William K. Rashbaum

Now, for the first time, federal authorities are bringing the same kind of felony drug-trafficking charges against a major pharmaceutical distributor and two of its former executives for their role in fanning the crisis.

Prosecutors said the former executives at the company, Rochester Drug Cooperative, ignored red flags and shipped tens of millions of oxycodone pills and fentanyl products to pharmacies they knew were distributing drugs illegally. Their sales soared, as did the compensation of the chief executive.

“Why did they do it?” asked Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, who announced the charges at a news conference. “Greed.”

Berman said the case was the first of its kind and vowed his office would “do everything in its power to combat this epidemic, from street-level dealers to the executives who illegally distribute drugs from their boardrooms.”

The government’s novel tactic was expected to reverberate through the pharmaceutical industry, where large corporations and senior executives have long escaped criminal culpability for the epidemic of overdoses from prescription painkillers, like oxycodone.

On Tuesday, prosecutors charged Rochester Drug Cooperative, or RDC, as a corporate entity with conspiring to distribute drugs, conspiracy to defraud the United States and failing to file suspicious order reports.

But the corporation entered into an agreement under which the government will hold off on prosecuting the company on the charges as long as it pays a $20 million fine, complies with the controlled substances law and submits to five years of supervision by an independent monitor.

As part of the agreement, however, the company, the nation’s sixth-largest distributor, admitted in court papers that it intentionally violated federal narcotics laws by shipping dangerous, highly addictive opioids to pharmacies, knowing that the prescription medicines were being sold and used illicitly.

“We made mistakes,” Jeff Eller, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement. “And RDC understands that these mistakes, directed by former management, have serious consequences.”

The two former company officials, Laurence F. Doud III and William Pietruszewski, were also charged with conspiring to distribute drugs and defrauding the government.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/opioid-crisis-drug-trafficking-rochester.html" id="d40ab987-953f-3780-acce-180a0b0f88de">The New York Times</a>.

Law enforcement officials have long tried to stem the opioid crisis in America with criminal charges for street dealers and cartel kingpins who traffic in drugs like fentanyl and oxycodone.

Prosecutors Fighting the Opioid Crisis Aim at the Heart of the Network

The company, Rochester Drug Cooperative, or RDC, was charged Tuesday in federal court with conspiring to distribute drugs and defrauding the government.

But it entered into an agreement under which the government will hold off on prosecuting the company itself on the charges as long as it pays a $20 million fine, complies with the controlled substances law and submits to five years of supervision by an independent monitor.

As part of the agreement, the company, the nation’s sixth-largest distributor, admitted in court papers that it intentionally violated federal narcotics laws by shipping dangerous, highly addictive opioids to pharmacies, knowing that the prescription medicines were being sold and used illicitly.

The two former company officials were also charged with conspiring to distribute drugs and defrauding the government. One of the former executives pleaded guilty last week and is cooperating with prosecutors; the other was expected to appear in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to face the charges later Tuesday.

“This prosecution is the first of its kind,” said Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. “Our office will do everything in its power to combat this epidemic, from street-level dealers to the executives who illegally distribute drugs from their boardrooms.”

Overdoses on prescription opioids have taken more than 200,000 lives in the last two decades, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The charges stem from a two-year Drug Enforcement Administration investigation that began after the company violated the terms of a civil settlement. The company had admitted in the civil case that it had for years failed to report thousands of suspicious opioid orders from pharmacies, many of which flouted order limits and catered to doctors who ran pill mills.

Recent lawsuits brought by state attorneys general in New York, Vermont and Washington state have accused Rochester and the nation’s three largest distributors — Cardinal Health, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen — of brazenly devising systems to evade regulators.

It was not immediately clear whether other distributors were under investigation.

But Ray Donovan, who leads the New York office of the DEA, said the criminal charges against RDC should remind other distributors “of their role as gatekeepers of prescription medication.”

“The distribution of lifesaving medication is paramount to public health,” he said. “Similarly, so is identifying rogue members of the pharmaceutical and medical fields whose diversion contributes to the record-breaking drug overdoses in America.”

John Kinney, acting chief executive of RDC, which operates in 10 states, appeared on behalf of the company before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Kinney signed the deferred prosecution agreement, in which the company effectively admitted committing the crimes. The agreement, along with a civil settlement, or consent decree, were approved by Reice Buchwald.

