Re: New York State Investigations of Trump and Related
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:20 pm
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
http://thefogbow.com/forum/
Given the facts alleged, it is hard to fathom that the IRS – if it agrees that those facts are true – would not promptly indict the defendants for federal income tax fraud. Failing to bring charges would amount to saying that overt and deliberate tax cheating of the most brazen kind need not be addressed criminally. If a private individual, rather than the Manhattan DA had somehow gathered all of this information and reported it to the IRS, he or she would be in a great position to claim a whistleblower award. And while federal authorities often refrain from piling on, by bringing their own charges when state authorities are already prosecuting a case; the indictment here makes explicit that the fraud was, in the main, directed against the federal government itself.
They'll bankrupt him with legal fees first.RVInit wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:54 am I think the ABC news anchor might have a point. Trump may not ditch Weisselberg like he ditches everyone else. Weisselberg is different and served the family for a very long time. And given his age, all they really need to do is file motions and run out the clock until he keels over. I would be kind of surprised if Weisselberg serves a day in prison, Trump and his lawyers are experts at keeping litigation going for years and years until the other party finally gives up. In this case NY may not give up but Weiseelberg may just die before this ever actually goes to trial.
RVInit wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:38 pmYes, we know there were two sets of books. That is where the fraud charge comes from. They knew full well what they were doing. Weisselberg was taking these gifts in lieu of salary so that his taxes would be lower, and Trump kept the second set of books to make certain he didn't accidentally pay Weisselberg too much. The value of the apartment and cars were subtracted from his salary in order to arrive at the amount he would be paid by check. That amount is the only amount that tax was deducted for, and the only amount Wiesselberg declared as income. Oops.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:20 pm if there are really two books, or spreadsheets, isn't that proof that Weisselberg knew what he was doing was wrong? trump underbusing the guy is a given, but I don't understand how AW can pull off the "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong," defense if he willfully covered it up with a fake sets of books/spreadsheets.
And are we absolutely sure there are two sets of books, or could that be someone's interpretation/assumption?
No, the ignorance defense cannot work if the criminals kept two sets of books. Read this article that filly posted above. It is very much worth the time. Here's the direct link:covfefe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 1:18 amRVInit wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:38 pmYes, we know there were two sets of books. That is where the fraud charge comes from. They knew full well what they were doing. Weisselberg was taking these gifts in lieu of salary so that his taxes would be lower, and Trump kept the second set of books to make certain he didn't accidentally pay Weisselberg too much. The value of the apartment and cars were subtracted from his salary in order to arrive at the amount he would be paid by check. That amount is the only amount that tax was deducted for, and the only amount Wiesselberg declared as income. Oops.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:20 pm if there are really two books, or spreadsheets, isn't that proof that Weisselberg knew what he was doing was wrong? trump underbusing the guy is a given, but I don't understand how AW can pull off the "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong," defense if he willfully covered it up with a fake sets of books/spreadsheets.
And are we absolutely sure there are two sets of books, or could that be someone's interpretation/assumption?
I’m seeing this ignorance defense being thrown around, but I don’t understand how it could possibly work when they are/were keeping two sets of books. Or is the argument that they were ignorant that keeping two sets of books was a Bad Thing?
Having two sets of books completely demolishes the "ignorance" argument. So sad!5. Fraudulent double bookkeeping – Implementing this scheme required having two inconsistent sets of records: (a) the fake ones for tax reporting that excluded a part of his compensation (under the parties’ financial deal and the company’s secret bookkeeping), and (b) the true accounting records that the company maintained privately. Experts on tax enforcement agree that keeping two sets of books, in this fashion, is “a red flag” and “a classic indication of an overt act of evasion,” often causing the government to have a “slam-dunk case.”
The bosses will always want to know as near as possible the real value of all their assets, declared and hidden. The accountant may be playing with his own life and embeezle the bosses riches. But nowadays hidding the hidden accounting is easier, no thick books, simply an encrypted thumbdrive. Only to be used on a trusted pc. Beware of the FBI installing a keylogger device.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:44 am We've all seen the tv shows and movies where the smart ass detective has to keep the mafia accountant and his "real" book alive until the trial, but in real life, are any mafia accountants stupid enough to keep an actual real book? It seems to me the smart way would be to give da boss any leftovers in cash for him to distribute as he sees fit.
