Manafort Trial

[Tuco 5076]

From the WaPo feed:

 

Quote

4:11 p.m. Accountant: Questionable loan saved Manafort $400,000 to $500,000 in taxes

Paul Manafort likely saved between $400,000 and $500,000 in taxes after his top deputy concocted a $900,000 loan to include on his business’s 2015 tax return, one of Manafort’s accountants testified Friday.

Cindy Laporta said the loan reduced Manafort’s income by $900,000, and at his tax rate, that would have resulted in a nearly half-million dollar savings. The testimony is important in that it shows the financial motivation that prosecutors say Manafort had to cook the books.

Laporta has been perhaps the most notable witness of the trial’s fourth day, essentially admitting she went along with tax fraud by Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates. And through her testimony, prosecutors were able to show jurors documents that support their case.

One document, which prosecutors called an “adjusted trial balance,” showed how Manafort’s business, DMP International, initially made no reference to the $900,000 loan he would later claim on his taxes. But in a column for adjusted items, the $900,000 loan appeared. To support the change, an item initially listed as $900,000 in “other income” was reclassified as a loan in the books at Manafort’s business, Laporta testified.

Laporta testified she did not believe such a loan actually existed, because the first she heard of it was in a September 2015 conversation with Manafor’ts business partner Rick Gates. She said she asked Gates for documentation of it, and he provided just two pages, apparently documenting a March 2014 loan agreement between DMP International and a company called Telmar Limited. Prosecutors have alleged Telmar is a Cyprus company that Manafort controlled.

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

courthouse brandi:

- Laporta’s next statements echoed testimony from Manafort’s former accountant, Heather Washkuhn as well as Ayliff. When she asked for underlying loan documents or back up documents for Manafort’s 1099s or K-1 tax forms, she said she “didn’t always receive them.”

-When she didn’t, she would document the omission. Laporta also said that the firm didn’t investigate or verify the presence of any foreign bank accounts belonging to Manafort while preparing his taxes. That wasn’t something Kositzka, Wicks and Company did, she explained.

-That was left up to the owner of those bank accounts, she said. In a series of emails spanning more than a year displayed in court, Laporta asked Manafort about his foreign asset disclosures and whether anything had changed.

-“No change from 2012 [form],” Manafort wrote. “If you had known about the foreign accounts what would you have done?” Asonye asked.

-Had she known she would have dug into the origins of the accounts and tracked the flow of money there. “The penalties and fines are just huge for non-compliance,” she said.

-Update: Manafort's onetime tax preparer, Cindy Laporta, said she knew it was “wrong” to reclassify income as a loan, but that her obligation to Manafort, a long-time client, made it "hard to refuse." “I very much regret it,” Laporta said.

[Mapache 1117]

Deleted 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Mapache

[sheeeit 129]

4 hours ago, Tuco said:

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.   

I think this is largely correct with a few caveats.  I think Manafort had a short term cash flow issue and needed to collect money from the Uks.  So he wanted loans to bridge the gap.  I think this because some of the potentially fraudulent loans have been paid back.  I have to believe that the feds have him pretty cold as it would be unusual to bring the case without pretty iron clad evidence.

It is an interesting case.  He was really playing fast and loose with loans and income etc.  I am having a hard time coming up with a plausible defense for him but he must have something.  I do not see how blaming Gates will be a winner without some paper trail we do not know about.  I could see him trying to play a semantics game on the foreign accounts.  I suppose he could argue that he understood the disclosure rule to be foreign accounts in his personal name versus business accounts that he controlled.  It is also not illegal or uncommon for individuals to take out loans from their businesses.  It does need to be well papered though and sounds like his was not.  But you can take loans from your business and not pay any taxes.  You can also then declare the loan forgiven but then have to report the full amount of the loan as income but could time it to a year when you had losses to off set it or a surplus of cash.

The bank fraud aspect is more interesting.  Typically, these cases come when someone stops paying the banks back.  As far as I know, he is not delinquent in his loans.  Obviously does not justify falsifying docs but it is unusual.  Especially if it is true that the loans are heavily collateralized and at market rates or above.  My experience is that bankers get pretty easy with some of the regulations and paperwork when there is substantial collateral to cover the loan.  

It is also interesting that usually tax fraud like this gets uncovered when people either do not file or really file low.  According to what I have seen, Manafort did declare $5-$6M in earnings on his return so he definitely paid some taxes.