Together, the agreement and the decree will allow the company to continue operating and set standards and oversight of its conduct, according to a court document.

State and federal authorities have struggled to hold pharmaceutical distributors accountable, and the lawsuits brought by state attorneys general say that despite signing consent decrees and paying fines, the companies have continued to ship thousands of doses of opioids to troubled pharmacies.

The two former RDC officials charged in the case are Laurence F. Doud III, who had served as chief executive, and William Pietruszewski, the former chief of compliance, several people with knowledge of the matter said.

Doud, 75, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, surrendered to DEA agents Tuesday morning and was expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan. He is charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of failing to file suspicious order reports.

Pietruszewski, 53, of Oak Ridge, New Jersey, pleaded guilty Friday to the same charges and is cooperating with prosecutors, according to people briefed on the matter.

Doud last year sued Rochester Drug Cooperative, alleging in court papers that the company had wrongfully fired him and that other executives were conspiring to blame him for the conduct that was the subject of the criminal investigation.

“Mr. Doud is being framed by others to cover up their wrongdoing,” one of his lawyers, Robert C. Gottlieb, said in a statement Tuesday. “The government has it all wrong. He will fight these charges to his last breath and he will be vindicated.”

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

Doud, 75, of New Smyrna, Florida, surrendered to DEA agents Tuesday morning and was expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan. He is charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of failing to file suspicious order reports.

The company, Rochester Drug Cooperative, which is the nation’s sixth-largest distributor, was charged Tuesday with conspiring to distribute drugs and defrauding the federal government. Two former company officials were also charged in the case, which was brought by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan.

The criminal charges leveled at the drug distributor and its former executives marked a new tactic for the government in tackling the nation’s epidemic of addiction to prescription painkillers, like oxycodone.

Prosecutors applied the same criminal statutes to charge the distributor and its former executives as have been used against illicit street dealers and cartel chiefs who traffic in fentanyl and oxycodone.

The charges stem from a two-year investigation by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration that began after the company violated the terms of a civil settlement.

The company had admitted in the civil case that it had for years failed to report thousands of suspicious opioid orders from pharmacies, many of which flouted order limits and catered to doctors who ran pill mills.

In the last two decades, more than 200,000 people have died in the United States from overdoses involving prescription opioids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Roughly 200,000 more have died from overdoses involving illegal opioids like heroin.

John Kinney, acting chief executive of the Rochester Drug Cooperative, or RDC, which operates in 10 states, appeared on behalf of the company at a brief court proceeding Tuesday morning before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Kinney signed a deferred prosecution agreement, in which the company effectively admitted to committing the crimes. The agreement, along with a civil consent decree, were both approved by the judge.

Together, the agreement and the decree will allow the company to continue operating and set standards for its conduct, as well as providing for continued oversight, according to a court document.

“We made mistakes,” Jeff Eller, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement, “and RDC understands that these mistakes, directed by former management, have serious consequences.”

State and federal authorities have struggled to hold the distributors accountable, and the lawsuits say that despite signing consent decrees and paying fines, the companies have continued to ship thousands of doses of opioids to troubled pharmacies.

The two former Rochester officials also charged in the case were Laurence F. Doud III, who had served as chief executive, and William Pietruszewski, the former chief of compliance, several people with knowledge of the matter said.

Doud was expected to surrender to DEA agents and to appear in U.S. District Court in Manhattan later Tuesday.

Robert C. Gottlieb, a lawyer for Doud, said he would not comment until he had had a chance to review the charges against his client. Pietruszewski’s lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Ray Donovan, the special agent in charge of the DEA’s New York Field Division, were expected to formally announce the charges at a news conference later Tuesday.

For the first time, a major pharmaceutical distributor is facing federal criminal charges over its role in the opioid crisis that has ravaged the United States.

Although Cohen was not a central part of the Trump family business, he was often at Trump’s side in the decade before Trump became president, including helping him sort out difficulties leading up to the 2016 election. Most famously, he helped arrange hush money payments to two women — including pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels — who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.

His unflinching loyalty to his boss often went unreciprocated. And it was this imbalance that left the two men on perilous ground in April 2018, after the FBI raided Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. The searches were part of an inquiry, in the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, that grew out of Robert Mueller’s examination of Russian election meddling.

