Trump Organization found guilty of tax crimes after New York trial - BBC News
The guilty verdicts in this case greatly improves the prospect that Trump & Co will now be barred from doing business in New York...
Letitia James is already pressing the separate case to do just that!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- Published 14 hours ago
Shareclose Share page Copy link About sharing
Image source, ReutersImage caption, By Max Matza BBC News
Former US President Donald Trump's family real estate company has been found guilty of tax crimes.
The Trump Organization was convicted on all counts on Tuesday after two days of jury deliberations in New York.
The business is synonymous with the former president, but neither Mr Trump nor his family members were personally on trial.
Vowing to appeal against the verdict, Mr Trump said he was "disappointed" and again called the case a "witch hunt".
The company was convicted of enriching its top executives with off-the books benefits for more than a decade.
Untaxed perks included luxury cars and private school fees, prosecutors said, which made up for lower salaries and therefore reduced the amount of tax the business was required to pay.
The company is expected to face a fine of around $1.6m (£1.3m) and may also face difficulty in securing loans and financing in the future.
Mr Trump previously criticised the trial as being politically motivated. He also attacked his long-serving former chief financial executive Allen Weisselberg after he pleaded guilty in August and testified against the business.
In his most recent statement, attacking the verdict, the former Republican leader asked why the Trump Organization should be prosecuted for Mr Weisselberg's "personal conduct" - accusing him of "committing tax fraud on his personal tax returns".
"There was RELIANCE by us on a then highly respected and expensive accounting firm, and law firm, to do this work," Mr Trump said in the statement issued by his office.
"This case is unprecedented and... is a continuation of the Greatest Political Witch Hunt in the History of our Country," he said, adding that New York City was now a "hard place to be a Trump".
- How big are Trump's legal problems?
- Trump refuses to answer questions in NY probe
- Tales from NYC's notorious jail
Prosecutors accused the Trump Organization - which operates hotels, golf courses and other properties around the world - of having a "culture of fraud and deception" during the six-week trial.
They said it ran a scheme that allowed some executives to "understate their compensation" so that their taxes "were significantly less than the amounts that should have been paid".
"The smorgasbord of benefits is designed to keep its top executives happy and loyal," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury during closing arguments.
Two subsidiaries of the Trump Organization - Trump Corp and Trump Payroll Corp - were convicted on all 17 charges of tax fraud and falsifying business records.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg praised the verdict on Tuesday, saying the case was "about greed and cheating".
"For 13 years the Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corporation got away with a scheme that awarded high-level executives with lavish perks and compensation while intentionally concealing the benefits from the taxing authorities," he said.
Image source, ReutersImage caption,
Mr Weisselberg, 75, testified against the company as part of a plea deal he struck with prosecutors that will mean he spends no more than five months in jail.
He will be jailed at the notorious Rikers Island prison and must pay back more than $1.7m (£1.4m) in concealed income.
Following the verdict, the judge set a sentencing date of 13 January.
Mr Trump and his three eldest children are facing a separate civil lawsuit which could see them banned from doing business in the state.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading that civil case, issued a statement hailing Tuesday's verdict as a "big victory".
"[It] shows that we will hold individuals and organisations accountable when they violate our laws to line their pockets," she said.
Tags
Who is online
444 visitors
Trump and his Klan could now be barred from doing business in NY!
Letitia James' separate case to do this just got a hella lot stronger...
It's pretty funny to watch the conservative Trump fans continually point out that these proven tax crimes don't actually prove Trump or his family did anything illegal, just that some of his financial advisors and accountants lied and cheated. And I'm sure they would be saying the same thing defending Bill and Hillary if it had been proven in court that the Clinton Family Business had defrauded banks and cheated on their taxes for nearly two decades. I'm sure conservatives would be saying it was all the accountants and CFO's fault and shouldn't reflect poorly on the Clintons themselves even though it was their family business... /s
Who, exactly, do they think they are influencing with this over-the-top absurd hair splitting? Seriously. Trump and his family were not on trial so the fact that the business they run was found guilty on all 17 counts of tax evasion has nothing to do with them??? How dumb do these people think readers are?
Is there a point where Trump defenders cease with the now contemptible (and feeble) excuses and defense of Trump? What drives them to continue with this pointless and pathetic defense of such an abysmal character?
Maybe when they see trmp in a real orange jump suit it may turn their heads
I bet they simply claim the system was rigged and paint Trump as a victim.
Trump CFO Alan Weisselberg will cool his dirty ass at Rikers Prison!
Highly doubtful
Isn't Rikers that city jail, not prison, that the city has mismanaged so badly that there is federal oversight imposed?
My guess is that this old man will serve time Edgecombe, Queensboro or Lakeview.
For no more than 5 months, I wonder is NY has pay to stay like California? He's a billionaire, he can probably afford a nice place.
Yes, Rikers is a nightmare, hard time, a serious punishment...
He also has been ordered to pay millions in back taxes...
These convictions greatly strengthen Letitia James' separate lawsuit to ban Trump and his Klan personally from doing any business in New York which will entail a receivership...
