filly wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:43 pm
I would like to know how criminal defense lawyers are charging the Trump Org. and Weisselberg. In garden variety criminal cases, the criminal defense lawyers I know charge an up front fee (usually very hefty), in advance, and do the work. If the work becomes more than they think the up front fees covers, they may ask for another non-refundable retainer. But I think traditional white collar defense lawyers bill a bit differently, i.e. a big retainer that they bill hours against. That's because most white collar defense lawyers work for regular law firms. So, I'd be interested to hear from FRP or someone else who might have insight into these billing arrangements.
I ask because legal fees in these cases add up very quickly. IIRC Michael Cohen initially used white collar criminal defense lawyers from a traditional firm. The fees became enormous (mainly due to the review of the seized documents) and they dropped him (he probably still owes them money). Sometimes legal fees punish defendants more than the courts do.
I've also wondered about this, but from a slightly different angle. Assuming the Trump Org. is paying Weisselberg's legal fees, would they (actually, there is no "they." It's the OSG himself) try to impose a condition that fees are paid only if Weisselberg doesn't flip? I know this would be highly unethical, but, well...
Normally I post with a commentary. Not this time! I would prefer to read your comments about #Donald #Weisselberg
@IvankaTrump
deposition and under oath response to…“Who Is Allen Weisselberg”
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?
Michael Cohen, in that interview that was posted recently, said that Trump, himself, signed all the significant checks. In that case, how can he claim ignorance?
filly wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:43 pm
I would like to know how criminal defense lawyers are charging the Trump Org. and Weisselberg. In garden variety criminal cases, the criminal defense lawyers I know charge an up front fee (usually very hefty), in advance, and do the work. If the work becomes more than they think the up front fees covers, they may ask for another non-refundable retainer. But I think traditional white collar defense lawyers bill a bit differently, i.e. a big retainer that they bill hours against. That's because most white collar defense lawyers work for regular law firms. So, I'd be interested to hear from FRP or someone else who might have insight into these billing arrangements.
I ask because legal fees in these cases add up very quickly. IIRC Michael Cohen initially used white collar criminal defense lawyers from a traditional firm. The fees became enormous (mainly due to the review of the seized documents) and they dropped him (he probably still owes them money). Sometimes legal fees punish defendants more than the courts do.
I've also wondered about this, but from a slightly different angle. Assuming the Trump Org. is paying Weisselberg's legal fees, would they (actually, there is no "they." It's the OSG himself) try to impose a condition that fees are paid only if Weisselberg doesn't flip? I know this would be highly unethical, but, well...
While I have no experience in NY state courts, because the ability of attorneys to withdraw from a criminal case is ordinarily very limited (even if fees are not being paid), white collar defense attorneys are extraordinarily reluctant to enter an appearance in a complex criminal case unless payment of their fees is assured, either with a large retainer or via a security interest in property. Otherwise, the defense attorney might end up working months for no fees.
Even if the defendant is not paying the fees himself (e.g. an employer or other third party is paying the fees), the attorney's duties run solely to the Client. While IANANYL, I would think that having an agreement with a third party that fees will paid for the defendant so long as the defendant doesn't flip could implicate the defendant's right to conflict free representation (especially in situations where the defendant would not otherwise be able to afford the attorney). The government might squawk because that sort of an agreement might give a convicted defendant an appeal issue that could upset the verdict and require a retrial.
much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:50 pm
Michael Cohen, in that interview that was posted recently, said that Trump, himself, signed all the significant checks. In that case, how can he claim ignorance?
1. He will say that Cohen is a nobody, a loser, lying, and would not know that detail anyway.]
2. Trump would Tweet something in the morning and deny he said it in the afternoon.
much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:50 pm
Michael Cohen, in that interview that was posted recently, said that Trump, himself, signed all the significant checks. In that case, how can he claim ignorance?
1. He will say that Cohen is a nobody, a loser, lying, and would not know that detail anyway.]
2. Trump would Tweet something in the morning and deny he said it in the afternoon.
Wouldn't banks have digital copies of the checks that show Trump's signature? There's no need to rely on Cohen's testimony.
much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:15 pm
Wouldn't banks have digital copies of the checks that show Trump's signature? There's no need to rely on Cohen's testimony.
There is that though they would have to go back to pre-presidency. I seriously doubt he was signing checks from the Oval Office.
On the surface these criminal charges appear to be an easy case for the prosecution to win. However, I think skilled criminal defense lawyers will be able to drag the trial out for a couple years. Then there is the very high bar to succeed at trial: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the odds are good that at least one citizen will be so confused with all the accounting and tax rules that there could be a not guilty vote during deliberation. Weisselburg is looking at a shortish sentence of what, up to three years? All this trial work for a 11-1 or 10-2 guilty verdict?
Instead, civil matters are easier to try. In reality, taxing authorities prefer to collect their $$$$ from understated taxable income rather than pursue criminal charges even though what the taxpayer did was a crime. As correctly pointed out above, all the government needs to do is prove fraud, and there is no statute of limitations in pursuing civil matters for back taxes (federally; I don't know the NYS rules.) Penalties and interest (that can be negotiated as part of a civil settlement) will increase the state and city coffers by more than the back taxes owed.
There will also be an agreement with the IRS to pony up the federal taxes owed on these benefits too. He won't face any federal charges for tax evasion.
So, I think that there will be some sort of plea agreement. Perhaps one or two of the lesser criminal charges will result in a guilty plea in exchange for coughing up all the back taxes, penalties, and interest on the civil side. The more serious criminal charges will be dropped. Weisselburg will get probation and forced retirement from TO for his guilty plea.
It might be easier and cheaper for the underwriter to pay all the back taxes on behalf of his 50-year loyal employee instead of fronting a lot of money for a skilled criminal defense that may last for 24-36 months or longer.
