Trial of 2 Trump companies nears the end
Closing arguments are presented in fraud case
NEW YORK – The criminal tax fraud trial of two companies in former President Donald Trump’s business empire neared a close Thursday after defense lawyers attacked Allen Weisselberg, Trump’ s former top financial lieutenant, and a prosecutor told the jury the firms “cultivated a culture of fraud and deception.”
In clashing closing arguments, the two sides focused on whether there was sufficient evidence that Weisselberg intended to provide some benefit to the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation as he evaded taxes in a long-running scheme.
That question of intent, which is required for convictions of the companies under New York law, is expected to be at the heart of jury deliberations scheduled to begin Monday.
Echoing the opening defense statements just over a month ago, Susan Necheles, the attorney for the Trump Corporation, told jurors: “We are here today for one reason and one reason only: the greed of Allen Weisselberg.”
No one from the Trump family knew about Weisselberg’s “effort to evade taxes,” an alleged scheme in which he acted “solely to benefit himself,” Necheles said.
She also told the eight-man,fourwoman jury to focus on legal instructions they will receive about a section of the New York state penal law that outlines circumstances needed to find a corporation guilty of committing a crime.
The law requires prosecutors prove through evidence at trial that Weisseberg – Trump’s former chief financial officer – committed tax fraud crimes while acting within the scope of his job and “in behalf of the corporation.”
What does that mean?
“It requires the people to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the highranking officer acted with some intent to benefit the corporation,” Necheles said. “You are going to see there was no such intent. The purpose of Mr. Weisselberg’s crimes was to benefit himself.”
Necheles was followed by Michael van der Veen, an attorney for the Trump Payroll Corporation, the other company on trial. He, too, attacked the prosecution’s star witness, loudly declaring: “Weisselberg did it for Weisselberg.”
It’s not enough for prosecutors to show that the disgraced executive cheated on his taxes by failing to declare off-the-books company perks as income and getting an unmerited paycheck from Trump’s firm for his wife so she could qualify for Social Security benefits,” van der Veen told jurors.
The government also must show an intent to provide some benefit for the Trump firms “and the evidence is there was no intention of benefit for the Trump Payroll Corporation,” van der Veen said.
Joshua Steinglass, a Manhattan assistant district attorney, delivered a contrasting argument as he began the prosecution’s closing arguments. He told jurors that a “tremendous amount of evidence” introduced during trial showed Weisselberg “intended to benefit the companies, and that is enough” to justify criminal convictions.
“It was a win-win,” getting cash into executives’ pockets and keeping costs low, Steinglass said.
A guilty verdict could hit the companies with up to an estimated $1.6 million in criminal penalties and tar the reputation of Trump’s namesake firms with a criminal conviction.
The case arises from a July 2021 indictment that accused Weisselberg of participating in a more than decadelong tax fraud scheme that benefited top executives while producing financial benefits for the companies. Weisselberg is no longer CFO of the Trump Organization, though he is employed by the Trump business empire.
The alleged crimes included untaxed perks that enabled Weisselberg and other top Trump executives to get company-paid Manhattan apartments and luxury cars, which they did not report as income. They also received thousands of dollars in tax-free payments.
Trump was not charged in the case, and he did not appear in court during the trial. However, he criticized the prosecution in a Thanksgiving week posting on Truth Social. The ending phase of the trial comes just weeks after
That question of intent, which is required for convictions of the companies under New York law, is expected to be at the heart of jury deliberations scheduled to begin Monday.
Trump announced he is running for president again in 2024 and amid a flurry of other developments in civil and criminal matters involving Trump.
Weisselberg pleaded guilty in August to all 15 charges against him as part of an agreement with prosecutors. He admitted he concealed $1.76 million in income through the alleged scheme.
The deal is expected to enable Weisselberg to serve roughly 100 days in jail, far less than the maximum 15-year prison term he could have faced.
That made Weisselberg the trial’s focal point.
He was the star witness for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. And he was the chief target of attack for the Trump companies’ legal teams.
Weisselberg, 75, helped both sides score points.
Still receiving his six-figure salary on a paid leave from the Trump Organization, he testified under cross-examination by defense lawyers that he’d actedout of his own greed, seeking pre-tax dollars.
The defense characterized his conduct as a Weisselberg plot that was hidden from the companies.
In one of the trial’s most dramatic moments, defense lawyer Alan Futerfas noted that Weisselberg had worked for the Trump family for nearly 50 years, becoming the most trusted person in the organization who lacked the Trump surname.
“Mr. Weisselberg, did you honor the trust that was placed in you?” Futerfas asked.
Weisselberg admitted he had not. “And you did it for your own personal gain?” the defense lawyer asked.
“I did,” said Weisselberg, who appeared to fight back tears.
But during direct examination by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Weisselberg acknowledged that the companies had received some benefit from the alleged tax scheme.
Reducing his salary to cover some tax-free perks paid by the company benefited him – but also produced lower payroll costs, as well as savings in the Medicare portion of payroll taxes that are paid by employers, Weisselberg testified.
The jury will also have to decide other issues. For example, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to a scheme to defraud. But who was his co-schemer?
He is Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization controller, whose testimony also gave both sides some of what they wanted.
Testifying under a grant of immunity from prosecution, McConney admitted he knew the tax-ducking tactics he carried out were illegal.
But McConney also testified that he simply followed instructions from Weisselberg, who was his boss.
“Who was I going to tell?’ McConney testified, adding that he feared losing his job if he spoke out.