NYC version of cruel and unusual punishment:
Please provide any evidence you have that Trump is or has ever been a member of the Klan.
I suspect you have none, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Here you go. By definition this is when he joined the klan.
In 2001, Trump quit the Reform Party to register as a Democrat .
Will the real Donald Trump please stand up? - POLITICO
Lol!!
Looks like my suspicions have been confirmed.
How many millions?
Is it more or less than Hunter's sugar bro had to pay for his delinquent taxes?
The company was convicted of enriching its top executives with off-the books benefits for more than a decade.
Untaxed perks included luxury cars and private school fees, prosecutors said, which made up for lower salaries and therefore reduced the amount of tax the business was required to pay.
Those tax violations are fairly widespread and often ignored.
Does that make it okay to break those laws?
IOKIYAR.
Is THAT what you read in his post?
Of course it does if your name is TRUMP
Of course, Vic didn't say anything of the sort, but I get the tendency to put words in others' mouths and then try to debate them.
Is Vic too afraid to answer the question for himself?
He probably just chose to ignore you poorly attempting to put words in his mouth.
By asking a question?
Guess that means he has a better control over himself than you. Since you like answering everyone else's question, or pretending to.
Yes.
If I couldn't guess any better than that, I would stop to keep from embarrassing myself.
But to each their own.
Yup, the CFO is a very low level position.
Why do people continue to fall on their sword for Trump?
In general that is a logical, categorical answer.
However, with Trump, it looks to me that these 'soldiers' end up losing by falling on their swords. So are you thinking that Alan Weisselberg, for example, has some blood contract with Trump wherein he loses wealth if he does not take the fall and go to jail? I wonder what Rudy Giuliani, et.al. get out of their respective falls.
trump is trying to run out the clock on both of those relics too.
Thank you.
You are correct, however I could not find a picture that depicted the "hope for money". Just keep in mind that, greed trumps common sense.
I very much wonder about Giuliani. Here he was at one time "America's Mayor" and now he is a foolish Trump stooge who is discredited, sued, and suspended from practicing law (and may soon be disbarred).
What on Earth did he expect to gain by engaging in a lying crusade for Trump? What reward did he expect given the price he paid?
Money and fame.
A full pardon by 2nd term Trump, and the ability to keep all that money and fame he expected. It never occurred to that melting, leaking, brain of his that Trump might lose.
Most of which used to be legal and is still exceedingly common, usually unnoticed, and would have never been an issue if Trump wasn't such a raving asshole.
$1.6m is nothing for this company. And they are going to have no problem getting loans. That's just a fairly tale.
Of course it's politically motivated. But nobody's investigating Mitt Romney or even Nancy Pelosi, because they're not complete shitheads.
Which is somewhat of a fair point. Sounds like he has new lawyers.
Instead of saying we should prosecute all of them, you say we should only prosecute the raving assholes. An 18 year old can go to prison for stealing a bottle of wine from a convenience store - why cant we put white collar criminals in jail ?
Can you point out where he said that? Because you completely missed his point if you think that is what he was saying.
Cite my use of the word "should".
Cite where I have made any indication that we can't.
Here in the real world where we use "is" far more often than "should", the fact of the matter is that stuff like the Trump corp was doing is difficult to catch because nobody wants to report it. Unless regulators have a specific reason to go looking for it, it is invisible.
Do you have some examples? In Oberlin Ohio, several college kids shoplifted some wine, fought with the store clerk and with the college help, tried to put this little store out of business. The police arrested the students, charging all three with assault and one with robbery as well. Thee three students eventually pleaded guilty. Their plea deals carried no jail time in exchange for restitution, the public statement, and a promise of future good behavior.
You made a reference to the amount of these tax crimes that go unprosecuted, apparently because it is common. If it is common it is not hard to discover, is it? If it is common and hard to discover then we have a corrupt society.
A lot of things happen. Not everyone joes to jail for petty theft, but some do.
A man in Mississippi is serving a life term for possessing forty three grams of pot!
Yes.
Actually, it is. For starters, you have to know to look for it. Even then, it's not always obvious. It's like catching speeders without a radar gun. You can't be everywhere and even if you see it you're not always sure it was happening.
Meh. Seems an odd conclusion to draw. All societies have some level of corruption. It's just a question of how much we're willing to live with.
Technically, the $30k/yr baggage handler at the airport or hotel who doesn't report his cash tips is "corrupt". Are we chasing that guy down? How will we know how much he didn't report? It's not like he gives receipts.
How about the HS math teacher who tutors on the side, and doesn't realize she has to report the income? Corrupt? By the letter of the law, yeah. I humbly suggest that's not sufficient reason to audit the banking records of every teacher in America, which is what you'd have to do to catch this.
The kid who sells his baseball cards to buy his first car. If he's made a capital gain and doesn't report it, he's "corrupt". Surely we can do without a tax evaders ward in juvenile hall.
I know it probably seems like a big number, but $1.6 million in back taxes is really, really (disappointingly) trivial for a company the size of Trump's. It definitely cost them more than that to prosecute the case. So it's a moral victory... kind of...
But that's a big reason why tax officials don't spend more time and energy on this. It's hard to find, harder to prove, and often you don't get much money back if you win.
