Manafort Trial

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

12 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

goddamn that's funny

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Also saw pages of Manafort's tax returns from 2010-2014 that asked if he had any financial interest in overseas accounts. Each year, Manafort's return was marked "no." Saw a 2011 email from Manafort to his CPA — asked if he had interest in foreign accounts, Manafort wrote, "NO"

The accountant, Philip Ayliff, testified that he dealt a fair amount with Rick Gates, who helped collect information for Manafort's business and personal tax returns. Ayliff said Gates never told him to hide info from Manafort

Prosecutor read Ayliff a list of names of entities, Ayliff said he understood them to either be clients of Manafort's, or he didn't know what they were — the government contends these entities were controlled by Manafort and were used to conceal profits from his work overseas

When we return, the govt estimated another 30 minutes with Ayliff, and then we'll go to cross-examination by Manafort's lawyers

Edited August 3, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DixonHur 11364]

The tactics the prosecution is using makes me nervous.  Yesterday's testimony seemed to make a great case against Gates, but not so much Manafort.  

We all know the Manafort team wants to throw Gates under the bus, and it seems like the prosecution is helping set up their argument.  

Edited August 3, 2018 by DixonHur

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The tactics the prosecution is using makes me nervous.  Yesterday's testimony seemed to make a great case against Gates, but not so much Manafort.  

We all know the Manafort team wants to throw Gates under the bus, and it seems like the prosecution is helping set up their argument.  

It’s a trap.  

The defense will walk right into it then the prosecution will tiger uppercut it out of the park at the end. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The tactics the prosecution is using makes me nervous.  Yesterday's testimony seemed to make a great case against Gates, but not so much Manafort.  

We all know the Manafort team wants to throw Gates under the bus, and it seems like the prosecution is helping set up their argument.  

What specifically are you referring to?

[Brisketexan 105285]

Does the govt have a forensic accounting expert designated to tie it all together?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

The thing that's a little worrisome to me in this is that the essence or gravamen of tax fraud/evasion is understating income, while the essence or gravamen of bank fraud is overstating either income or assets.  Both of them are also lying your ass off for fun and profit, but there's a little bit of dissonance there.  I could see an exceptionally dumb jury saying "well, which is it, gman"?  I think the federal jury pool tends to eliminate the grotesque morons and limited voir dire keeps either side from getting a dream jury.

I bet the government is glad this stuff isn't piled in with the money laundering.

Edited August 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[woohorn 1131]

Lying about numbers on forms you sign to certify that you are not lying. It doesn't matter what the lie is. The jury can handle it.

[Tuco 5077]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The thing that's a little worrisome to me in this is that the essence or gravamen of tax fraud/evasion is understating income, while the essence or gravamen of bank fraud is overstating either income or assets.  Both of them are also lying your ass off for fun and profit, but there's a little bit of dissonance there.  I could see an exceptionally dumb jury saying "well, which is it, gman"?  I think the federal jury pool tends to eliminate the grotesque morons and limited voir dire keeps either side from getting a dream jury.

I bet the government is glad this stuff isn't piled in with the money laundering.

As I understand it, it's a question of time frames.  When the Russian/Ukrainian money was flowing in, he was evading taxes and funneling business revenue for personal income, without declaring it.  After the Russian/Ukrainian money stopped flowing, he was lying to banks to get loans, so he could still spending money.  I wouldn't imagine that's too difficult of a narrative to explain, but I haven't been directly following the trial.   

[EMAWesome 101]

23 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How is this not going to be an open-and-shut case in proving he hid a tremendous amount of money from the US govt?  He paid for many expenses using foreign accounts that his accountant is saying she never heard of.      Or is he mainly going to fight the obstruction of justice and violating the foreign lobbying law?

Oh it probably is an open and shut case in that regard but that is not what this trial is about.  Mueller is using trial as a bass boat to go fishing for ways to tie this to Trump.  He doesn't give a shit about what Manafort did before 2015.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/

 

Paul Manafort‘s third day on trial over charges of bank fraud and tax evasion was cut a bit short on Thursday after government attorneys made the same mistake twice in a row.

