Well, given what federal judges do nowadays, it’s hard to say. But a corporation is a separate legal entity, and absent some sort of “pay my corporation instead of me” agreement or “wink and nod”, Trump isn’t receiving payment, the corporation is.

A closer Emoluments Clause case, I would think, would be Obama’s campaign acting with willful blindness towards foreign contributions via credit cards.

This argument came up in an earlier comments discussion:

https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/11/trumps-business-interests-emoluments-clause/#comments

As I said then, “it was done through our corporation” is primarily a defense against liability claims, not applicable here, and would be unlikely to save a payment from emoluments status if it clearly qualified otherwise.

However, the plaintiffs still seem to me to be overreaching when they claim that market-rate transactions such as hotel room rentals at prevailing rates qualify as emoluments, especially absent evidence of wrongful intent. Otherwise the clause could be interpreted as coming into play when the President and his family, say, venture to sell inherited family furniture or land at auction. Apparently the latest federal judge did not agree with my view, but it will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.