Cohen would ultimately plead guilty to multiple crimes, and is scheduled to begin serving a three-year prison term May 6. After months of indecision, he turned on Trump this past summer and has since spoken to the Southern District prosecutors about the Trump family business and more, as well as providing information to Mueller’s office.

A review by The New York Times of confidential emails, text messages and other communications suggest the men’s falling out could have been avoidable. Either way, its consequences have cast a shadow on the Trump presidency.

Here are five reasons the undoing of their relationship matters.

1. Cohen implicated the president in a crime.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan effectively characterized Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in the hush money payments, which violated campaign finance laws because they were made to influence the outcome of the election.

At his plea hearing, Cohen said he had made the payments at Trump’s direction, which was consistent with other evidence prosecutors had gathered.

Under current Justice Department policy, a president cannot be charged with a crime. But when a president is no longer in office, prosecutors are free to bring charges — a possibility cited in the Mueller report released Thursday.

2. He assisted criminal investigations into Trump’s business.

Cohen did not enter into a formal cooperation agreement with the Southern District prosecutors but voluntarily met with them about his knowledge of Trump’s family, business and inner circle.

If the prosecutors determine that he provided them with useful information, it is possible his three-year sentence could be reduced under federal sentencing rules. As such, Trump and others have dismissed his cooperation as a desperate play for leniency.

So far his information has helped several investigations, including one examining aspects of Trump’s inaugural festivities.

3. Cohen used the spotlight to attack the president’s character.

Since turning on his former boss, Cohen has become one of Trump’s fiercest critics, offering fodder for the president’s detractors.

Cohen laid into the president in testimony before Congress in late February, exposing what he described as the dark underside of the president’s business and political life. “He is a racist. He is a con man. And he is a cheat,” Cohen testified.

During the hearing, Trump defenders repeatedly questioned the veracity of Cohen’s statements, especially because he had pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress during an earlier appearance about Trump’s dealings in Moscow.

But Cohen said he was coming clean.

“I have fixed things, but I am no longer your ‘fixer,’ Mr. Trump,” Cohen said.

4. He gave Congress a view into the president’s finances.

Cohen’s testimony has also provided something of a road map for congressional investigators looking into Trump’s finances. Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars USA, an accounting firm that had for many years prepared Trump’s taxes.

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he was seeking the records because of Cohen’s testimony that Trump had overstated his assets before he was elected.

Cohen had provided the panel with copies of financial statements that indicated Trump’s net worth skyrocketed to $8.66 billion in 2013 from $4.55 billion the previous year as a result of a line item identified as “brand value.”

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, said no valid legislative purpose was served by the subpoena, suggesting it was meant to embarrass the president.

5. There is no clear endgame.

The status of several criminal investigations that grew out of Cohen’s interviews with federal prosecutors remains unclear. But as recently as February, a judge disclosed that the hush money inquiry focused on Trump Organization officials remained open.

In New York, several inquiries undertaken by state authorities in response to Cohen’s congressional testimony are still active. They include one by the attorney general into Trump’s real estate projects, and another by state regulators into his insurance practices.

And as Cohen’s May 6 surrender date nears, his lawyers appear to be making a last-ditch effort to keep him out of prison. They wrote this month to Democratic members of Congress, asking them to endorse a campaign to reduce his sentence or postpone his surrender. But the effort does not appear to have borne fruit.

Cohen’s three-year prison term is the longest yet from any case that grew out of the special counsel’s inquiry, after that of Paul Manafort, who was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.

Nonetheless, the redacted version of the Mueller report indicates that federal authorities were debriefing Cohen as recently as March.

The full range of topics discussed is not known. But footnotes point to an FBI document, dated March 19, based on an interview with Cohen. The document is cited in connection with statements he made about his conversations with the president after the FBI raid and about a Trump Tower project in Russia, as well as discussions with the president’s lawyer about a possible pardon.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/us/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-history.html" id="e5f3e196-a149-3827-a2fb-9f5610c189a0">The New York Times</a>.

Why It Matters That Trump and Michael Cohen Had a Falling Out

Fixer. The title wasn’t a formal one, but Michael Cohen wholeheartedly embraced the role as a lawyer at the Trump Organization. It amounted to serving as chief problem solver for Donald Trump, offering Cohen an unusually up-close view of his boss’ personal and professional lives.