The last witness called to the stand was J. Philip Ayliff, a certified public accountant (CPA) at Paul Manafort’s long-serving tax-preparation agency, Kositzka, Wicks and Co. (KWC), of Richmond, Virginia. As time inched along during the last witness’s testimony, nothing of particular interest seemed to be occurring at all.

Ayliff was mostly providing foundational testimony regarding the basic functions of a tax-preparation company. Prosecutors then moved on to specifics and attempted to “publish” one of Manafort’s e-file forms. Judge T.S. Ellis III‘s weariness all but amazed the courtroom as he denied the request–complete with an actual and pronounced finger-wag–before shouting:

No! You move it along!

(It probably hadn’t helped matters that court had just minutes ago returned from a lengthy recess due to the prosecution calling Ayliff out of the witness order provided to both the court and the defense. But as Judge Ellis noted yesterday, he has “a long memory.”)

Composing themselves again, the prosecution moved slowly forward before asking Ayliff to define the term “financial interest.” Ayliff began to answer the question but was immediately cut off by Ellis who noted that Ayliff was not a noticed expert. The defense then belatedly objected, prompting a quick and sarcastic dressing-down from the judge–but it was again the prosecution’s turn for scorn.

Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms.

Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early.

After the jury left, Ellis took a few minutes to tell the press and public all about the bench conference. As it turns out, not only was Ayliff a non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony, but the prosecution and defense had already agreed on what the term “financial interest” meant. Moreover, this agreement was provided on a proposed–and approved–jury instruction.

That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.

[Gap03 3310]

I was following the Washington Post's summary of the trial as it's going down, and if the bolded part is accurate, I find it a bit disconcerting:

Quote

During a break, Paul Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing offered a bit of Manafort’s defense on charges of failure to report foreign banks accounts. Essentially, he argued that if Manafort had known he was doing something illegal, he wouldn’t have been so easy to catch.

“Nobody intending to violate the law would leave the evidence around for his accountant to find it,” Downing said in court.

Judge T.S. Ellis III made the same point, summarizing the defense as, “There’s a trail in these documents that would lead to the truth, and somebody who violated the law wouldn’t have done that.”

Is it just me, or does the fact that Judge Ellis is summarizing the defense this way seem to legitimize it as a viable defense?  As we've seen all too frequently these days, the "nobody would really be that stupid" argument should seem to hold very little water with Trump and his followers these days.

[Mdhorn 5985]

22 hours ago, triplehorn said:

more from courthouse brandi:

 

"Building on the prosecution’s theory that it was Manafort who approved finances, Washkuhn recounted an email chain she shared with Gates.

In March 2016, Gates emailed her saying “Paul wants to add accrual information [to a profit & loss sheet]. Can you resubmit [the sheet] as a Microsoft Word document since the PDF sent is crooked?” Gates told her he wished to send the updated info to a loan offcr at Bank of CA

Washkuhn told him NKSFB couldn’t send him the Word document because it wasn’t company policy. She offered instead to rescan the document but Gates kept at it. “I’m confused, why can’t you send? Your scanner doesn’t work,” Gates wrote.

She offered to send a hardcopy but Gates declined the offer. “Poor system. If it creates electronic records it should be able to print,” he wrote. Finally he asked her if she could add a $2.6 million accrual to Davis Manafort Parnters International for 2015.

“I told him I couldn’t add it that way since we go by cash accrual only,” Washkuhn told prosecutors. Raising his ire for a third time, Gates shot back an email to the accountant. “So, none of your corporate clients have accrued income. Doesn’t make sense,” he wrote.

Now, I'm not an attorney, but it seems pretty obvious to me - why would Gates want a word doc? Cus you can alter them. If you were so inclined."

you can alter pdfs pretty easily too...just not as easily as a word doc.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Dahobbs 17673]

13 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I was following the Washington Post's summary of the trial as it's going down, and if the bolded part is accurate, I find it a bit disconcerting:

Is it just me, or does the fact that Judge Ellis is summarizing the defense this way seem to legitimize it as a viable defense?  As we've seen all too frequently these days, the "nobody would really be that stupid" argument should seem to hold very little water with Trump and his followers these days.

