Oops.BMX Bandit said:
link to evidence that will be used not being given to the defense?
He can be lead but hand over the examination of witnesses to one of the two Team Mueller's attorneys. With a team of lawyers there is usually a division of labor. One lawyer takes this witness, another takes another. But we seen mostly Asonye. He's just attached to the SC's indictment. They didn't completely hand it off to EDVA.FriscoKid said:aggiehawg said:
Asonye must feel like a whipped puppy at this point. Weissmann is supposed to be in court, IIRC. Is he going to pull the plug on Asonye? Or is this by design?
Doesn't Asonye have to stay the lead because he is an actual US attorney and Mueller (team)is trying to act like he's not because that power would require senate confirmation?
Quote:
"Did you have concerns about representation you received about these foreign loans?" Asonye asked.
"Yes," Laprta said.
"Did you believe the representations about these foreign loans?" Asonye asked.
"No," Laporta said.
Quote:
3:42 p.m. Accountant testifies Rick Gates asked her to modify Manafort loan to decrease taxes
In remarkable testimony Friday afternoon, accountant Cindy Laporta described how Manafort's business partner Rick Gates asked tax preparers during a call in 2015 to modify the amount of a loan so that Paul Manafort would have to pay less in taxes.
Quote:
Laporta described how Manafort's business partner Rick Gates asked tax preparers during a call in 2015 to modify the amount of a loan so that Paul Manafort would have to pay less in taxes.
"Gates said it was too high," and that his boss, Paul Manafort, "didn't have that money," Laporta testified.
Asonye asked her what was proposed as a solution, and she responded "changing the amount of the loan."
"He was trying to reduce income and therefore, income taxes," Laporta testified.
Laporta testified such conduct was "inappropriate."
"You can't pick and chose what's a loan and what's income," she said.
Asoyne presented an email that showed a subordinate at her firm, Conor O'Brien, himself wrote," The loan amount may need to be changed."
Yes they ultimately decided on a $900,000 amount because "it resulted in a tax amount that Rick said could be paid," Laporta testified.
Agree. But when he's facing 300+ years, any diminution is welcome by Team Manafort. Could knock some of the charges down, perhaps.BMX Bandit said:
Gates "more than" Manafort still means jail for Manafort
Gates "without any knowledge by" Manafort is what he needs to walk
BMX Bandit said:
Gates "more than" Manafort still means jail for Manafort
Gates "without any knowledge by" Manafort is what he needs to walk
And this wasn't even under cross, it may get more interestingaggiehawg said:Agree. But when he's facing 300+ years, any diminution is welcome by Team Manafort. Could knock some of the charges down, perhaps.BMX Bandit said:
Gates "more than" Manafort still means jail for Manafort
Gates "without any knowledge by" Manafort is what he needs to walk
I have no idea how much Gates may have "gilded the lily" in what he told Team Mueller to get the plea deal. He's definitely caught between a rock and a hard space if Team Manafort can show he embezzled money from Manafort, though. Gives Gates motive to take over more and more control of Manafort and company's finances to cover that up, though.RoscoePColtrane said:And this wasn't even under cross, it may get more interestingaggiehawg said:Agree. But when he's facing 300+ years, any diminution is welcome by Team Manafort. Could knock some of the charges down, perhaps.BMX Bandit said:
Gates "more than" Manafort still means jail for Manafort
Gates "without any knowledge by" Manafort is what he needs to walk
Might also roast any deal Gates thinks he may have had. I think this may have been a bit of a curve when she answered that way.
Gates likely lied his ass off, or was "less than forth coming" or "lacked candor" about some of this.
This might make them hesitate calling him.
And Like you said Dixie 5 years and a huge fine and back taxes is a lot better than 300 years
You have? I have never seen him so have no idea if he sounds credible. Any directions to where I might see a Gates interview?coyote68 said:
I've seen Gates interviewed several times. Very flakey person. A Jason Bourne/James Bond wannabe. I suspect an experienced attorney will expose him. Just my thoughts.
The bar is opening late on the ranch. I agreed to a meeting at 5 on Friday afternoon which violates several of my rules.
Thus the needed immunity dealQuote:
"Paul Manafort likely saved between $400,000 and $500,000 in taxes after Gates concocted a $900,000 loan to include on his business's 2015 tax return" Laporta Said
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.
Asoyne produced a document called an "adjusted trial balance," that showed how Manafort's business, DMP International, initially made no reference to the $900,000 loan he would later claim on his taxes.
Laporta explained that 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 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.
Laporta admitted it was "wrong" to agree to increase the amount of a loan on Paul Manafort's 2014 tax returns just before submitting them in 2015.
Quote:
Asoyne introduced an email into evidence to Laporta from Manafort without objection
"Cindy, Have you what you need from Rick? If not call Rick and let him know, so he could move it "forward."