Sure, lots of regular Americans earn approximately ten million dollars from dog grooming or babysitting and then cheat the IRS out of one and a half million dollars of taxes due. Get Outta Here!
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Oh, so is it only corruption if a rich person does it?
What's that threshold, exactly?
I think when speaking of corruption the premise is that the individual has power ... has the ability to substantially leverage their corruption.
No, but that seems to be the case you are making for Trump!
The IRS does not bother with people earning a few bucks cash doing odd jobs. But, when it comes to billion dollar businesses commiting tax fraud and lying to regulators?
Every financial transaction in the world is now trackable online and the IRS has algorithms that identify cheaters.
If Turbo Tax can access my checks and credit transactions and everything else when doing my taxes, so can the IRS...
You are saying penny ante tax fraud equals a millionaire's.
That the IRS wouldn't prosecute others doing the same...
Why do you think Biden wants 87,000 new IRS agents?
To go after the little guy of course.
Meh. I'm not sure that scales very well.
All individuals have power. The cart girl at the golf course has the power to declare her tips. The journeyman plumber has the power to declare the money he earns from cash jobs on the side.
"Substantial" is in the eye of the beholder. $15k/yr is "substantial" to the cart girl, but $1.6 million over multiple years isn't remotely "substantial" to Trump's company.
Then you should definitely re-read it. Objectively this time, without your own bias and wild imagination.
The IRS is very open about the cost-benefit proposition of enforcement. They don't like to chase things that don't pay for themselves.
If your taxes are simple enough that you can do them on TurboTax, you're not really in a position of expertise here.
Have I? Let's go ahead and have you cite that. Maybe you'll read carefully this time.
You are making excuses for white collar criminals.
I wont waste any more time on this.
Really? Again, cite me doing so.
*eyeroll*
Which usually means the conversation now contains elements of sanity you don't know how to rebut.
An individual not declaring cash as income is not normally considered to be an example of corruption because the crime is limited in scope and the individual has limited ability (low power) to leverage their dishonest act. In fact, an individual cheating on taxes at a major dollar level is not normally considered corruption if it is not leveraging power ... it is a crime and is dishonest ... but if limited in scope to the individual it is not normally labeled 'corruption'.
In contrast, a politician taking bribes in return for political favor is a typical example of corruption where a position of power is dishonestly leveraged.
My point stated both power and the ability to leverage same.
I used the word substantially as an adverb for the act of leveraging. "Substantially leverage" = using one's power to amplify the effect of dishonesty well beyond what an individual could do without said power. Trump cheating at Golf would be an example of NOT substantially leveraging his power; the effects of same (unless in a tournament) are limited to Trump and his group (twosome, threesome,...). Trump lying about the USA electoral system being fraudulent is an example of substantially leveraging power; it affected countless millions and encouraged bad behavior and false mistrust of our system ... and made the USA look even more foolish on the world stage.
Excellent. So will you tell John or should I?
Do you think that the Trump executives engaged in corruption based on my description of corruption?
In particular, there is a difference between Trump cheating on his personal income taxes and Trump leveraging the power of his position as CEO to grant favors to key employees via tax fraud.
Per my discussion, the former would be criminal and dishonest but not typically labeled as 'corruption' given it involves no leveraging of power (Trump as an individual is cheating on his taxes) whereas the latter would typically be labeled as corruption due to the leveraging of power.
In this instance? Meh. I'm not sure.
Singling out people for special compensation isn't corruption, no. That happens all the time. Usually those are called "performace based bonuses". They're also frequently done with non-cash, unreported methods.
You might have the top insurance agents in a company called in for a "due diligence" conference in Palm Beach, or the law partners may have a strategy retreat in Grand Cayman, or investment salespeople may get an S-Class as a company car. All of that is perfectly legal and there are varying degrees of tax implications depending on how it's done.
So no, I wouldn't call this "corruption" any more than the non-reporting valet car parker. I understand your description, I just don't think this fits.
I am not suggesting that ordinary (legal) special compensation is corruption nor that it is even illegal or dishonest. The corruption comes from the fact that tax fraud was used.
Knowingly not reporting the compensation is tax fraud. So every executive who authorizes and pays compensation and knowingly does not report said compensation to the IRS is committing tax fraud.
When done legally the examples do not apply. I am only speaking of cases where illegal acts are done.
Hard to continue given you have changed the scenario.
The scenario is very simple: when someone in a position of power knowingly authorizes and pays compensation that is not reported, that is tax fraud. That is leveraging of power in a dishonest / illegal fashion.
Alternate scenarios where the compensation is legal is not tax fraud.
Alternate scenarios where the compensation is illegal (i.e. "other people do it too") does not make this scenario in question legal or cause it to not be corruption.
Well, if we're going by your "low ability to leverage" definition, I'm not sure we get to "corruption". Perhaps if we use a broader definition where fraud = corruption, then yeah.
The point here is that we don't typically call unreported income "corruption".
It is not my definition of the word ' corruption ':
I certainly agree having made that very point throughout. Another point I have made is that corruption is usually a label that applies when power is leveraged in an illegal act.