What do you mean? It sounds like he was just summarizing what he understood the argument to be. This was apparently on a break, so it's not like the judge was saying it in front of the jury. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I am skeptical wapo’s accounting of Ellis’s statement is correct.  Lacks context or nuance we can’t tell in text form.  Judges don’t say that.  

[Mdhorn 5985]

15 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I was following the Washington Post's summary of the trial as it's going down, and if the bolded part is accurate, I find it a bit disconcerting:

Is it just me, or does the fact that Judge Ellis is summarizing the defense this way seem to legitimize it as a viable defense?  As we've seen all too frequently these days, the "nobody would really be that stupid" argument should seem to hold very little water with Trump and his followers these days.

Prisons are literally full of idiots that did stupid stuff with the belief they'd get away with it.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

cont'd) The CPA had docs from a bookkeeper that referred to overseas entities. Manafort's lawyers are looking to argue that if Manafort knew his CPA had these docs and could theoretically give them to the IRS, that doesn't square with the allegation he was trying to hide them

But that's for a later time. Back to the CPA, Philip Ayliff: He testified about an email from Manafort asking him to tell a bank (UBS) that a 5th Ave. apt Manafort owned was being used as a personal residence. But the CPA said it wasn't, and that he wouldn't tell UBS that it was

The CPA explained that Manafort had claimed a business deduction for that apartment, and it was the CPA's understanding that it was being rented for use by Manafort's business (it was rented to one Manafort business by another Manafort entity that owned the apt.)

We also heard testimony from the CPA about emails that indicated another property owned by Manafort, on Howard St. in NY, was being used as a rental property in 2015 — prosecutors allege Manafort falsely told a bank when he was applying for a mortgage that it was not a rental

After the jury left for lunch, we heard from the govt about a potential upcoming issue — when Manafort responded to govt subpoenas for records of Cypriot accounts, he incl. a statement from his lawyer saying they were the records of Manafort's company, *not* Rick Gates

The govt plans to introduce the statement — Gates is a big part of this trial — with the name of Manafort's lawyer, Kevin Downing, anonymized. Prosecutor said they're trying to work this out, but there's a possible issue of conflict because of Downing's role as Manafort's lawyer

The big takeaway from the CPA's testimony today is that the emails we saw appeared to show that Manafort asked his CPA to provide info to a bank that the CPA believed was false. Recall that Manafort is charged with bank fraud. After lunch, Manafort's lawyers will question the CPA

The questioning this a.m. was fast-paced and dense — a lot of numbers being put out there along with descriptions of accounting terms. The jury appears to be paying attention (that is, I haven't seen anyone nodding off.) We haven't heard how many more witnesses to expect today

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What do you mean? It sounds like he was just summarizing what he understood the argument to be. This was apparently on a break, so it's not like the judge was saying it in front of the jury. 

Ah. I’m rereading, that is it.   I missed the part where it says he was summarizing the defense.  Those aren’t the judges thoughts. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

13 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I was following the Washington Post's summary of the trial as it's going down, and if the bolded part is accurate, I find it a bit disconcerting:

Is it just me, or does the fact that Judge Ellis is summarizing the defense this way seem to legitimize it as a viable defense?  As we've seen all too frequently these days, the "nobody would really be that stupid" argument should seem to hold very little water with Trump and his followers these days.

That does not appear to be before the jury, it's just the judge's observation.  But in criminal court, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the crime in question requires a knowing, willful, or even intentional (depends how intentional is construed in the context of that particular statute) violation, yes, it is a valid defense to assert stupidity or negligence.

[jimmyjazz 46109]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That does not appear to be before the jury, it's just the judge's observation.  But in criminal court, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the crime in question requires a knowing, willful, or even intentional (depends how intentional is construed in the context of that particular statute) violation, yes, it is a valid defense to assert stupidity or negligence.