It will be interesting to see his defense.  I think right now it is at least 95% that he is going down.

[RayDog 682]

I can't help but think that Trump handles his finances the same way only on a bigger scale.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

14 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I can't help but think that Trump handles his finances the same way only on a bigger scale.

And that’s where this is probably going.  Trump was probably flat fucking broke when he ran for president and owed the Russians several favors. 

[TwiceHorn 31507]

3 hours ago, Tuco said:

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. 

 

 

Very true.  Given the amount of manipulation being shown by Manafort, seems like he's going to be hard pressed to claim the distributions/loans/payments were done without knowledge. 

[TwiceHorn 31507]

18 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I can't help but think that Trump handles his finances the same way only on a bigger scale.

 

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And that’s where this is probably going.  Trump was probably flat fucking broke when he ran for president and owed the Russians several favors. 

I'm virtually certain Trump is a $300K or maybe a $3M billionaire.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I'm virtually certain Trump is a $300K or maybe a $3M billionaire.

You also have to consider how the Russians hide their money with oligarchs.  Perhaps Putin saw Trump as a good place stash a lot of his cash like he would an oligarch.  The money is technically in Trump’s name but it’s really all Russia’s off the books. 

From Putin’s perspective, Trump turned out to be the greatest investment of all time and he probably still lost money. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Tuco 5076]

My guess is that Trump has $200M in assets and $500M in debts. Something along those lines. And those debts aren’t to banks.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Almost all his known assets are in real estate and several of those properties are well known vehicles for Russian money laundering. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article210477439.html

[Mapache 1117]

7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Nice sweater puppy 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Mapache

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Good 18 minute biography of Paul Manafort’s political career including his work in Ukraine 

 

[Tuco 5076]

I tried watching a little of the This Week on Sunday.  But it just drives me a bit crazy how uninformed Stephanopoulos and the pundits appear to be.  He had Chris Christie on who was characterizing the Manafort charges as relating to crimes back in 2005.  And Stephie just lets it fly.  There was a woman from the NYT who seemed to be trying to get a challenge in, but was talked over.  How hard is it to read the indictment and understand that part of the charges are related to Manafort defrauding a bank in 2016, with the bank owner being installed as one of the campaign economic advisors and vying for the Army Secretary position? Sure, there is a pattern that goes back many years, but that pattern continued up through the campaign, and beyond.  Trump apologists are pushing this narrative that Mueller is just digging up old shit unrelated to the campaign, and respected political commentators are too busy concentrating on gotcha-questions to really understand the issue. 

[Biff Tannen 45692]

So the thought is they are going to call Gates this week right?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So the thought is they are going to call Gates this week right?

Most likely tomorrow but possibly today. 

[yaqdum 182]

35 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I tried watching a little of the This Week on Sunday.  But it just drives me a bit crazy how uninformed Stephanopoulos and the pundits appear to be.  He had Chris Christie on who was characterizing the Manafort charges as relating to crimes back in 2005.  And Stephie just lets it fly.  There was a woman from the NYT who seemed to be trying to get a challenge in, but was talked over.  How hard is it to read the indictment and understand that part of the charges are related to Manafort defrauding a bank in 2016, with the bank owner being installed as one of the campaign economic advisors and vying for the Army Secretary position? Sure, there is a pattern that goes back many years, but that pattern continued up through the campaign, and beyond.  Trump apologists are pushing this narrative that Mueller is just digging up old shit unrelated to the campaign, and respected political commentators are too busy concentrating on gotcha-questions to really understand the issue. 

i hear you, but i suspect mueller is fine with that.  it really fits his tack of staying out of the line of fire until the right moment.

[jimmyjazz 45986]

37 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I tried watching a little of the This Week on Sunday.  But it just drives me a bit crazy how uninformed Stephanopoulos and the pundits appear to be.  He had Chris Christie on who was characterizing the Manafort charges as relating to crimes back in 2005.  And Stephie just lets it fly.  There was a woman from the NYT who seemed to be trying to get a challenge in, but was talked over.  How hard is it to read the indictment and understand that part of the charges are related to Manafort defrauding a bank in 2016, with the bank owner being installed as one of the campaign economic advisors and vying for the Army Secretary position? Sure, there is a pattern that goes back many years, but that pattern continued up through the campaign, and beyond.  Trump apologists are pushing this narrative that Mueller is just digging up old shit unrelated to the campaign, and respected political commentators are too busy concentrating on gotcha-questions to really understand the issue. 