But the man, Anthony Comello, gave several conflicting accounts about what happened the night the reputed mobster, Francesco Cali, was fatally shot. Though Comello has acknowledged being at the scene, investigators have been unable to corroborate many of his claims or to establish a motive for the shooting, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an open investigation.

Comello was arrested in Brick Township, New Jersey, on Saturday morning and spoke to investigators for “quite some time” before retaining a lawyer, and made statements that were recorded on videotape, a third person with knowledge of the matter said Monday.

Comello made an initial appearance in court in Ocean County, New Jersey, on Monday afternoon. He waived extradition to New York “without reference to guilt or innocence” during the 15-minute court hearing.

Comello is facing murder, weapons and assault charges in the death of Cali, who was shot at close range Wednesday night in front of his house in the Todt Hill section of Staten Island.

While police have said the investigation is still in its early stages, several law enforcement officials have said the killing does not appear to be mob-related, even though detectives are still seeking to nail down the motive.

In his recorded statements to New York detectives, Comello gave conflicting accounts of what happened, but put himself at the murder scene, according to the two officials.

Comello told detectives Saturday that he had a romantic interest in one of Cali’s female relatives and that Cali had told him to stay away. He also said that he was high on marijuana at the time and shot Cali because he feared the crime figure had a gun and would shoot him.

He stopped talking to the detectives, who were questioning him in Ocean County, after his lawyer, Robert C. Gottlieb, was retained to represent him.

Gottlieb said in the statement that the accusations against his client were a severe departure from the conduct his family and friends had come to expect from him.

“The people who know him best, his family and friends, cannot believe what they are hearing,” Gottlieb said. “There is something very wrong here, and we will get to the bottom of it.”

Police have said Comello lured Cali out of his house by backing his pickup truck into Cali’s Cadillac Escalade and then ringing the doorbell, apparently to tell him about the incident. A surveillance camera near the front door, one official has said, captured a clear image of Comello’s face.

Several law enforcement officials have said that the slaying itself was also captured on surveillance video, and the two men were seen talking, apparently calmly. Then the gunman picked up the Escalade’s license plate, which had been knocked off in the fender bender, and handed it to Cali before he opened fire. Comello’s fingerprints were found on the license plate, the officials said.

It was unclear when he would be arraigned in Staten Island on the charges. If he is held without bail after his arraignment in Staten Island, the New York City Department of Correction will likely put him in protective custody because of concerns that he could be targeted by angry Gambino crime family members.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/anthony-comello-frank-cali.html" id="ef27e3b7-d1c8-3c92-a3e1-5cb82c04eee9">The New York Times</a>.

Anthony Comello Says He Shot Gambino Leader Because He Feared for His Life

NEW YORK — The 24-year-old man charged with killing a senior leader of the Gambino crime family in Staten Island told detectives that he was high on marijuana and shot the crime figure because he feared for his life, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the matter.

But the man, Anthony Comello, gave several conflicting accounts about what happened the night the reputed mobster, Francesco Cali, was fatally shot. Though Comello has acknowledged being at the scene, investigators have been unable to corroborate many of his claims or to establish a motive for the shooting, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Comello made an initial appearance in court in Ocean County, New Jersey, on Monday afternoon. He waived extradition to New York “without reference to guilt or innocence” during the court hearing.

Comello told detectives Saturday he had a romantic interest in one of Cali’s female relatives and that Cali had told him to stay away. He also said he was high on marijuana at the time and shot Cali because he feared the crime figure had a gun and would shoot him.

It was unclear when Comello would be arraigned in Staten Island on the charges.

NEW YORK — The 24-year-old man charged with killing a senior leader of the Gambino crime family in Staten Island told detectives he was high on marijuana and shot the crime figure because he feared for his life, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the matter.

News of the indictment came shortly after Manafort was sentenced to his second federal prison term in two weeks; he now faces a combined sentence of more than seven years for tax and bank fraud and conspiracy in two related cases brought by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

The president has broad power to issue pardons for federal crimes, but has no such authority in state cases.

While Trump has not said he intends to pardon his former campaign chairman, he has often spoken of his power to pardon and has defended Manafort on a number of occasions, calling him a “brave man.”

Later Wednesday, the president said, “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort,” and that he had “not thought about” a pardon for him.

The new state charges against Manafort are contained in a 16-count indictment that alleges a yearlong scheme in which he falsified business records to obtain millions of dollars in loans, Vance said in a news release after the federal sentencing.

