Manafort accountant testifies she helped falsify tax records

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.

Good points GW.

I think it was a tactic by the prosecution to leave the idea soaking in the heads of the jury over the weekend gambling that they will look at any cross examination with skepticism. It may or may not work.

The defense’s advantage is that they study the witness’ testimony, and other facts that they know and develop a good cross-examination blueprint without tipping their hand. BTW, her reason for allegedly changing the record seems flimsy when a sophisticated person like her knows that tax crime is involved. There should be business records to support everything she said, and I am thinking there is not, otherwise she would not have been granted immunity.

Thank you SP. Your observations are right on the money.

Sometimes I wonder (when it is not reported) if cross examination was delayed because the Judge knows it will take some time, and the hours remaining Friday were short. Most Judges with whom I am familiar would much rather start the weekend earlier than holding the jury past rush hour traffic. Most that I know also like to begin a new week fresh. They don’t like to split the direct examination, or the cross examination, if they can prevent it. Judge Ellis, with some of his comments pertaining to the length of trial, reminds me of Judge Lee West in the Western District of Oklahoma. Before beginning a civil trial, the opposing lawyer and I told Judge West that we thought that it would take 3 weeks because of the 55 witnesses. Judge West promptly told us it would take only 5 days - 2 days for each side, and one day for the jury. Years later I asked him why, and he said that his experience was that all three week trials have reversible error on appeal, and 5 day trials are rarely reversed. Hence, he was controlling his reversal rate by controlling the number of decisions he was required to make. His “schedule” insisted on lawyers crystallizing the most salient points to make. There was rarely window dressing.

Interesting insight by sharing your story about Judge Lee West. Did he have a different formula for criminal trials - taking away someone’s freedom, that’s a different story.

For Manafort, I theorize a combination. Friday afternoon trial, give the jury some time off b/c next week is going to be a long one. The prosecution tactically called the witness to leave the “facts” soaking in their minds as well as having the media talking about it all weekend with no rebuttal.

Let’s stay on top of this trial.

Yes, there are many games within the game. The trial actually did not begin until Tuesday, and it was comprised of only jury selection. As you probably know, voir dire of the veniremen is conducted only by judges in federal court. Lawyers only have input on suggesting questions for the judge. Wednesday was opening statements, and with no witnesses of any mention. Thursday they got down to business. Friday was just the prelude to the storm.

We all know that jurors will refrain from any media conversations/reports about the trial. Yeah, right. My experience with jurors is that some will allow it to soak in, but some (the kind the defense wants) will conjure up explanations based on their own experience dealing with tax preparers and employees.

From what little I’ve heard reported, Judge Ellis has been rather caustic before the jury. That can’t be good for the prosecution. Jurors tend to believe that the only truth teller from the beginning is the Judge. If he/she is nice to you as a lawyer, it will rub off.

As far as Judge West and criminal trials, I never tried one before him. But, I did see segments time to time as I dropped by for a signature. My understanding is that he put lawyers on notice that he didn’t want time wasted, and he did much to keep the trial progressing at a rapid clip. He would not allow “junk science” or repetitive witnesses. I liked him a lot. I tried one of his last jury trials where my client’s opponent was the IRS and their Department of Justice lawyers. We won the counts we should have, and some we shouldn’t have. I asked the jury afterwards why, and universally they told me the government got off to a bad start when they did not show up on time when starting, and the judge told me to begin. I thought I was shadow boxing after making a weak protest. The jury thought I was doing my best to be fair. I was. So, I started because the Judge told me to. Then the DOJ appeared a half hour after beginning, and had misplaced anger at me. That is what the jurors told me. They viewed the Judge as their friend, and me as a lawyer that wanted to help them understand, all while being fair to the other side.

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.