A prosecutor said on Friday, citing trial evidence, that former President Donald Trump "explicitly" approved the alleged tax fraud plan at the centre of the criminal trial of two Trump enterprises.
During closing remarks in the trial of the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass made the claim. Indicating that Mr. Trump may be considered an unindicted co-conspirator, he claimed that evidence showed "Mr. Trump is explicitly sanctioning tax fraud."
The defence requested a mistrial after Steinglass made the claim and other references to Trump during his closing arguments, as the trial that started in late October appeared to be coming to an end next week.
Michael van der Veen, the defence attorney, argued that "it can't be undone" from the jurors' thoughts.
Juan Merchan, an acting justice on the Manhattan Supreme Court, declined the request. He did, however, agree to instruct the four-man, eight-woman jury on the Trump mentions when they return to court on Monday for the last set of legal instructions before deliberations begin.
Depending on the judge's instructions, the prosecution's case may cause jurors to wonder whether someone in a position of authority above former CFO Allen Weisselberg at the Trump Organizations might have taken a "see no evil" stance regarding the alleged tax fraud. That might support the prosecution's claims that the alleged scheme reduced payroll costs and made executives happy.
It might also assist prosecutors in meeting the criteria set forth by New York state law for concluding that a corporation has broken the law.
Trump is not charged in the case and has not made an appearance in court during the trial. Trump is launching a third presidential bid. On Truth Social, he did, however, condemn the prosecution last week. And as he strives to reclaim the White House, the former president is still dealing with a long list of legal developments and obstacles.
Susan Necheles, a defence attorney, called the Steinglass claims "simply grandstanding by the prosecutors."
Weisselberg, the disgraced former CFO of Trump's business empire and the prosecution's star witness, "tried to conceal his efforts to evade personal income taxes from President Trump and the Trump family and that he acted solely for his own personal gain," according to the prosecutor.
According to Necheles, "He repeatedly testified that he never informed President Trump about how he was reporting items on his personal tax returns and the President Trump trusted him to do things correctly."
The trial's evidence-presentation and argument-making came to a close in the Friday exchanges, which included vehement charges from both the prosecution and the defence.
The Trump companies are accused of giving top employees who failed to disclose the revenue on their tax returns off-the-books advantages like company-paid Manhattan rental homes, leased luxury cars, and inappropriately issued bonuses.
As Steinglass began his closing argument on Thursday, the legal confetti began to fly. The prosecutor stated that "Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on with his top executives."
In an August deal with the prosecution, Weisselberg admitted guilt to 15 offences in exchange for a sentence of about 100 days in jail—much less than the 15-year maximum sentence he might have received. In return, he consented to provide accurate testimony during the two Trump companies' trial.
Steinglass cited evidence indicating that Trump suggested Weisselberg relocate from his Long Island home to Manhattan. Trump also called a special meeting of the Trump Corporation, according to the prosecutor, which gave him the go-ahead to sign a lease on the apartment for Weisselberg and his wife alone.
A monitor in the courtroom showed a slide of the final page of the lease, which bore Trump's signature, as the prosecution talked.
A identical apartment contract for Matthew Calamari, a longstanding chief operational officer in Trump's business empire who has been identified as an unindicted conspirator in the case, was also displayed to the jury by Steinglass. The lease also has Trump's approval written on it.
The prosecutor reminded the jury that despite knowing Weisselberg's wife was not a company employee, Trump approved leases for luxury vehicles for her.
According to the trial testimony, Weisselberg failed to disclose the value of his apartment, his wife's automobile leases, and equivalent auto leases for himself on his tax forms.
Steinglass also reminded the jury that the evidence had established that Trump had approved the bonuses of company officials and had personally signed each check for them. The evidence established that many of those payments to Weisselberg and others were made in the form of untaxed payments to independent contractors and were disclosed on the business' IRS reports.
Steinglass asserted, "This entire (defence) narrative that Donald Trump was blissfully uninformed is not true. He claimed that the proof refuted defence closing arguments that Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney, the controller for the Trump Organization, had "gone rogue" by planning the alleged tax evasion scheme and keeping it a secret from other senior company executives.
The defence moved for a mistrial in response to those arguments.
"He claimed to have authorised the tax scam and included (Trump) as an unindicted co-conspirator. He influenced the jury's bias, which cannot be reversed "Van der Veen added.
He might be a co-conspirator, Steinglass said. "The fact that he is Donald Trump has no bearing. He is the president and CEO of these businesses, so that must be the reason."
Hearing both parties' arguments, the trial judge concluded that declaring a mistrial was "not even a notion."
When the jury reassembles on Monday, the trial judge will teach them on how the laws of the state of New York apply to the case.
It is anticipated that such instructions will include an explanation of the section of the New York penal code that specifies the circumstances under which corporations may be found guilty of crimes.
The law covers misbehaviour by such people as "high a management agent acting within the course of his employment and in behalf of the corporation."
Prosecutors have already claimed that Weisselberg and maybe McConney could be the subject. However, given the fresh accusation made by Steinglass this week, some jurors might wonder whether the "high managerial agent" actually refers to someone much more senior within the Trump Organization.
The meaning of the phrase "in benefit of" will also be a topic of discussion for the jury.
The trial judge made a decision regarding that issue earlier in the week in a meeting without the jurors, stating that the prosecution must demonstrate "there was some intent to benefit the corporation."
0 Comments