“No one is beyond the law in New York,” he said, adding that the investigation by the prosecutors in his office had “yielded serious criminal charges for which the defendant has not been held accountable.”

The indictment grew out of an investigation that began in 2017, when the Manhattan prosecutors began examining loans Manafort received from two banks.

Last week, a grand jury hearing evidence in the case voted to charge Manafort with residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy, falsifying business records and other charges. Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort declined to comment on the new charges.

Earlier this month, Manafort, 69, was sentenced in Virginia to nearly four years in prison on one of his two federal cases, far less time than prosecutors had requested; on Wednesday, he was sentenced in Washington, D.C., to serve an additional 3 1/2 years. He could face up to 25 years in New York state prison if convicted of the most serious charges in the new indictment, which is expected to be announced later on Wednesday.

The loans were also the subject of Mueller’s investigation and were the basis for some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to Manafort’s conviction last year in Virginia. But the Manhattan prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s larger investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

In recent months, prosecutors in the district attorney’s Economic Crimes Bureau resumed their inquiry and began presenting evidence to the grand jury, several people with knowledge of the matter have said.

The district attorney’s office determined some time ago that it would seek charges whether or not the president pardoned Manafort.

Manafort’s lawyers likely will challenge the new indictment on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the U.S. Constitution, but prosecutors in Vance’s office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

State Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley unsealed the charges in the early afternoon, but it will likely be weeks before Manafort is brought to New York to be arraigned.

The 11-page indictment contains few details about the conduct underlying the accusations, but it says it occurred between December 2015 and January 2017. Several people with knowledge of the matter said the mortgage fraud charges stemmed from loans Manafort obtained or tried to obtain from Citizens Bank, based in Rhode Island, and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago.

The loans were for properties on Howard Street, in lower Manhattan; on Union Street in Brooklyn Heights; and in Bridgehampton on Long Island, the people said.

A left-leaning district attorney in a blue state, Vance is almost sure to face the accusation that his prosecution of a member of Trump’s inner circle is politically motivated. Perhaps even more so because the indictment marks the third time in little more than a week a New York Democrat has taken action against the president, his company or his associates.

On Monday, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, subpoenaed bank records relating to the financing of several Trump projects. And last week, state regulators in the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo began an examination of insurance policies and claims involving the president’s family business.

And these inquiries are playing out against the backdrop of a Democratic Congress pumped up to investigate Trump, his administration and his business as the presidential campaign season gets underway.

“Doesn’t matter if it’s Cy Vance or Cy Young,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican consultant who has worked on several presidential campaigns, most recently in 2012 for Romney. “Any and every action even perceived to be a threat against him or his presidency will be framed as political retribution and an effort to undermine his 2016 victory.”

People close to the president have said privately that they believe the case will play poorly for Vance, and that the public will see him as piling on the already beaten-down Manafort.

For Vance, though, the case against Manafort will play out before a very different audience, and could provide the prosecutor with something of an opportunity to show his willingness to challenge Trump.

In 2017, he came under heavy criticism for failing to bring charges against Trump’s eldest children, Ivanka and Donald Jr., after an investigation into allegations they had lied to buyers of units at the Trump SoHo, a 46-story luxury condominium-hotel in lower Manhattan.

In the Virginia case, Manafort, who worked for Trump’s campaign during a critical five months when he became the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2016, was convicted in August on eight counts of various financial crimes.

At the trial, Mueller’s prosecutors presented evidence showing that Manafort used foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars he earned from his political consulting work in Ukraine and evade taxes, and lied to banks to obtain millions of dollars in loans.

About a month later, he pleaded guilty in the related case in federal court in Washington, D.C., and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s office. But the deal did not last long, blowing up after a federal judge ruled he had repeatedly lied to the government about his contact with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election.

Prosecutors claim that the associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, has ties to Russian intelligence, and have been investigating whether he was involved in a covert attempt to influence the election results.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/nyregion/manafort-indictment.html" id="2e384ef6-f899-33a1-a5a3-75e70c4a76a4">The New York Times</a>.

NEW YORK — Paul J. Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, has been charged in New York with mortgage fraud and more than a dozen other state felonies, the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., said Wednesday, an effort to ensure he will still face prison time if Trump pardons him for his federal crimes.

