Under Judge T.S. Ellis III’s admonishment that prosecutors move rapidly, the documents were each introduced into evidence with little description or guidance to the jury about how they will become important later in the trial. In general, prosecutors appeared to be trying to establish that Manafort was paying for home improvements on various properties he or his family owned over the years that he was working in Ukraine. One document described wire transfers that totaled $3 million. Another showed a proposal for unnamed home improvements for $750,000. The work was listed at properties in the Hamptons, Brooklyn and Florida.<doc-sep>President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort went on trial Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria, Va., where prosecutors charged that his personal fortune was propped up by years of lies to tax authorities and banks. The first trial to arise out of the investigation run by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III got off to a fast start Tuesday, as a six-man, six-woman jury was picked — and opening statements delivered — in less than a day. . . . Manafort faces 18 charges of financial fraud, as prosecutors say he failed to pay taxes on some of the millions of dollars he made working as a strategist for a political party in Ukraine, and then lied to banks to get loans when those payments stopped. Though the case grew out of the special counsel probe, the trial will not delve into issues surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 election; it is about Manafort’s money.<doc-sep>People wait in line to enter the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse to attend the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in Alexandria, Va. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images Manafort trial Manafort trial day 4: Accountant concedes possible wrongdoing, Manafort's double life 'They never told us about any income deposited in foreign accounts,' another accountant told jurors. An accountant for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort admitted at Manafort’s tax- and bank-fraud trial Friday that she filed tax returns she thought contained false information and that she may have committed a crime in doing so. Cindy Laporta said she had a sense that what Manafort and his aide Rick Gates told her about money being transferred into their international political consulting business wasn’t accurate. “I prepared the tax returns and communicated with banks based on information that Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort provided to me that I didn’t believe,” said Laporta, the first witness at the trial to testify under a grant of immunity . The admission was the first time during Manafort's trial that a witness has acknowledged knowing involvement in potential wrongdoing. As the longtime lobbyist fights charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, Laporta is one of five people on Mueller’s witness list for whom the government requested immunity. Laporta, who works for Kositzka Wicks & Co., based in Alexandria, Virginia, said she sought immunity because she was concerned about being prosecuted. Her attorney had indicated that Laporta would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights if forced to testify without immunity. Laporta’s testimony was some of the first evidence to support bank fraud charges in the federal indictment against Manafort. Her statements were some of the most damaging testimony at the trial thus far, but the presence of Gates in many of her dealings with the tax and financial issues may leave the defense an opening to pursue their argument that Gates was freelancing when he drafted loan-related documents that may have been backdated and forged. Laporta said that when preparing tax returns and related records, she agreed to treat as loans $2.4 million in funds that Manafort’s consulting firm received from offshore businesses, even though she had doubts that they really were loans and got little documentation to back up that claim. The accountant said her requests for details on the loans yielded unusual one- or two-page documents, not the typical stack of paper with numerous clauses. The alleged loans were also recorded in the books of Manafort’s DMP International as coming from the consulting firm’s customers, which Laporta found suspicious. “I had not seen that before,” she said. “Yes, it was a concern.” POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or updates from POLITICO and you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and you can contact us here. This sign-up form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In another exchange, Laporta testified that Gates told her in September 2015 that Manafort’s income needed to be reduced so he could afford to pay his taxes. To finesse the situation, she said, Gates instructed her to reduce Manafort’s income by not counting one of his loans. While Laporta said she followed the instructions, she told Mueller prosecutor Uzo Asonye that the move was “not appropriate.” “We can’t pick and choose what’s a loan and [what’s] income,” she explained. Although the purported loans allowed Manafort at one point to bring in cash without paying taxes, a $1.5 million loan from a company called Peranova in 2012 caused problems by 2016 when Manafort was seeking a fresh loan from Citizens Bank. “The bank wanted to see more money available to pay back the loan” it was considering, Laporta said. “There wasn’t enough income and there was the debt.” Laporta said Manafort or Gates — she was unclear about which one — told her the loan had been forgiven in 2015, so she passed on that information to the bank. “What information did you rely on in providing this response?” Asonye asked. “Their word,” Laporta replied. “Did you believe the $1.5 million loan from Peranova had actually been forgiven?” the prosecutor asked. “Uh … no,” she answered. When the bank asked for documentation, Gates sent Laporta a draft forgiveness letter dated June 2015, even though it was February 2016, she said. “At the time, did you believe this document was true or false?” Asonye asked. “False,” she said. “Did you understand this letter to be backdated?” the prosecutor asked. “Yes,” Laporta said. Eventually, Gates sent a copy of the forgiveness letter that was signed by someone claiming to be a director of Peranova, but still dated eight months earlier. Gates pleaded guilty in a related case in February and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for most of the charges against him being dropped. He’s expected to testify against Manafort in the coming days. Asked why she went along with the fake memo, Laporta said, “I honestly believed the bank would have to vet that document themselves, and I felt I was protected by having them prepare that document and own that document.” The accountant also testified that in August 2016, while he was at the helm of the Trump campaign, Manafort pressed her directly for a revised financial statement that would show his firm anticipating income when it had received none at all that year. Manafort