Last add: I wonder why New York is not going after the Mazars partner who signed all these tax returns. I wonder what sort of due diligence the partner performed before he signed as paid preparer. I think that this individual needs to be looked at too. While this person may not have been complicit, there would seem to be a high degree of negligence in executing his professional duties. There would be too many red flags in the books of account (not the "second set of books") that should have raised questions if they had been examined before and during the preparation of the tax returns.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:15 pm
Wouldn't banks have digital copies of the checks that show Trump's signature? There's no need to rely on Cohen's testimony.
There is that though they would have to go back to pre-presidency. I seriously doubt he was signing checks from the Oval Office.
I wonder if he started signing again after January 20?
Last add: I wonder why New York is not going after the Mazars partner who signed all these tax returns. I wonder what sort of due diligence the partner performed before he signed as paid preparer. I think that this individual needs to be looked at too. While this person may not have been complicit, there would seem to be a high degree of negligence in executing his professional duties. There would be too many red flags in the books of account (not the "second set of books") that should have raised questions if they had been examined before and during the preparation of the tax returns.
Well, my opinion is that this is the very first step, and one of the chief goals of this step is to put pressure on Weisselberg to flip. All of the other steps will be much, much easier if he flips. There are many more shoes to drop, I think. Going after the Mazars partner is one.
much ado wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:15 pm
Wouldn't banks have digital copies of the checks that show Trump's signature? There's no need to rely on Cohen's testimony.
There is that though they would have to go back to pre-presidency. I seriously doubt he was signing checks from the Oval Office.
He signed at least one of the hush money payments while in office. Normal business protocols cannot be assumed.
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?
He can claim anything he wants to. As far as I know, he isn't personally named in the investigation or the law suit.
Of course he can claim that little green men from mars did it.
What I meant was, would such a defense have any luck of success.
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?
He can claim anything he wants to. As far as I know, he isn't personally named in the investigation or the law suit.
Of course he can claim that little green men from mars did it.
What I meant was, would such a defense have any luck of success.
Against who? The company is the only one named, not him personally, so he has nothing to defend against as far as I know. He can just sit on his ass and say or not say anything he wants.
sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:26 am
He can claim anything he wants to. As far as I know, he isn't personally named in the investigation or the law suit.
Of course he can claim that little green men from mars did it.
What I meant was, would such a defense have any luck of success.
Against who? The company is the only one named, not him personally, so he has nothing to defend against as far as I know. He can just sit on his ass and say or not say anything he wants.
I was asking a hypothetical question, in the event that he ever IS charged.
If I were a lender to the TO and saw what was happening, my inclination would be to get my money back as soon as possible so that I had a good chance of getting something back. Is this a consideration for lenders? Who would want to wait until legal fees, tax settlements, and other lenders had picked the TO to the bone? Are lenders just going to sit on their hands and wait to see what transpires?
I know that in my line of work, making decisions whether or not to extend business credit to contractors, tax liens are a big red flag. Huge.
One of my jobs as the executive in charge of the construction of Trump Tower in the early 1980s was to review and approve all payments, and that included the expenses of the employees of the general contractor.
The project manager submitted a bunch of toll receipts and other spurious items as expenses that did not look legitimate to me, so I questioned him about them. He swore they were correct, but I refused to pay them. He then admitted to me that Donald Trump told him to bill a certain amount every week for expenses and they would be paid, no tax.
This was my introduction to Trump’s approach. The notion of breaking the tax laws was never considered, even 40 years ago when Trump was not quite the Trump we know today.
The way he saw it, Trump was doing the man a favor, which meant he was engendering loyalty. Tax-free money. With Donald, there was always a chit. He gave things to his people, but you always knew there were strings attached, quid pro quos. I saw him do this with others outside the company as well It was all about having something over the person, having them owe him. Ultimately Trump did enough of this to “own” some employees, like Allen Weisselberg.
humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:38 pmLast add: I wonder why New York is not going after the Mazars partner who signed all these tax returns. I wonder what sort of due diligence the partner performed before he signed as paid preparer. I think that this individual needs to be looked at too. While this person may not have been complicit, there would seem to be a high degree of negligence in executing his professional duties. There would be too many red flags in the books of account (not the "second set of books") that should have raised questions if they had been examined before and during the preparation of the tax returns.
Yeah, I wonder about that too. Here's a carefully-researched long article providing background on Mazars and predecessor firms, and on the accountants who devoted their careers to providing the Trump family with the kind of accounting services that they wanted. Not what I would call role models.
Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:40 am
Going back to Enron, Jeff Skilling basically claimed he had no idea what Andy Fastow was doing. And ya he didn't know all of it, but he sure as hell knew what Fastow was doing to hide Enron losses.
I believed Skilling when he said he didn't know. He was of a certain type I have often seen who think they're so smart, they don't need to pay attention to details, especially the "I'm not an accountant..." defense that Skilling used in front of a Congressional Committee. He thought he was so good and so smart that all of these things Andy was doing are just proof of how smart I am, I found the guy who can get my deals booked no matter what.
I did a deep dive into Enron about a year after it fell, and read at least 5 books and looked up every magazine article I could find on that wonderful new tool, the Internet. I always pinned the bad guys as Fastow, Rebecca Marks and Ken Lay. The three of them thought they were brilliant and all three of them did damage it would have taken a decade to recover from even if the company had not collapsed. Also, Sheron Watkins, I have a special ring of hell for Sheron Watkins because she was neck deep in it and had to have known every gritty detail, and she didn't say a word until she thought it was all gonna come out and THEN and only then started the "I was SHOCKED to find there is gambling in Rick's" routine.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