New York Charges Paul Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

Last week, a grand jury hearing evidence in the case voted to charge Manafort with residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy, falsifying business records and other charges. A lawyer for Manafort could not immediately be reached for comment.

The loans were for properties on Howard Street, in Lower Manhattan; on Union Street in Brooklyn Heights; and in Bridgehampton on Long Island, the people said.

Paul J. Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, has been charged in New York with mortgage fraud and more than a dozen other state felonies, the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., said Wednesday, an effort to ensure he will still face prison time if Trump pardons him for his federal crimes.

Earlier this month, Manafort, 69, was sentenced in Virginia to nearly four years in prison on one of his two federal cases, far less time than prosecutors had requested; on Wednesday, he was sentenced in Washington, D.C., to serve an additional 3 1/2 years. He could face up to 25 years in New York state prison if convicted of the most serious charges in the new indictment, which is expected to be announced later Wednesday.

Manafort is scheduled to be sentenced next month for convictions in two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He faces up to 25 years in prison for tax and bank fraud and additional time for conspiracy counts in a related case. It could effectively be a life sentence for Manafort, who turns 70 in April.

The president has broad power to issue pardons for federal crimes, but no such authority in state cases. And while there has been no clear indication that Trump intends to pardon Manafort, the president has spoken repeatedly of his pardon power and defended his former campaign chairman on a number of occasions, calling him a “brave man.”

The office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

They resumed their investigation in recent months, and a state grand jury began hearing evidence in the case, several people with knowledge of the matter said. The panel is expected to wrap up its work in the coming weeks, several of the people said, and prosecutors likely will ask the grand jurors to vote on charges shortly thereafter.

Vance’s office is expected to seek charges whether or not the president pardons Manafort. The plan was first reported by Bloomberg.

Any charges brought by Vance’s office would likely be challenged on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the U.S. Constitution, and Manafort’s defense team is likely to challenge any state charges. But prosecutors in Vance’s office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, said his legal team had no comment. Vance’s office also had no comment.

Manafort, who worked for Trump’s campaign during a critical five months when he became the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2016, was convicted in federal court in Virginia in August on eight counts of various financial crimes. Prosecutors said Manafort used foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars from his political consulting work in Ukraine and evade taxes, and lied to banks to obtain millions of dollars in loans.

Weeks later, he agreed to plead guilty in a related case in federal court in Washington, D.C., and cooperate with prosecutors from Mueller’s office. But the deal blew up when a judge ruled he had repeatedly lied to the government about his contact with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election. Prosecutors claim that the associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, has ties to Russian intelligence, and have been investigating whether he was involved in a covert attempt to influence the election results.

In the Manhattan case, the evidence presented to a grand jury appears to have been connected to loans issued by Citizens Bank in Rhode Island and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago.

The banks have received grand jury subpoenas for records relating to the loans they issued to Manafort, which were worth millions of dollars, people with knowledge of the matter said. The grand jury has also been hearing testimony about the loans. Citizens Bank has been cooperating with the investigation, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings Bank did not respond to a request for comment.

It is unclear precisely what charges Manafort would face, but they could include two state felonies: falsifying business records, if the evidence shows Manafort used the loan money for an unauthorized purpose, and mortgage fraud.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/nyregion/manafort-pardon-trump.html" id="df06e726-add1-3634-a507-d384b4c3e625">The New York Times</a>.

Manafort Is Expected to Face Charges in New York, Even if Trump Pardons Him

NEW YORK — The Manhattan district attorney’s office is preparing state criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, in an effort to ensure he will still face prison time even if the president pardons him for his federal crimes, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

The office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s investigation.

Manafort’s defense team is likely to challenge any charges brought by Vance’s office on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the U.S. Constitution. But prosecutors in Vance’s office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Weeks later, he agreed to plead guilty in a related case in federal court in Washington, D.C., and cooperate with prosecutors from Mueller’s office. But the deal blew up when a judge ruled he had repeatedly lied to the government about his contact with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election. Prosecutors claim that the associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, has ties to Russian intelligence, and have been investigating whether he was involved in a covert attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election results.

In the Manhattan case, the evidence presented to a grand jury appears to be connected to loans issued by Citizens Bank in Rhode Island and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago. The district attorney’s office has jurisdiction to bring the charges because New York City is a financial center through which U.S. dollar transactions typically flow.

