan and mainstream alike. Sensationalism, excessive oversimplification, presenting court decisions as sports scores have all contributed to vulgarizing justice by emptying it of substance. A **fact-check** like this one can only partially offset that systemic disinformation.

What I can do, as a columnist, is insist on the facts, distinguish what is confirmed from what is uncertain, and refuse misleading simplifications regardless of their source. That is not enough. But it is necessary.

*Judicial disinformation is one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation because it directly attacks trust in the mechanisms societies use to resolve conflicts. When people stop believing in justice, they look for other ways to settle their disputes. And those other ways are rarely peaceful.*

## Final fact-check summary: true, false, uncertain

### What is TRUE

**TRUE**: The New York appeals court confirmed that **Trump** committed fraud. **TRUE**: The penalty of more than **$515 million** was struck down by the appeals court. **TRUE**: The ban on holding officer positions in New York corporations remains in force. **TRUE**: Judge **Engoron** received documented threats. **TRUE**: The appeals court ruling raises legitimate constitutional law questions about the application of the **Eighth Amendment**.

**FALSE**: That the ruling constitutes an exoneration of Trump. **FALSE**: That the fraud finding was overturned on appeal. **FALSE**: That the ruling is a total victory for prosecutor **James**. **FALSE**: That this case is closed. The proceedings continue, and a new penalty must be set.

### What remains UNCERTAIN

**UNCERTAIN**: The final penalty amount that will be imposed on **Trump**. **UNCERTAIN**: Whether Attorney General **James** will appeal or seek review. **UNCERTAIN**: Whether the operating ban will actually be respected in spirit. **UNCERTAIN**: Whether other proceedings related to **Trump Organization** fraud will result in additional sanctions.

That is what judicial reality says about this case. Not a total victory for Trump, not a total defeat for his prosecutors. A complex, nuanced reality, still in motion — and one that citizens deserve to hear as it actually is.

*The fact-check is an act of humility as much as an act of authority. It acknowledges that truth does not belong to any camp, that it is sometimes uncomfortable for everyone, and that it deserves to be spoken even when it unsettles our certainties. That is why I do this work, and why I will continue to do it, article after article, ruling after ruling.*

## Lessons for the democracies watching America

### What Europe and the West take away from this case

From **Paris**, **Berlin**, **London**, or **Kyiv**, **Trump**'s civil fraud case is followed with particular attention. For the democracies allied with the **United States**, the fundamental question is: does American democracy hold its leaders accountable for their actions? The partial answer of the **New York appeals court** — yes to fraud, no to the full penalty — is not the answer allies were hoping for. But it is better than complete denial.

In **Ukraine**, where **Zelensky** leads a country resisting Russian aggression by fighting for democratic principles, the question of the integrity of American institutions is anything but abstract. An **America** capable of holding its fraudulent leaders accountable is a **credible America**. An **America** that leaves fraud unpunished without real consequence weakens the democratic model that **Putin** and his allies have every interest in seeing discredited.

### A precedent for fragile democracies

In democracies going through their own **governance crises**, the American example matters. If a president found guilty of fraud can reduce his penalty through constitutional appeals, corrupt leaders in other countries will take note. The precedent can travel far beyond **New York**.

That is why the final outcome of **Trump**'s civil fraud case is not merely an American question. It is a signal sent to the entire world about the **resilience of democratic institutions** in the face of power. That signal, in this month of **June 2026**, is ambiguous. But it is not yet definitive.

*I think of those Ukrainian, Hungarian, and Polish democrats who look at the **United States** and ask whether their model still holds. The answer this case sends them is: **"partially."** That is not satisfying. But it is the truth I deliver honestly.*

## Conclusion: fraud confirmed, penalty reduced — but the story is not over

### What history will remember about this ruling

In the years and decades to come, the **New York appeals court** ruling of June 2026 will be cited as a particular moment in **Donald Trump**'s judicial saga: a moment when justice confirmed the fraud but lightened the sanction. This apparent paradox — guilty but penalty reduced — is in reality consistent with legal logic: standards of proof and standards of sanction are distinct and apply independently.

What no one will be able to erase is the fraud finding itself. In the archives, in the precedents, in American judicial memory, it is established that **Donald Trump** and the **Trump Organization** falsified financial documents to deceive banks and insurers. That reality survives all appeals on the penalty.

### The message for democracy

For American democracy, this case sends an ambiguous message: the institutions work — a **trial** took place, findings of **fraud** were made, sanctions were imposed and partly maintained. But they work imperfectly, in a context of **political pressures**, **judicial intimidation**, and a polarization that makes it difficult to distinguish law from politics.

The task of citizens — and columnists — is to keep that distinction alive, to keep politics from swallowing justice, and to insist on the facts even when they are inconvenient. It is a work **without end**. But it is the **right work**.

*This fact-check concludes on one certainty: truth does not disappear in appeals, counter-appeals, and procedural maneuvers. **Trump** is a **confirmed fraudster**, found so by an **appeals court**. His penalty was reduced. Both facts coexist. And I deliver them to history as they are.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Ground News — New York appeals court strikes down $515 million fine in Trump case — June 2026](https://ground.news/article/435d0728-f617-4c0f-8704-a362c0f0175d)

- [Democracy Docket — Judge probes alleged court fraud to create $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund — June 2026](https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/judge-probes-whether-trump-defrauded-the-court-to-create-1-8-billion-anti-weaponization-fund/)

- [The Independent — Judge Engoron under threats after the Trump fraud verdict — June 2026](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/arthur-engoron-trump-fraud-threats-b2997970.html)

### Secondary sources

- [Washington Times — Trump demands dismissal of all New York cases — June 2, 2026](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/2/donald-trump-demands-new-york-civil-criminal-cases-dismissed/)

- [Colorado Politics — District court judges and appellate pressure — June 22, 2026](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/22/district-court-judges-weighing-trump-policies-face-repeated-slap-downs-by-appeals-courts/)

- [Ground News — The Supreme Court and political appointments — June 2026](https://ground.news/article/supreme-court-seems-inclined-to-keep-lisa-cook-on-fed-board-despite-trump-attempt-to-fire-her_0e8dae)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/fact-check-amende-trump-515-millions-annulee-en-appel-ce-qui-est-vrai-ce-qui-ne-