Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove that Manafort personally knowingly and intentionally defrauded these banks and the IRS. There really was not very much evidence that plausibly could be said served to prove THAT.
But on a couple of points, it is a close call, so I will not be surprised to these verdicts could go either way.
It seems like the next case in September is more likely than this one to result in a conviction.
All of you who are jumping to conclusions here appear to be letting your partisan biases and your emotions get the better of you. Don't be surprised if Manafort is exonerated here for lack of proof.
Manafort had to have some understanding that his income was non-existent, smart enough to set up 31 foreign bank accounts but he didn't know he was broke when he went in for a loan. I don't see that flying. Why was he seeking a loan in the first place.
Manafort had to have some understanding that his income was non-existent, smart enough to set up 31 foreign bank accounts but he didn't know he was broke when he went in for a loan. I don't see that flying. Why was he seeking a loan in the first place.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Manafort's explanation does not have to "fly". It is the prosecutor's case that has to "fly" - over the require burden of proof, which in this case is to prove that Manafort himself knowingly and intentionally defrauded these banks and the IRS. It is not presumed that he did, rather it is presumed that he didn't.
As far as the banks, that is going to be a steep uphill climb, as he pledged security that is more than the value of the loans, so the banks do not appear to have suffered any actual loss.
The IRS charges are more compelling, as the boxes indicating that these company's had overseas accounts were not checked and the accountant was apparently misinformed by the Manafort organization.
But was it shown that Manafort himself knowingly and intentionally mislead the IRS? That is what has to be shown here, and while it is not out of the question, it is not clear to me that the prosecution achieved that burden of proof. But it is up to the jury now. We will soon see what they think.
Again, the case in September appears to be more likely to result in a conviction than this one does, regardless of how this one turns out.
Manafort is just sitting back waiting for the pardon after his conviction. People that protect or say nice things about Trump get rewarded via Trump's use of the lever of government for his own personal purposes.
Manafort's explanation does not have to "fly". It is the prosecutor's case that has to "fly" over the require burden of proof, which in this case is to prove that Manafort knowingly and intentionally defrauded these banks and the IRS. It is not presumed that he did, rather it is presumed that he didn't.
As far as the banks, that is going to be a steep uphill climb, as he pledged security that is more than the value of the loans, so the banks do not appear to have suffered any actual loss.
The IRS charges are more compelling, as the boxes indicating that these company's had overseas accounts were not checked and the accountant was apparently misinformed by the Manafort organization.
But was it shown that Manafort himself knowingly and intentionally mislead the IRS? That is what has to be shown here, and while it is not out of the question, it is not clear to me in any case that the prosecution achieved that burden of proof. But it is up to the jury now. We will soon see what they think.
Again, the case in September appears to be more likely to result in a conviction than this one does, regardless of how this one turns out.
He said he didn't have any foreign accounts. He even said that in an email. That wasn't the truth.
The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove that Manafort personally knowingly and intentionally defrauded these banks and the IRS. There really was not very much evidence that plausibly could be said served to prove THAT.
But on a couple of points, it is a close call, so I will not be surprised to these verdicts could go either way.
It seems like the next case in September is more likely than this one to result in a conviction.
All of you who are jumping to conclusions here appear to be letting your partisan biases and your emotions get the better of you. Don't be surprised if Manafort is exonerated here for lack of proof.
They have him for sure on the IRS charges. FBAR has stiff penalties for failing to report foreign bank accounts over equiv. $10K USD average annual balances....and IRS asks on the form, Did you have a foreign bank account? For all the years in question, Manafort checked the NO box. As an expat in Mexico, this is basic stuff....everyone knows it, the local banks remind you, etc. etc. etc. No excuse for us lowly expats, no excuse for Manafort.
On the bank loans, I think they should have charged the BANKER who wanted to be Secy of Army...he put his other customers at risk by underwriting Manafort's loans.
He said he didn't have any foreign accounts. He even said that in an email. That wasn't the truth.
This is what it may come down to on the IRS issue. That appears to me to be the more likely point of guilt than the bank loans, if any convictions come out of this.
They have him for sure on the IRS charges. FBAR has stiff penalties for failing to report foreign bank accounts over equiv. $10K USD average annual balances....and IRS asks on the form, Did you have a foreign bank account? For all the years in question, Manafort checked the NO box. As an expat in Mexico, this is basic stuff....everyone knows it, the local banks remind you, etc. etc. etc. No excuse for us lowly expats, no excuse for Manafort.
On the bank loans, I think they should have charged the BANKER who wanted to be Secy of Army...he put his other customers at risk by underwriting Manafort's loans.
Hopefully this will be coming up. I guess that banker never heard of "fiduciary responsibility".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