The only redeeming thing about George is his wife.  She might be a candidate for the "women over 40" thread.  At 53, she still looks good and is wicked smart, which makes up for a lot in my world.

[DDD Dad 14343]

The only redeeming thing about George is his wife.  She might be a candidate for the "women over 40" thread.  At 53, she still looks good and is wicked smart, which makes up for a lot in my world.

Buddy of mine got paired up with him at Winged Foot a few years back. Terrible golfer but good guy (according to my friend). /csb

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y’all stop being mean to George!!!!

He’s a DC hottie!

:shallow:

[Tuco 5076]

Gates on deck.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Gates is on the stand.

[bad_teammate 13218]

 

[bad_teammate 13218]

lol this is awesome

[triplehorn 2664]

 

At the time, Gates was just an intern at Manafort’s firm, Black Manafort Stone Kelly. “What else did you do during the time you worked for him?” Andres said. (3/8)

Gates rattled off a list of other companies he worked at over the years but ended, telling prosecutors his last assignment with Manafort was in 2016 when they worked for “one of the presidential candidates.” (4/8)

Over the years, Gates said he only reported to Manafort. That chain of command was followed even when Gates began his work with Davis Manafort Partners International in Ukraine in 2006. “How did you update [Manafort] while he was away and you were there?” Andres said. (5/8)

The men communicated regularly, Gates said. “ “By call or emails through the week. Then we created a weekly agenda where we could go down the list together,” Gates said. “Sometimes [we would communicate] more than once a day. (6/8)

When the men would meet in the U.S., they would meet at Manafort’s office or home in Alexandria, Virginia and if not there, Manafort’s business office in New York or even his apartment. (7/8)

-->> Before prosecutors began digging into Gates’ testimony further, Andres asked Gates to provide context for why he appeared in court Monday. “Did you commit any crimes? Were you indicted for those crimes?” Andres said. “Yes,” Gates said in response to both questions. (8/8)

 

[Biff Tannen 45692]

[Huckleberry 33024]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Since the invention of the stare, there have been five stares that have been rated the most icy, the most purely hateful - this one left them all behind.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Enjoy prison, you fuck. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think Paul Manafort may lose his license to practice law after this.  

[conVINCEd 21469]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think Paul Manafort may lose his license to practice law after this.  

Just curious, does he get it back when he’s pardoned?

[Gil Bang 25978]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

Telling prosecutors his last assignment with Manafort was in 2016 when they worked for “one of the presidential candidates.”

This is a key point of context.  Gates and Manafort had an illicit money machine up and running for years and functioned together with that intact criminal infrastructure contiguous through running the Trump campaign.  That's why these charges are relevant to the here and now.

[atomheartbevo 89735]

42 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

Just curious, does he get it back when he’s pardoned?

I believe when you accept a pardon, it’s admitting guilt.

[Mdhorn 5974]

Think also that Trump has already told Paul that he'd pardon him but the more that comes out, the worse it looks as far as real criminal intent as well as exposes their criminal enterprise.  Think this is why Trump is unhinged. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump isn’t going to pardon Manafort

[charley2017 0]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to pardon Manafort

Agree with you, but wouldn't totally rule it out. My question is where the hell is Michael Cohen?? Haven't seen or heard about him on the news in a couple weeks? Cooperating maybe? 

[Chad Fuck 17686]

Trump isn’t going to pardon Manafort

He will. It’ll be the last thing he does.

[TwiceHorn 31507]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I believe when you accept a pardon, it’s admitting guilt.

That's one view.  The only two Supreme Court cases on it pretty much say it obliterates everything.  The circuit courts are all over the place.  It's anything but clear.

Ultimately, I think it would be up to the state (bar) to determine the effect of the conviction and the pardon on the fitness to practice law.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

23 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

He will. It’ll be the last thing he does.

Don’t think so.  Trump will blame Manafort for everything by then.  He’s just being nice to him now so he doesn’t flip.

They don’t need Manafort to flip. 

Trump will pardon his family members but not people like Manafort, Cohen, or Stone.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, charley2017 said:

Agree with you, but wouldn't totally rule it out. My question is where the hell is Michael Cohen?? Haven't seen or heard about him on the news in a couple weeks? Cooperating maybe? 

Word on the street he is in the proffer phase of negotiating a plea deal which could fall apart at anytime.  It could also take a while before any development.

