Connect with us

Published

on

After deliberating for a little more than a day, a Manhattan jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying 34 business records to aid or conceal “another crime,” an intent that turns what would otherwise be misdemeanors into felonies. If you assumed that the jury’s conclusions would be driven by political animus, this first-ever criminal conviction of a former president is the result you probably expected in a jurisdiction where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 9 to 1. But in legal terms, the quick verdict is hard to fathom.

That’s not because there were so many counts to consider, each related to a specific invoice, check, or ledger entry allegedly aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services. Once jurors accepted the prosecution’s theory of the case, it was pretty much inevitable that they would find Trump guilty on all 34 counts. But that theory was complicated, confusing, and in some versions highly implausible, if not nonsensical. Given the puzzles posed by the charges, you would expect conscientious jurors to spend more than an afternoon, a morning, and part of another afternoon teasing them out.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump stemmed from the $130,000 that Michael Cohen, then Trump’s lawyer and fixer, paid porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. When Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, prosecutors said, he tried to cover up the arrangement with Daniels by pretending that he was paying Cohen, whom he had designated as his personal attorney, for legal work.

Cohen testified that Trump instructed him to pay off Daniels and approved the plan to mischaracterize the reimbursement. Cohen was the only witness who directly confirmed those two points, and the defense team argued that jurors should not trust a convicted felon, disbarred lawyer, and admitted liar with a powerful grudge against his former boss. But even without Cohen’s testimony, there was strong circumstantial evidence that Trump approved the payoff and went along with the reimbursement scheme.

The real problem for the prosecution was proving that Trump falsified business records with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”the element that was necessary to treat the misleading documents as felonies. Prosecutors said the other crime was a violation of Section 17-152, an obscure, little-used provision of the New York Election Law. Section 17-152 makes it a misdemeanor for “two or more persons” to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” But prosecutors never settled on any particular explanation of “unlawful means,” and Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the trial, told the jurors they could find Trump guilty even they could not agree on one.

According to one theory, Cohen made an excessive campaign contribution, thereby violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), when he fronted the money to pay Daniels. Cohenpleaded guiltyto that offense in 2018 as part of an agreement that also resolved several other, unrelated federal charges against him.While jurors heard about that guilty plea during the trial, CNNnotes, Merchan instructed them that they should consider it only “to assess Cohen’s credibility and give context to the events that followed, but not in determining the defendant’s guilt.”

It is unclear whether Trump violated FECA by soliciting Cohen’s “contribution,” a question that hinges on thefuzzy distinctionbetween personal and campaign expenditures. Given the uncertainty on that point, it isplausiblethat Trump did not think the Daniels payment was illegal, which helps explain why he was never prosecuted under FECA: Toobtain a conviction, federal prosecutors would have had to prove that he “knowingly and willfully” violated the statute.

The New York prosecutors said Cohen and Trump conspired to promote his election through “unlawful means.” Under New York law, a criminal conspiracy requires “a specific intent to commit a crime.” Trump’s understanding of FECA was relevant in assessing whether he had such an intent, meaning he recognized the nondisclosure agreement with Daniels as “unlawful means.” Trump’s understanding of FECA therefore also was relevant in assessing whether he falsified business records with the intent of covering up “another crime.”

That theory assumed three things: 1) that Trump recognized the Daniels payment as a FECA violation; 2) that he knew about Section 17-152, a moribund, rarely invoked law; and 3) that he anticipated how New York prosecutors might construe Section 17-152 in light of FECA. The first assumption is questionable, the second is unlikely, and the third is highly implausible. Yet you would have to believe all three things to conclude that Trump approved a plan to misrepresent his reimbursement of Cohen as payment for legal services with the intent of covering up a FECA-dependent violation of Section 17-152.

According to a second theory, Trump facilitated a violation of New York tax law by allowing Cohen to falsely report his reimbursement as income. Although that violation is described as “criminal tax fraud,” Merchan said it did not matter that Cohen’s alleged misrepresentation resulted in a highertax bill. The judge noted that it is illegal to submit “materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return,” regardless of whether that information benefits the taxpayer.

Putting aside that counterintuitive definition of tax fraud, this theory required believing that Trump, when he reimbursed Cohen, not only contemplated what would happen when Cohen filed his returns the following year but also thought that “unlawful means” somehow would influence an election that had already happened. The logic here was hard to follow.