The banks have received grand jury subpoenas for records relating to the loans they issued to Manafort, which were worth millions of dollars, people with knowledge of the matter said. The grand jury also has been hearing testimony about the loans. Citizens Bank has been cooperating with the investigation, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings Bank did not respond to a request for comment.

It is unclear precisely what charges Manafort would face, but they could include three state felonies: falsifying business records, if the evidence shows Manafort used the loan money for an unauthorized purpose, mortgage fraud and tax evasion.

The office of District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Any charges brought by Vance’s office would likely be challenged on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the U.S. Constitution, and Manafort’s defense team is likely to challenge state charges. But prosecutors in Vance’s office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Manafort, who worked for Trump’s campaign during a critical five months when he became the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2016, was convicted in federal court in Virginia in August on 10 counts of various financial crimes. Prosecutors said Manafort used foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars from his political consulting work in Ukraine and evade taxes, and lied to banks to obtain millions of dollars in loans.

Weeks later, he agreed to plead guilty in a related case in federal court in Washington, D.C., and cooperate with prosecutors from Mueller’s office. But the deal blew up when a judge ruled he had repeatedly lied to the government about his contact with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election. Prosecutors claim that the associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, has ties to Russian intelligence, and have been investigating whether he was involved in a covert attempt to influence the election results.

In the Manhattan case, the evidence presented to a grand jury appears to be connected to loans issued by Citizens Bank in Rhode Island and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago.

Manafort is scheduled to be sentenced next month for convictions in two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He faces up to 25 years in prison for tax and bank fraud and additional time for conspiracy counts crimes in a related case. It could effectively be a life sentence for Manafort, who turns 70 in April.

The president has broad power to issue pardons for federal crimes, but no such authority in state cases. And while there has been no clear indication that Trump intends to pardon Manafort, the president has spoken repeatedly of his pardon power and defended his former campaign manager on a number of occasions, calling him a “brave man.”

The office of District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s case.

Vance’s office is expected to seek charges whether or not the president pardons Manafort. The plan was first reported by Bloomberg News.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, said his legal team had no comment.

New York DA Expected to Charge Manafort, Guarding Against Trump Pardon

Vance's office is expected to seek charges whether or not the president pardons Manafort. The plan was first reported by Bloomberg News.

Any charges brought by Vance's office would likely be challenged on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the U.S. Constitution, and Manafort’s defense team is likely to challenge state charges. But prosecutors in Vance's office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

's office first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s case.

Vance’s office first began investigating Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mueller’s case.

Politics

Local

World

News

Celebrities

Music

Movies

Entertainment

Sports 

Fashion

Beauty & Health

Relationships & Weddings

Food & Travel

Lifestyle

Domestic

International 

Business

Explore categories

Checkout our authors for the latest content across entertainment, sports, business and more. Be first to receive exclusive updates with your free subscription straight to your phone | Pulselive Kenya

Authors | Pulselive Kenya

| Pulselive Kenya

Read the latest news across entertainment, sports, business and more. Be first to receive exclusive updates with your free subscription straight to your phone | Pulselive Kenya

Breaking News & Top Stories | Pulselive Kenya

Pulse Kenya is the most followed news and entertainment platform in Kenya. It informs and engages young Kenyans around the clock and provides updates by the hour.

William K. Rashbaum

Articles written by the author

Prosecutors Fighting the Opioid Crisis Aim at the Heart of the Network

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

For First Time, Pharmaceutical Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

Why It Matters That Trump and Michael Cohen Had a Falling Out

Anthony Comello Says He Shot Gambino Leader Because He Feared for His Life

Anthony Comello Says He Shot Gambino Leader Because He Feared for His Life

New York Charges Paul Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

New York Charges Paul Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

New York Charges Paul Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

New York Charges Paul Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

Manafort Is Expected to Face Charges in New York, Even if Trump Pardons Him

Manafort Is Expected to Face Charges in New York, Even if Trump Pardons Him

Manafort Is Expected to Face Charges in New York, Even if Trump Pardons Him

New York DA Expected to Charge Manafort, Guarding Against Trump Pardon

New York DA Expected to Charge Manafort, Guarding Against Trump Pardon

New York DA Expected to Charge Manafort, Guarding Against Trump Pardon

New York DA Expected to Charge Manafort, Guarding Against Trump Pardon