Talk more to the "knowing, willful or even intentional" aspect of the law.  If I down a case of Budweiser and drive into a crowd of people, killing several, how does my guilt hinge on knowledge, will, or intent?

[Dahobbs 17673]

28 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Oh it probably is an open and shut case in that regard but that is not what this trial is about.  Mueller is using trial as a bass boat to go fishing for ways to tie this to Trump.  He doesn't give a shit about what Manafort did before 2015.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/

 

 

 

That link and summary are ridiculous. The judge is just hurrying them through. Not letting the prosecution publish an e-file form doesn't sound like it is anything important. Just a judge trying to keep a jury from getting bored. Lawyers sometimes get too caught up in little details that never ever matter to the jury. Also, the comments on that story are terrifying. We have a lot of incredibly stupid people in this country. 

[Dahobbs 17673]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Talk more to the "knowing, willful or even intentional" aspect of the law.  If I down a case of Budweiser and drive into a crowd of people, killing several, how does my guilt hinge on knowledge, will, or intent?

What level of mental awareness is needed for conviction depends on the crime. Usually not knowing that something is against the law is not a defense to violating the law (e.g., I swear, I thought drinking and driving was still legal in Texas). But, sometimes it is, like when the statute requires knowledge that you are violating the law. 

[jimmyjazz 46109]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What level of mental awareness is needed for conviction depends on the crime. Usually not knowing that something is against the law is not a defense to violating the law (e.g., I swear, I thought drinking and driving was still legal in Texas). But, sometimes it is, like when the statute requires knowledge that you are violating the law. 

OK . . . so how might that last statement apply here?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Talk more to the "knowing, willful or even intentional" aspect of the law.  If I down a case of Budweiser and drive into a crowd of people, killing several, how does my guilt hinge on knowledge, will, or intent?

Distinguish between criminal guilt and civil liability first.  Civil liability would be established because that is a negligent act, more than likely.

It certainly isn't murder because you didn't intend to kill anyone.  In Texas, whether it's manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide will depend on the state of mind.

Quote

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

So, in the case of Counts 1-5, for subscribing to false US individual income tax returns, the statute provides:

Quote

(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury

[Any person who] Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter;

So, a person who does not know, because of a mistake of fact, that a material matter is false, is not guilty of subscribing to a false US individual Income tax return.  Doesn't mean he doesn't owe the tax (in the nature of civil liability), just can't be thowed in the hoosegow for it.

Generally speaking "willfully" and "knowingly" require both wiillingly and knowingly engaging in the act and also intending its consequences or illegality.  "Intentionally" sometimes means about the same thing, or sometimes just means willingly and knowingly engaged in the conduct without intending the consequences.  Depends on the judicial interpretation of the statute.

Edited August 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[lemonlime 5503]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK . . . so how might that last statement apply here?

Generally ignorance of the law is not a defense.  For instance, in your drunk driving example, if you thought you could drive with a .8 BAC instead of .08, you are still guilty of drunk driving.  Tax fraud, however, requires that you  "willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax."  So you have to have knowledge of the tax code to be guilty of tax fraud.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I miss Katy Tur’s sweaters 

[Dahobbs 17673]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK . . . so how might that last statement apply here?

I don't know, as I haven't looked up these statutes. It may not at all. 

I was just trying to answer your very broad question and hypothetical.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

7 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Generally ignorance of the law is not a defense.  For instance, in your drunk driving example, if you thought you could drive with a .8 BAC instead of .08, you are still guilty of drunk driving.  Tax fraud, however, requires that you  "willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax."  So you have to have knowledge of the tax code to be guilty of tax fraud.  

For the record, Manafort isn't charged with tax fraud, only false returns.

[yaqdum 182]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I miss Katy Tur’s sweaters 

i've never heard them called that.

[Tuco 5077]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

... it is a valid defense to assert stupidity or negligence.