Likewise with the third theory of “unlawful means.” Prosecutors suggested that Trump’s falsification of business records was designed to aid or conceal the falsification of otherbusiness records. CNNreportedthat the latter records could involve, among other things, the corporate bank account that Cohen created to pay Daniels, Cohen’s transfer of the money to Daniels’ lawyer, or the Trump Organization’s 1099-MISC forms for the payments to Cohen.

Since the 1099 forms were issuedafterthe election, it is hard to see how they could have been aimed at ensuring Trump’s victory. And although the other records predated the election, this theory involves a weird sort of bootstrapping.

Prosecutors said the records related to Cohen’s dummy corporation, for example, were falsified because they misrepresented the nature and purpose of that entity, which by itself is a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor was the “unlawful means” by which Trump allegedly sought to promote his election, another misdemeanor. And because Trump allegedly tried to conceal the latter misdemeanor by falsifying the records related to Cohen’s reimbursement, those records are 34 felonies instead of 34 misdemeanors.

The theory that Trump falsified business records to conceal the falsification of business records was “so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said. If so, the jurors seem to have quickly recovered from their queasiness. They accepted either this dubious theory, one of the others, or possibly some combination of them. Since unanimity was not required, it is possible that some jurors bought the FECA theory, some preferred the double falsification theory, and some concluded that the case was clinched by a tax fraud with no pecuniary benefit.

To disguise the difficulties with its dueling theories, the prosecution averredthat Trump committed “election fraud” when he directed Cohen to pay Daniels for her silence, thereby concealing information that voters might have deemed relevant in choosing between him and Hillary Clinton. “This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Tump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,” lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelotoldthe jury in his opening statement. “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

During his summation, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass called the nondisclosure agreement with Daniels “a subversion of democracy.” Hesaid it was an “effort to hoodwink the American voter.” He told “a sweeping story about a fraud on the American people,” as The New York Timesput it. “He argue[d] that the American people in 2016 had the right to determine whether they cared that Trump had slept with a porn star or not, and that the conspiracy prevented them from doing so.”

Did the American people have such a right? If so, Trump would have violated it even he had merely asked Daniels to keep quiet, perhaps by appealing to her sympathy for his wife. If Daniels had agreed, the result would have been the same. As the prosecution told it, that still would amount to “election fraud,” even though there is clearly nothing illegal about it.

The jurors evidently bought this cover story. During deliberations, they revisited the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, a Trump buddy whom prosecutors implicated in that “long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.” Pecker’s arrangement with Trump, which he described as mutually beneficial, was not the basis for any of the charges against Trump. But his testimony reinforced Bragg’s legally dubious claim that Trump engaged in “election interference” when he sought to avoid bad press.

Pecker said he agreed to help Trump in several ways. He would run positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents. He also would keep an eye out for potentially damaging stories about Trump and alert Cohen to them. The latter promise resulted in two agreements that the Enquirer negotiated with Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman who falsely claimed that Trump had fathered a child with a woman hired to clean the building, and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal, who described a year-long affair with Trump. After paying $30,000 to Sajudin and $150,000 to McDougal for exclusive rights to their stories, the Enquirer sat on them.

Again, Trump was not charged in connection with any of this, and much of what Pecker did was constitutionally protected, albeit journalistically unethical. The fact that the jury nevertheless wanted to be read excerpts from Pecker’s testimony suggests they accepted the prosecution’s commodious understanding of “election fraud,” which did not necessarily require any actual lawbreaking, let alone any attempt to interfere with the casting, counting, or reporting of votes.

In short, there was a glaringmismatch between the charges against Trump and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime, which isnot a crime at all. Since they could not charge him with “election fraud” merely because he tried to hide embarrassing information, they instead built a convoluted case that relied on interacting statutes and questionable assumptions about Trump’s knowledge and intent.

That approach suggests several possible grounds for appeal. It is not clear, for example, whether a violation of federal campaign finance regulations counts as “another crime” under the state law dealing with falsification of business records. Even if it does, it is not clear whether Section 17-152 applies in the context of a federal election, where federal law generally pre-empts state law. There are also questions about what is required to prove that Trump had “an intent to defraud” when he signed the checks to Cohen.

Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., after lengthy consideration of possible state charges based on the Daniels payment, decided they were too legally iffy to pursue. Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in Vance’s office who worked on the Trump investigation,concludedthat “such a case was too risky under New York law.” In a 2023book, Pomerantznotedthat “no appellate court in New York had ever upheld (or rejected) this interpretation of the law.”

Last week,New York Times columnist David French worried about the consequences of a conviction that is overturned on appeal. “Imagine a scenario in which Trump is convicted at the trial, Biden condemns him as a felon and the Biden campaign runs ads mocking him as a convict,” he wrote. “If Biden wins a narrow victory but then an appeals court tosses out the conviction, this case could well undermine faith in our democracy and the rule of law.” In his desperation to prevent Trump from reoccupying the White House, Bragg has already accomplished that.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

Published

on

By

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

A Manhattan crypto investor is facing serious charges after allegedly kidnapping and torturing an Italian man in a disturbing bid to extract access to digital assets.

John Woeltz, 37, was arraigned on Saturday in Manhattan criminal court following his arrest on Friday. He stands accused of holding a 28-year-old Italian man captive for weeks inside a luxury townhouse in Soho, reportedly rented for $30,000 per month.

According to police reports cited by The New York Times, the victim arrived in the US on May 6 and was allegedly abducted by Woeltz and an accomplice.

The attackers are said to have stolen the man’s passport and electronic devices before demanding the password to his Bitcoin (BTC) wallet. When he refused, the suspects allegedly subjected him to prolonged physical abuse.

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords
Source: Mario Nawfal

Related: Violent crypto robberies on the rise: Six attacks that targeted investors

Crypto victim beaten, electroshocked

The victim described being beaten, shocked with electricity, assaulted with a firearm and even dangled from the upper floors of the five-story building.

He also told police that Woeltz used a saw to cut his leg and forced him to smoke crack cocaine. Threats were also reportedly made against his family.

Photographic evidence found inside the property, including Polaroids, appears to support claims of sustained abuse. The victim managed to escape on Friday and alert authorities, leading to Woeltz’s arrest.

Woeltz was charged with four felony counts, including kidnapping for ransom, and entered a plea of not guilty. Judge Eric Schumacher ordered him to be held without bail. He is expected back in court on May 28.

A 24-year-old woman was also taken into custody on Friday in connection with the incident. However, she was seen walking freely in New York the next day, and no charges against her were found in the court’s online database.

Authorities have yet to clarify the relationship between the suspect and the victim or whether any cryptocurrency was ultimately stolen.

Related: Crypto crime goes industrial as gangs launch coins, launder billions — UN

Crypto executives turn to bodyguards

Executives and investors in the crypto industry are increasingly seeking personal security services as kidnapping and ransom cases surge, especially in France.

On May 18, Amsterdam-based private firm Infinite Risks International reported a rise in requests for bodyguards and long-term protection contracts from high-profile figures in the space.

French authorities have responded by introducing enhanced protections for crypto entrepreneurs and their families, including security briefings and priority access to police assistance.

This comes amid a recent surge in kidnappings and ransom attempts. David Balland, the co-founder of hardware wallet company Ledger, was kidnapped in January 2025 and held for ransom for several days before being rescued by French police.

In May 2024, the father of an unnamed crypto entrepreneur was freed from a ransom attempt after French law enforcement officials raided the location in a Paris suburb where the individual was being held hostage by organized criminals.

Magazine: Bitcoiner sex trap extortion? BTS firm’s blockchain disaster: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Business

Gail’s backer plots rare move with bid for steak chain Flat Iron

Published

on

By

Gail's backer plots rare move with bid for steak chain Flat Iron

A backer of Gail’s bakeries is in advanced talks to acquire Flat Iron, one of Britain’s fastest-growing steak restaurant chains.

Sky News has learnt that McWin Capital Partners, which specialises in investments across the “food ecosystem”, has teamed up with TriSpan, another private equity investor, to buy a large stake in Flat Iron.

Restaurant industry sources said McWin would probably take the largest economic interest in Flat Iron if the deal completes.

They added that the two buyers were in exclusive discussions, with a deal possible in approximately a month’s time.

The valuation attached to Flat Iron was unclear on Sunday.

Flat Iron launched in 2012 in London’s Shoreditch and now has roughly 20 sites open.