LINKQuote:
An accountant who helped prepare Manafort's taxes for almost 20 years, Philip Ayliff, testified Friday that he and his colleagues often directly asked Manafort and his top aide, Rick Gates, about possible foreign accounts and other unusual transactions but were never informed about a web of foreign entities prosecutors say Manafort controlled.
"They never told us about any income deposited in foreign accounts," said Ayliff.
Ayliff said he assumed the exotically-named companies that transferred millions into Manafort's consulting firm were clients in the consulting work he did abroad, adding that ledgers provided by Manafort's bookkeeper had described them that way. In fact, prosecutors say, Manafort himself controlled the companies.
Quote:
Laporta said she told an employee of Citizens Bank it was a second home because Manafort could "get a better rate" on a loan that way.
Laporta testified that the same bank employee, David Fallarino, said Manafort needed more "liquidity" to qualify for a loan.
"The bank wanted to see more money available to pay back the loan," she said.
Quote:
Laporta described how she reached out to Gates, who told her a $1.5 million loan from Peranova Holdings in 2012 had been forgiven in 2015. She told that to Fallarino, who asked for more color.
Asoyne asked who directed her to say the loan was forgiven, she said "Mr. Manafort or Mr. Gates." She relied on "their word," she said.
Quote:
Asonye asked, did Laporta believe the loan had really been forgiven in 2015?
"Uh no," she replied.
Quote:
When she asked for documentation, Gates told her "he would send a draft and then the final version. Laporta said that was a good idea."
Judge Ellis asked her why she asked for the draft?
she said she didn't remember why she asked for a draft.
Thus again the need for immunityQuote:
Laporta said Gates sent her a Word document on Feb. 8, 2016, with that date in the file name. It was a letter from Peranova Holdings claiming the $1.5 million loan was forgiven on June 23, 2015.
Laporta believed "it was false" she said, "because of the dates." She did not modify the document, *she said after a pause, because* "I wanted it to be the client's document."
Asoyne directly if she "used the document in the bank negotiations despite believing it to be false?"
Laporta said, "Yes."
SA68AG said:
When you have related parties - individuals and closely held controlled business entities - you frequently see funds moving back and forth between them. Is it a management fee ? Is it compensation ? Is it a dividend ? Is it a formal loan ? Is it simply going to be classified an intercompany payable or receivable ? One entity or individual needs cash and doesn't have it and another entity/individual does. Monies are transferred accordingly.
There's generally nothing particularly sinister going on and frequently classifications aren't made until the tax returns are being prepared. Usually the tax treatment and overall tax impact is a factor in the classification of the funds.
This is simply the real world of closely held business and related party cash flow and accounting.
Quote:
Laporta has testified about how Rick Gates sent her backdated documents in an effort to help Paul Manafort pay less in taxes and secure loans. In one such effort, Laporta said Manafort turned to her when his bookkeeper wouldn't help.
Laporta said in 2016, as Manafort was trying to get a loan from Federal Savings Bank, Laporta testified. At the time, Manafort's company, DMP International, had losses of $638,000 on its profits and loss statement.
Laporta said Manafort contacted the accountant about obtaining a profits and loss statement that would reflect $2.4 million in income he earned in Ukraine and expected to be deposited in November.
Laporta testified, The bookkeeper would not note the income because she only counted cash once he had come in.
Asonye asked whether she believed Manafort actually was getting the money.
Laporta responded, "I had no idea." She said she asked for supporting documents.
Laporta said she never sent a profits and loss statement as Manafort requested, because she never got documents Gates promised to produce. But on August 11, 2016, she emailed Federal Savings Bank to say that Manafort expected the $2.4 million deposit.
Asoyne asked who told her to do that.
Laporta said "Manafort had directed her to do so."
Prosecutors ended their day by saying they wouldn't release the Manafort's tax returns yet, although they were entered into evidence yesterday, because defense attorneys have some concerns about personal information included.
Ellis said they can work that out, but "ultimately these tax returns are going to be in the public record. Once it becomes an exhibit in a trial, I think it has to be public."
BMX Bandit said:SA68AG said:
When you have related parties - individuals and closely held controlled business entities - you frequently see funds moving back and forth between them. Is it a management fee ? Is it compensation ? Is it a dividend ? Is it a formal loan ? Is it simply going to be classified an intercompany payable or receivable ? One entity or individual needs cash and doesn't have it and another entity/individual does. Monies are transferred accordingly.
There's generally nothing particularly sinister going on and frequently classifications aren't made until the tax returns are being prepared. Usually the tax treatment and overall tax impact is a factor in the classification of the funds.
This is simply the real world of closely held business and related party cash flow and accounting.
If that's the argument that Manafort closes with, He is going down for sure.
They are going to blame this all on gates
Quote:
At 5:10 Ellis asked if he would be able to finish his cross-examination by 5:15, Kevin Downing said he would be more "efficient" if he had the weekend to prepare.