told Laporta via email that the firm was expecting payment of $2.4 million in November for Ukraine-related work. He wanted an accrual-based accounting statement that showed the funds as earned. But the accountant found it odd that no expenses had been reported to her for that work. Asked whether the company really was due $2.4 million, Laporta said: “I had no idea. I just asked for evidence. … I never received the information I requested regarding backup for income or for any additional expenses.” Prosecutors contend the loans were shams, coming from offshore accounts Manafort controlled, and designed to inject cash into his struggling business while avoiding tax liability. After Laporta left the stand Friday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis told Manafort defense lawyer Kevin Downing he would be free to question the accountant on Monday about her immunity agreement and any other arrangements with the government. The judge said he was confused by the CPA, who said she makes about $400,000 a year, declaring that she took responsibility for what transpired with Manafort and Gates. “She wasn’t prosecuted. … I don’t know if there were any professional consequences or consequences of that sort,” the judge said. “I don’t know what she means when he says she took responsibility. Nothing happened." Manafort led financial double life, prosecutors say Earlier on Day Four of Manafort’s trial, prosecutors advanced their case that the high-flying international political consultant lived a financial double life — hiding overseas bank accounts from his accountants and lying to them about the source of large sums he deposited in U.S. banks. The testimony further underscored the argument by Mueller’s team that Manafort relied on a complex web of foreign financial entities and transactions to conceal and evade U.S. taxes on millions of dollars he earned from managing and advising foreign political campaigns, particularly in Ukraine several years ago. Manafort’s defense team has suggested that false statements on his tax returns were understandable oversights by a busy man. But prosecutors are working methodically to demolish that position through testimony showing a years-long pattern of deception on Manafort’s part. An accountant who helped prepare Manafort’s taxes for almost 20 years, Philip Ayliff, testified Friday that he and his colleagues often directly asked Manafort and Gates about possible foreign accounts and other unusual transactions but were never informed about a web of foreign entities prosecutors say Manafort controlled. “They never told us about any income deposited in foreign accounts,” Ayliff said.<doc-sep>
(CNN) — The criminal trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pressed on for its second day at a steady clip Wednesday, even as his former boss President Donald Trump called the investigation of Manafort as part of an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election a “hoax.” Here are five takeaways from day two: A Theme Emerges: Buying luxury goods via international wire transfer The prosecution’s case is gaining steam. Witness after witness filled Wednesday afternoon with testimony about how Manafort personally spent millions of dollars on luxury clothing, a premium watch, Mercedes Benz cars, real estate and home improvements – and paid for much of it out of offshore shell company accounts that sent the money through international wire transfers. Prosecutors call the group of witnesses “the vendors.” Bill Hennessy First came the 29-year-old impeccably dressed clothier from New Jersey, who said Manafort was among the top five of about 40 high-end clients of his father’s custom men’s clothing boutique. Manafort was the only client to pay him through international wire transfers, the former clothing store manager said. Then came a manager of the House of Bijan, which is often billed as the most expensive men’s store in the world. The manager said he too received international wire transfers from Manafort-related companies, including for a limited edition titanium watch with crystal. Prosecutors are trying to demonstrate for the jury how Manafort used money he earned in Ukraine for his personal benefit, and hid it from federal authorities and others in shell companies. What Manafort Bought Let’s tally up the purchases revealed in court Wednesday. A realtor-friend of Manafort sold his daughter a house in Virginia for $1.9 million. A contractor said Manafort spent more than $3 million over five years for home improvement. Manafort spent over $900,000 with the custom men’s clothing store Alan Couture, another witness who ran the store said. In total, the six vendors on the witness stand Wednesday described more than $6 million in payments Manafort sent to them for luxury items and services. U. S. Department of Justice The purchases appear to have hit a note with the wider public. After prosecutors first spoke about a $15,000 jacket “made from an ostrich” in the trial’s first minutes, the anti-animal cruelty group PETA published a letter Wednesday to Manafort’s lawyer. The group asked Manafort to donate the ostrich jacket to them so they can teach children it was “cruelly obtained.” Manafort could receive a tax deduction, PETA added. Focus on Rick Gates – will he testify? The defense team is still trying to pick away at longtime Manafort deputy and special counsel cooperator Rick Gates’ credibility. On the first day of the trial, the defense team outlined how they sought to blame Gates for Manafort’s alleged crimes. Prosecutors asked several of the vendor witnesses on Wednesday if they ever met Gates. They all said no. But the deputy was copied on emails and dealt with payment issues on behalf of Manafort. Gates pleaded guilty in February to a case against him and Manafort in Washington, DC, which Manafort is still fighting. Prosecutors then dropped almost two dozen charges against Gates in the Virginia case that’s currently on trial. The most pulse-pumping moment of the trial in day two also involved Gates. That was when prosecutor Uzo Asonye said Gates may or may not testify against Manafort. Several reporters dashed out of the courtroom, and Ellis remarked they “scurried out of here like rats.” Asonye then backtracked, saying he didn’t mean to suggest that Gates wouldn’t testify. Gates is still expected to testify. Rocket Docket It’s Judge T.S. Ellis’ courtroom and the attorneys, witnesses and spectators best know who’s boss. Throughout the full day of fast-moving witness testimony, Ellis asserted his presence dozens of times and even raised his voice. He stopped prosecutors from showing on screens in the courtrooms photographs of the high-end items Manafort owned, like custom jackets. Instead, Ellis repeatedly pushed prosecutors to “hurry up,” “move along” or get to the “next question.” “It’s my job to see we get this thing done with the least amount of wasted time,” he said. Meet Manafort trial ringmaster T.S. Ellis At the end of the day, Ellis snapped at prosecutor Brandon Van Grack as he started to describe another document for the jury. “Let’s cut to the chase,” Ellis said, nearly yelling.