Posted on 08/03/2018 7:10:31 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A former accountant for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort testified Friday that she helped falsify tax records on his behalf in order to misrepresent $900,000 in personal income as a business loan.
Cindy Laporta testified before a jury that she was asked by Manafort's former business associate, Rick Gates, that Manafort couldn't afford to pay his taxes 2015, telling her that she should instead misrepresent Manafort's income, The Washington Post Reported.
The misrepresentation is estimated to have saved Manafort at least $400,000 in taxes, according to Laporta.
Laporta, who has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors for her testimony, added that she chose to go along with the scheme in order to avoid potential litigation from Manafort's lobbying firm.
“I had a couple of choices at that point,” Laporta said. “I could have refused to file the tax return,” which would have led to a lawsuit, she said.
“I could have called Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates liars,” she continued, according to the Post. “But Mr. Manafort was a longtime client of the firm and I did not want to do that, either.”
Laporta went on to say that she regretted the decision to falsify the tax records. When she asked Gates for a record of the so-called business loan, she said, he provided a document bearing Manafort's signature.
Her testimony came a day after the former Trump campaign chair's personal bookkeeper testified that Manafort approved "every penny" of his financial dealings amid reports that he spent lavishly on menswear and items for his home.
Prosecutors have sought to cast Manafort as a prolific spender who used money illegally hidden from U.S. authorities and made from lobbying for pro-Russia political groups in Ukraine to fund his sumptuous habits.
Manafort is facing 18 charges in his Virginia trial, which began this week, and could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted. He also faces separate charges in Washington, D.C., in a trial scheduled to begin next month.
I guess the defense never cross examines these witnesses? Because I never see a word reported.
It sounds like Rick Gates was the one playing hide the money.
...
Yep, and he’s supposed to be the star witness. Is he going to testify?
Was the document with Manafort’s signature presented to the jury?
That seems ... unlikely.
Has Weasel Mueller declared all of his ill gotten gains to the IRS?
Did Manafort fail to repay any of the loans?
About forty years back my employer kind of rounded up my earings, to help me qualify for a mortgage.
Should I be concerned?
Bullshit. You cannot be compelled, even by lawsuit, to commit a felony.
Indeed
There has been some speculation that Gates is not going to testify
Good old Ricky has been dirty for years
Every ethics course I have attended as an accountant always includes an informal comment along the lines of, “you will end up in a situation where you need to make a choice to do the right thing.” Not everybody chooses to actually do the right thing.
Well, I kind of get that.
But here we have a situation where she was (apparently) told: “You have to falsify my taxes, and if you refuse, I will drag you into court, and I will make a judge punish you for refusing to falsify my taxes.”
And I’m thinking, “The judge may go another way.”
I wonder what percentage of the top 1% of tax payers can or even try to prepare their own tax returns. I wouldn’t be surprised if Manafort is acquitted based on the complexity of the tax code. I think the defense will create reasonable doubt in at least one juror.
Based on the article, the court is allowing hearsay evidence.
No mention of Manafort’s attorney objecting to hearsay evidence?
I, for one, totally doubt the IRS.
Every ethics course I have attended as an accountant always includes an informal comment along the lines of, “you will end up in a situation where you need to make a choice to do the right thing.” Not everybody chooses to actually do the right thing.
*****************************************************
If I were advising the defense on this I might suggest that the accountant had gone rogue and done this to “help” the client.
The taxpayer signs the return under penalty of perjury; the preparer signs based on what he/she knows/knew (or should have known).
Anyway, if the accountant is saying, in effect, “I am a liar, and I lied to the Federal Gov’t. But now that I have immunity from my lies, you can trust me that I am telling the truth.” Well, doesn’t that seem like a very easy thing for the defense to attack?
The judge already hinted that the hearsay won’t amount to much unless the witness (who is on the prosecution list) appears. My guess is that the prosecution is fearful of bringing the guy up....he’s fairly tainted and he’s only promised non-prosecution over x-number of items.
It’s possible that the whole case falls apart toward the end, and a innocent situation develops. For Mueller, it would be a harsh reality.
Even if she has immunity from prosecution, I can’t imagine she’s going to be able to practice as a CPA after this.
Ultimately, the taxpayer is responsible for the content and outcome of the tax return. The accountant will be in trouble for filing a bad return, but the taxpayer bears the burden, eventually. What happens to the accountant would come through different channels from this case, unless the prosecutor brings charges of collusion on the part of the accountant.
I know. Lame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.