They might use voting for Trump in the defense.

[jimmyjazz 46109]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For the record, Manafort isn't charged with tax fraud, only false returns.

And it seems he checked "no" regarding foreign interest (my word).  That would seem to be fairly open and shut, correct, at least if we assume the information regarding his returns is true?

[Pods 7586]

55 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Oh it probably is an open and shut case in that regard but that is not what this trial is about.  Mueller is using trial as a bass boat to go fishing for ways to tie this to Trump.  He doesn't give a shit about what Manafort did before 2015.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/

 

 

 

We don't know if the dickbag posting this is Russian, but we do know he's a very reliable troll who will always show up and defend Trump/Russia.

Fuck off troll and let those of us who actually care about the future of this country discuss it. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

And it seems he checked "no" regarding foreign interest (my word).  That would seem to be fairly open and shut, correct, at least if we assume the information regarding his returns is true?

He could try to assert the lack of knowledge of "financial interest in a foreign account" as a mistake of fact, rather than one of law.  There's probably case law on it, I don't have it.  But no, I wouldn't say it's open and shut without case law.  Given that "financial interest" is a term defined in the jury instructions, etc. it would seem that his lawyers are sniffing around this very thing.

The statutory max for subscribing to a false return is 5 years.  For bank fraud, it's 30.  So if one wants to be concerned about Manafort getting deeply cornholed, don't concern yourself with the tax counts.  I would also guess that any sentence on the bank fraud would be on the lower end of 30, because as far as I know, he's paid off those loans (zero loss figure).

 

And for context, many acquittals have been secured by failure to satisfy the jury of the state of mind requirement and probably many more convictions overturned on appeal for the same reason, even though the jury was satisfied by the proof.

Edited August 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[EMAWesome 101]

13 minutes ago, Pods said:

We don't know if the dickbag posting this is Russian, but we do know he's a very reliable troll who will always show up and defend Trump/Russia.

Fuck off troll and let those of us who actually care about the future of this country discuss it. 

Eat my shit, assmunch.  You have as much of an idea about how much I care for this country as you have my blood type.  Yes, God forbid someone with contrary observations and ideas interrupt your circle jerk.  I've said it a hundred times on here (here=Surly and Shaggy) that the Democratic Party are the real totalitarians and if I have to I will say it a hundred thousand more times.  Go fuck your self-righteous ass with a pogo stick. 

[Pods 7586]

I assume your blood type is either gravy or vodka. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Pods

[Tuco 5077]

I assumed he was the K-State fan from Shaggy who really struggled with percentages.  But I could be wrong.

[jimmyjazz 46109]

13 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Eat my shit, assmunch.  You have as much of an idea about how much I care for this country as you have my blood type. 

That's not true.  I have no idea what your blood type is, but I can damn well assert with high confidence you don't give a shit about America.

Fuck.  You.

[jimmyjazz 46109]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could try to assert the lack of knowledge of "financial interest in a foreign account" as a mistake of fact, rather than one of law.  There's probably case law on it, I don't have it.  But no, I wouldn't say it's open and shut without case law.  Given that "financial interest" is a term defined in the jury instructions, etc. it would seem that his lawyers are sniffing around this very thing.

The statutory max for subscribing to a false return is 5 years.  For bank fraud, it's 30.  So if you want to be concerned about Manafort getting deeply cornholed, don't concern yourself with the tax counts.

I'm not concerned with the final charges on which he's convicted (or not).  I'm curious about the standards and process.

Regarding his lack of knowledge -- how does his accountant figure into that?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not concerned with the final charges on which he's convicted (or not).  I'm curious about the standards and process.

Regarding his lack of knowledge -- how does his accountant figure into that?

Proof of the relevant state of mind is always going to require circumstantial evidence.  If his CPA or someone else that should be credible told him he had a financial interest in foreign accounts and he still failed to check the box, then he could be on the hook.  Same withe whether the thought the LLC distributions were legit business expenses not reportable as income.  Similarly, lying about facts to CPAs and tax preparers in order to secure favorable opinions about these things tends to belie a lack of knowledge.