The chain is solidly profitable, with its latest accounts showing underlying profits of £5.7m in the year to the end of August.

It already has private equity backing in the form of Piper, a leading investor in consumer brands, which injected £10m into the business in 2017.

Flat Iron was founded by Charlie Carroll, who retains an interest in it, but the company is now run by former Byron restaurant boss Tom Byng.

Houlihan Lokey, the investment bank, has been advising Flat Iron on the process.

McWin has reportedly been in talks to take full control of Gail’s while TriSpan’s portfolio has included restaurant operators such as the Vietnamese chain Pho and Rosa’s, a Thai food chain.

A spokesman for McWin declined to comment.

Continue Reading

US

The anniversary of George Floyd’s murder is a reminder of America’s racial divides

Published

on

By

The anniversary of George Floyd's murder is a reminder of America's racial divides

In Minneapolis, the spot where George Floyd was murdered has been turned into a mural.

His face is depicted in street art on a pavement covered in flowers, rosaries, and other trinkets left by people who have come to pay their respects in the last five years.

His final moments, struggling for breath with white police officer Derek Chauvin’s knee on his neck, were captured in a viral video that provoked anger, upset, and outrage.

Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck
Image:
Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck

In Minneapolis and other parts of America, there were protests that at points boiled over into unrest.

The events to mark the fifth anniversary of his death took on a very different tone – one of celebration and joy.

Behind a wooden statue of a clenched fist on one end of a junction now renamed George Perry Floyd Square, people gathered in the morning.

There was a moment of prayer before a brass band began to play and the group marched, while singing and chanting.

George Perry Floyd Square, a makeshift memorial area
Image:
George Perry Floyd Square, a makeshift memorial area

‘It made us want to fight harder’

Among those gathered in front of a makeshift stage built in the square were two of Floyd’s family members – his cousin Paris and aunt Mahalia.

To them, the man whose death sparked a racial reckoning in America and further afield, was simply “Perry,” a larger-than-life figure whose presence is missed at family gatherings.

Speaking to me while the speakers behind them thumped and people danced, they didn’t just reflect with sadness though.

There was also pride at a legacy they felt has led to change.

“It made us want to fight harder,” said Mahalia, “and it’s a feeling you cannot explain. When the whole world just stood up.”

George Floyd's aunt Mahalia and cousin Paris
Image:
George Floyd’s aunt Mahalia and cousin Paris

Referring to Chauvin’s eventual murder charge, Paris added: “I think that from here on out, at least officers know that you’re not going to slide through the cracks. Our voices are heard more.”

The tapestry of items outside the Cup Foods convenience store, now renamed Unity Foods, is not the only makeshift memorial in the area.

A short walk away is the “Say Their Names” cemetery, an art installation honouring black people killed by the police.

Meeting me there later in the day, activist Nikema Levy says the installation and George Floyd Square are called “sacred spaces” in the community.

As someone who took to the streets at the time of Floyd’s death and a community organiser for years before that, she’s constantly stopped by people who want to speak to her.

Activist Nikema Levy speaking to Sky News
Image:
Activist Nikema Levy speaking to Sky News

‘White supremacy on steroids’

Once we do manage to speak, Levy reminds me of a wider political picture. One that goes beyond Minneapolis and is a fraught one.

In the week of the anniversary, the US Department of Justice rolled back investigations into some of the largest police forces in the country, including in Minneapolis – a move she calls “diabolical.”

“That type of cruelty is what we have seen since Donald Trump took office on January 20th of this year,” she continued.

“From my perspective, that is white supremacy on steroids. And it should come as no surprise that he would take these types of steps, because these are the things that he talked about on the campaign trail.”

Read more from Sky News:
US-EU trade war fears reignite
Arsenal secure historic Champions League crown
Scientists are on the hunt for dolphin poo

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Has US changed five years after George Floyd’s death?

‘True healing has never taken place’

Trump has argued his policing reforms will help make America’s communities safer.

Even on a day of optimism, with a community coming together, Levy’s words in front of headstones bearing the names of black people who have died at the hands of the police are a reminder of how deep the racial divides in America still are – a sentiment she leaves me with.

“From the days of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, we’ve just had the perception of healing, but true healing has never taken place,” she says.

“So the aftermath of George Floyd is yet another example of what we already know.”

Continue Reading

Trending