I expect the situation with Cohen to go a lot like Michael Flynn.  Flynn was in plea negotiations for what seemed like forever then out of nowhere, boom Flynn pleading guilty in court on December 1st. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Tuco 5076]

While that shows that Manafort was in bed with the Russians, I think it would actually support his assertion of innocence in this case.  (Not in a compelling way for me, but would generally nudge things in that direction.)

Does anyone know if Manafort plans to testify in his defense?  It seems to me that the "my word against yours" defense only works if you are willing to speak.

[jimmyjazz 45986]

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump will pardon his family members but not people like Manafort, Cohen, or Stone.

He pardoned Sheriff Joe.  I don't think he's gonna exercise a lot of discretion.  Now, if he sees Manafort as the enemy, then sure, you're right.

[Loco 3752]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He pardoned Sheriff Joe.  I don't think he's gonna exercise a lot of discretion.  Now, if he sees Manafort as the enemy, then sure, you're right.

Please refer to him as Felon Joe.  thanks

[triplehorn 2664]

“Ukrainian businessmen” told Manafort and Gates that establishing Cypriot accounts would make their transfers easier, Gates said. One the accounts were set up, the next step was to draft a consulting agreement.

“[Manafort] and [the Ukrainian client] would sit together. Manafort would create a political policy, craft a budget and then they would negotiate a pay structure,” Gates said.

The fee would be entered into the consulting contract and from there, Gates said a “Cypriot attorney” would review it. It would then pass through Konstantin Kilminik’s hands for a final review, Gates said.

Then it was up to Manafort to tweak the agreement from there. Andres then displayed a handful of the consulting agreements between Manafort and his Ukrainian clients. The bulk of the contracts displayed Tuesday morning were from 2012 and detailed plans for payment between

Manafort’s shell companies, Black Sea View Limited, Leviathan Advisers and Peranova Holdings Limited and Ukrainian-held companies, Telmar Investments Limited and Dressler Limited.

According to prosecutors, Telmar Investments Limited is owned by Serhiy Lovochkin; Dressler is owned by Serhiy Tihipko. “What was this money for?” Andres asked Gates. “It was money received for policy work,” Gates said.

“Did [Black Sea View, Leviathan or Peranova] sell any products or have any employees?” “No,” Gates said. “What was their purpose?”

“Their purpose was to accept and make payments,” Gates said of the shell companies. When Andres asked Gates why Manafort opted to set up the accounts this way, his former partner responded plainly: so Manafort could avoid disclosing his taxable income.

[jimmyjazz 45986]

Snap.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

44 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

“Ukrainian businessmen” told Manafort and Gates that establishing Cypriot accounts would make their transfers easier, Gates said. One the accounts were set up, the next step was to draft a consulting agreement.

“[Manafort] and [the Ukrainian client] would sit together. Manafort would create a political policy, craft a budget and then they would negotiate a pay structure,” Gates said.

The fee would be entered into the consulting contract and from there, Gates said a “Cypriot attorney” would review it. It would then pass through Konstantin Kilminik’s hands for a final review, Gates said.

Then it was up to Manafort to tweak the agreement from there. Andres then displayed a handful of the consulting agreements between Manafort and his Ukrainian clients. The bulk of the contracts displayed Tuesday morning were from 2012 and detailed plans for payment between

Manafort’s shell companies, Black Sea View Limited, Leviathan Advisers and Peranova Holdings Limited and Ukrainian-held companies, Telmar Investments Limited and Dressler Limited.

According to prosecutors, Telmar Investments Limited is owned by Serhiy Lovochkin; Dressler is owned by Serhiy Tihipko. “What was this money for?” Andres asked Gates. “It was money received for policy work,” Gates said.

“Did [Black Sea View, Leviathan or Peranova] sell any products or have any employees?” “No,” Gates said. “What was their purpose?”

“Their purpose was to accept and make payments,” Gates said of the shell companies. When Andres asked Gates why Manafort opted to set up the accounts this way, his former partner responded plainly: so Manafort could avoid disclosing his taxable income.

...and boom goes the dynamite.

[Tuco 5076]

Could you imagine how much more difficult Mueller's job would be if the players in this drama 1) paid their taxes, 2) saved their money for when the river ran dry, 3) didn't commit bank fraud to keep cash flow because they didn't do #2.  None of that is necessary to be a Russian stooge.  But, when you're a shitty person, it's rarely limited to one thing.