 

So, whofuckingknows.  Kind of have to see it all and weave it all together.

 

The government kind of has a two fold burden of proof here (on the tax counts).  First that the returns were wrong and failed to include reportable income and second that Manafort knew he was underreporting income when he signed the returns.  It's not quite as simple a case as it might initially seem.  It's not as complex as money laundering.

 

Also edited to refer to the "royal you," or one, not you specifically being concerned with the tax fraud vs bank fraud counts.

Edited August 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Tuco 5077]

If the filing false claims were limited to that, I could see it as compelling.  I don't see how you could stack (confusion on what financial interest in foreign account) with using those foreign accounts as your personal piggy bank.  And, as you've stated previously, it wasn't just clothes.  Someone with even rudimentary understanding of taxes would have to suspect that there was some legal jeopardy there.  That's not just ignorance. 

 

 

[yaqdum 182]

creep managing to tie up this thread.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Incredulity 11683]

dat nose doe

[Tuco 5077]

One of the witnesses who received immunity is Cindy Laporta, an accountant for Manafort/Gates.  She is admitting that she knowingly increased the amount of what they declared as a loan (to avoid reporting it as income) on Manafort's 2014 return.  This was done because Gates told her that Manafort could not afford to pay the tax bill if it was counted as income.   

Edited August 3, 2018 by Tuco

[jimmyjazz 46109]

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

One of the witnesses who received immunity is Cindy Laporta, an accountant for Manafort/Gates.  She is admitting that she knowingly increased the amount of what they declared as a loan (to avoid reporting it as income) on Manafort's 2014 return.  This was done because Gates told her that Manafort could not afford to pay the tax bill if was counted as income.   

I haven't been following . . . for real?  

An accountant admitted she cooked Manafort's books because otherwise he couldn't pay his tax bill?

Legitimate guffaws on that one.  I'm sure she's not credible, because Hillary!

[Tuco 5077]

Yeah, the WaPo feed updates hourly and is helpful. 

But, note that the direction came from Gates. 

[jimmyjazz 46109]

7 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yeah, the WaPo feed updates hourly and is helpful. 

But, note that the direction came from Gates. 

I'm highly suspicious that a legit accountant would take direction from a 3rd party on how to craft a tax return.  That's not to say it doesn't happen or that there aren't crooked accountants out there, but it does go against type.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We're now hearing from another Manafort CPA Cindy Laporta. Laporta is one of the witnesses who was given immunity to testify. Laporta testified about having concerns about some of the info included in tax returns about loans to Manafort's biz, but went ahead with including it

What concerns? That loan docs (when she saw them) were only a few pages, that there was no collateral required, and she didn't see interest/principle being paid back (during cross of the other CPA, defense asked about balloon payments, which is when a loan is due all at once)

Laporta testified about a conference call with Rick Gates in Sept. 2015 giving an estimate of what Manafort would owe in taxes that year. Gates said it was too high and Manafort didn't have that money. There were then emails about changing loan amounts to bring down taxes owed

 

[Tuco 5077]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm highly suspicious that a legit accountant would take direction from a 3rd party on how to craft a tax return.  That's not to say it doesn't happen or that there aren't crooked accountants out there, but it does go against type.

The accountant's role in this was to take the declarations and then to process them into the right paperwork.  So, she didn't actually cook the books, but rather witnessed them cook the books.  It sounds like the firm may have also provided some feedback on what the number would have to be in order to reach an agreeable number. There is a reason she has immunity. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Tuco

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, yaqdum said:

i've never heard them called that.

katy tur and her puppies:

 

[jimmyjazz 46109]

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The accountant's role in this was to take the declarations and then to process them into the right paperwork.  So, she didn't actually cook the books, but rather witnessed them cook the books.  It sounds like the firm may have also provided some feedback on what the number would have to be in order to reach an agreeable number. There is a reason she has immunity. 

Right, because she helped effect tax fraud.