Ellis told him that, despite anything he may have said implying otherwise, Downing is "not limited" in using the fact that Cindy Laporta testified under immunity from prosecution.
"She said on the stand she took responsibility, but she didn't get prosecuted," Ellis said. "I don't know if there were professional consequences that's for you to find out."
"Court is adjourned until 9:30 AM Monday"
No way he dismisses, he may go to a direct verdict with a lesser sentence and a fine, and back taxes, but no way he dismisses this. They have proven he fudged his taxes regardless if it's all on gates or notBonfire1996 said:BMX Bandit said:SA68AG said:
When you have related parties - individuals and closely held controlled business entities - you frequently see funds moving back and forth between them. Is it a management fee ? Is it compensation ? Is it a dividend ? Is it a formal loan ? Is it simply going to be classified an intercompany payable or receivable ? One entity or individual needs cash and doesn't have it and another entity/individual does. Monies are transferred accordingly.
There's generally nothing particularly sinister going on and frequently classifications aren't made until the tax returns are being prepared. Usually the tax treatment and overall tax impact is a factor in the classification of the funds.
This is simply the real world of closely held business and related party cash flow and accounting.
If that's the argument that Manafort closes with, He is going down for sure.
They are going to blame this all on gates
That actually makes sense.....to business owners who have revenue large enough to require accounting staffs. Not to a jury of laypeople,
I have a feeling if Ellis doesn't think the DoJ proves anything, he will dismiss. If he sees even a shred of evidence like he has been guiding the feds down the primrose path, he lets it go on. He knows that if this jury of trump hating establishment folks gets the case, manafort is going down.
RoscoePColtrane said:
Defense cross examination of bookkeeper
Defense attempts Washkuhn to tie Manafort's personal and business finances to Rick Gates, his business partner. The defense has contended that Gates was responsible for any financial wrongdoing and that he sought to manipulate Manafort and his finances for his own personal gain.
Defense attorney Thomas Zehnle asked Washkuhn if she was correct in her earlier assessment that Gates was Manafort's "right hand man." She answered that was fair. She also added under questioning that Gates had the authority to direct wire transfers from overseas, a central part of the case.
"He handled a lot of the business affairs," Waskuhn said of Gates.
But later, the line of questioning seemed to backfire on the defense. In response to questioning, Washkuhn said Manafort was largely the one who made final decisions on the finances for the firm and himself.
"He approved every expenditure on the personal and business side," Washkuhn said.
Bonfire1996 said:BMX Bandit said:SA68AG said:
When you have related parties - individuals and closely held controlled business entities - you frequently see funds moving back and forth between them. Is it a management fee ? Is it compensation ? Is it a dividend ? Is it a formal loan ? Is it simply going to be classified an intercompany payable or receivable ? One entity or individual needs cash and doesn't have it and another entity/individual does. Monies are transferred accordingly.
There's generally nothing particularly sinister going on and frequently classifications aren't made until the tax returns are being prepared. Usually the tax treatment and overall tax impact is a factor in the classification of the funds.
This is simply the real world of closely held business and related party cash flow and accounting.
If that's the argument that Manafort closes with, He is going down for sure.
They are going to blame this all on gates
That actually makes sense.....to business owners who have revenue large enough to require accounting staffs. Not to a jury of laypeople,
I have a feeling if Ellis doesn't think the DoJ proves anything, he will dismiss. If he sees even a shred of evidence like he has been guiding the feds down the primrose path, he lets it go on. He knows that if this jury of trump hating establishment folks gets the case, manafort is going down.
RoscoePColtrane said:
Defense cross examination of bookkeeper
Defense attempts Washkuhn to tie Manafort's personal and business finances to Rick Gates, his business partner. The defense has contended that Gates was responsible for any financial wrongdoing and that he sought to manipulate Manafort and his finances for his own personal gain.
Defense attorney Thomas Zehnle asked Washkuhn if she was correct in her earlier assessment that Gates was Manafort's "right hand man." She answered that was fair. She also added under questioning that Gates had the authority to direct wire transfers from overseas, a central part of the case.
"He handled a lot of the business affairs," Waskuhn said of Gates.
"He approved every expenditure on the personal and business side," Washkuhn said.
Quote:
Defense attorney Thomas Zehnle asked Washkuhn if she was correct in her earlier assessment that Gates was Manafort's "right hand man." She answered that was fair. She also added under questioning that Gates had the authority to direct wire transfers from overseas, a central part of the case.
"He handled a lot of the business affairs," Waskuhn said of Gates.
But later, the line of questioning seemed to backfire on the defense. In response to questioning, Washkuhn said Manafort was largely the one who made final decisions on the finances for the firm and himself.
"He approved every expenditure on the personal and business side," Washkuhn said.