If I was writing the screenplay, I'd have the accountant code some computer game of solitaire or chess, then make sure only the boss and his most trusted family members had the key.
I mean, when I heard they had AW's real book, sorry spreadsheet, I was flabbergasted. Guess AW had gotten away with it for so many decades, he thought he was untouchable.
Cool, thanks! That makes a lot of sense, great article. I was struggling to understand how they (meaning Trump, et all) could claim ignorance while maintaining two sets of books. The answer is, of course, they can't!much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:19 am No, the ignorance defense cannot work if the criminals kept two sets of books. Read this article that filly posted above. It is very much worth the time. Here's the direct link:
https://www.justsecurity.org/77331/the- ... fits-case/
A corporate defendant can be fined, and that's about it. I saw one fleeting comment to the effect that statues involved limit the punishment to $10,000 per ... something, which doesn't seem like very much, but I don't remember the source or whether it was reliable. I haven't reviewed the statutes involved.
thanks.
What about loan clauses requiring a debtor company to keep accurate records? Two sets of books would seem to violate that requirement? Keeping current on existing debt might hold the lenders at bay for now. But I’d think any new debt would be out of the question.chancery wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:41 amAs has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, thee can be collateral consequences to a corporate conviction. It will likely put some stress on the relationship between the Trump Organization and its creditors, but there's no real way to know how severe that stress will be. It seems unlikely to me that there will be a wave of creditors attempting to foreclose on the properties underlying the loans, so long as the TO keeps reasonably current on payment.
He can claim anything he wants to. As far as I know, he isn't personally named in the investigation or the law suit.noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:02 am While it would seem that keeping two sets of books precludes an ignorance defense for Weisselberg and the TO, can Trump personally claim ignorance?
IOW, can he plausibly argue that he did not know that AW was using TO funds to pay for personal expenses, while not reporting it as income and that he was allowing himself and others to live rent-free in TO owned apartments?
IIRC, the Sarbanes-Oxley law was passed in the wake of the Enron debacle. One of its provisions is that it specifically requires executives to take responsibility for the financial statements of the corporation. This provision was, I believe, put in the law specifically to preclude the ignorance defense. "I didn't know what they were doing" is met with "It is your responsibility to know".
Does Sarbanes-Oxley come into play at all in this case?
Statute of limitations issue maybe? I would guess the book diddling had been going on since Sr. was running the company.filly wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:42 am So I was struck by the 15 year time period in the indictment. If this Weisselberg off the books arrangement started in 2006, that was about the time that the economy started to tank. I haven't looked up what was happening in the real estate market in NYC but that would be interesting. I also read about Weisselberg cutting the commissions a dedicated agent was making. It appears there were some serious financial issues (there always are) at the TO and actions were taken to ameliorate the bleeding.
From what I've read, Weisselberg's income was capped at approximately $900,000/year. The scheme reduced his on the books income to somewhere in the $500,000 and change range, so the approximately $400K was made up with these other unreported expenditures. I think that's why the "internal spreadsheet" was created, to make sure Weisselberg wasn't exceeding the $900K income cap. I suppose it could've been all Weisselberg's idea, but that spreadsheet that accounted for the real money had to also exist to show *someone* else what the actual total compensation was. And, who could that *someone* have been?
Of course the DA is going to have to have some evidence because you can't try a case based on suspicions. But that's the picture that I see from all of this. YMMV.
Of course. But foreclosure is messy, time-consuming, and expensive. As I said upthread, there's a long history of Trump creditors losing their shirts in bankruptcy proceedings. A creditor who is looking at recovering only about 50% after allowing for the cost and delay of foreclosure might put up with late payments and squirrelly books and records for quite a while.
And most of these creditors loaned money to Trump and his business with eyes wide open that he was a bad credit risk. Many of them have the personal guaranty of Trump, but I don't know if that's worth much at all.chancery wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:50 amOf course. But foreclosure is messy, time-consuming, and expensive. As I said upthread, there's a long history of Trump creditors losing their shirts in bankruptcy proceedings. A creditor who is looking at recovering only about 50% after allowing for the cost and delay of foreclosure might put up with late payments and squirrelly books and records for quite a while.
(Darn it, I wish woodworker would chime in here. He know much more about this stuff than I do.)