Showing posts with label Trump-Cheating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump-Cheating. Show all posts

April 23, 2020

Investigation: Company Close To Trump Gets Over $200K From SBA Protection Program

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.
U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan. 
Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.  
Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary released by the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.
Ainsworth told NPR the money would be used to pay the company's 445 employees in the face of slowing demand for its products.
"We had planned to furlough people and we delayed those plans," he said. "To the extent that we had to let people go, we're hiring them back."
While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks. 
The business advocacy group NFIB surveyed a random sample of the 300,000 businesses in its membership database and found that only about 72 percent of businesses that tried to apply for a PPP loan were able to successfully submit an application.
Continental Materials will be able to pay back the loan over two years and may qualify for it to be forgiven.
When asked, Ainsworth said the loan is not related to any political activities of company leaders, and he noted Ronald Gidwitz resigned when he was appointed ambassador.
Gidwitz was confirmed to the ambassadorship by the Senate by voice vote in June 2018. He announced his resignation from the company's board a few days later in July, according to company SEC filings.

November 10, 2019

Judge Fines Trump 2Million$ For Misusing His Foundation Which is Now Dissolved


A New York judge has ruled that President Trump must pay $2 million in damages to settle claims that the Trump Foundation misused funds. The money will go to a group of charities, and the foundation is in the process of dissolving.

The case is tied to a televised fundraiser for veterans held by Trump in Iowa when he was running for president in January 2016. Trump had said the funds raised would be distributed to charities. But according to court documents, the Trump Foundation improperly used $2.82 million it received from that fundraiser.

According to the judgment, that money "was used for Mr. Trump's political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump's campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation," which is unlawful. However, Justice Saliann Scarpulla says the funds did eventually reach charity organizations supporting veterans.

Trump Foundation To Dissolve Amid New York Attorney General's Investigation 
"The Trump Foundation has shut down, funds that were illegally misused are being restored, the president will be subject to ongoing supervision by my office, and the Trump children had to undergo compulsory training to ensure this type of illegal activity never takes place again," New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office filed the case, said in a statement. "The court's decision, together with the settlements we negotiated, are a major victory in our efforts to protect charitable assets and hold accountable those who would abuse charities for personal gain."

The Trump Foundation also agreed last month to distribute its $1.7 million in remaining assets to the same charities that will receive the $2 million in damages ordered on Thursday. According to the judgment, those charities are Army Emergency Relief, Children's Aid Society, Citymeals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha's Table, United Negro College Fund, United Way of National Capital Area, and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

The Trump Foundation agreed to dissolve last December in the face of an investigation from then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood. She accused the foundation of a broad pattern of illegal activity, including improper political activities and "repeated and willful self-dealing transactions."

The final outstanding issue, according to the judgment, was the amount that Trump would pay in damages over the Iowa fundraiser. James had sought the entire $2.82 million, but the judge determined that $2 million was sufficient because the money raised eventually reached veterans' charities.

This case was prompted by David Fahrenthold's reporting in The Washington Post about the foundation, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017.

A statement from the Trump Foundation said it was "pleased to donate" the $2 million to the charitable organizations. It praised the judge for not imposing a penalty beyond the $2 million in damages.

The president tweeted, "I am the only person I know, perhaps the only person in history, who can give major money to charity ($19M), charge no expense, and be attacked by the political hacks in New York State. No wonder we are all leaving! Every penny of the $19 million raised by the Trump Foundation went to hundreds of great charitable causes with almost no expenses."

He said James "is deliberately mischaracterizing this settlement for political purposes," and that she should investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Alan S. Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said last December that "the Foundation has been seeking to dissolve and distribute its remaining assets to worthwhile charitable causes since Donald J. Trump's victory in the 2016 Presidential election."

Three of Trump's children — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump — were also named in the lawsuit.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has been scrutinizing the Trump Foundation for years. "Today's settlement of the suit brought by the New York Attorney General's Office is a fitting and poetic end to this scandal," CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement.

May 17, 2019

Why Does The US President Keeps Making $$$ Millions in Office?

 Manah from Heaven. Don't know how it got into my bank Accounts"


 President Trump earned over $400 million in 2018 while serving as President of the United States, according to a financial disclosure form revealed Thursday.

The money poured in from a wide range of real estate and golf properties scattered around the world. Here are some of Trump’s sources of income in 2018:

$76 million from his Trump National Doral golf resort in Florida
$41 million from his Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, right down the road from the White House.
$23 million from his Trump Turnberry golf course in Scotland
$11 million from Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles
$13 million from his Trump National Golf Club in Virginia near Washington DC
At least $4 million in restaurant income in New York

The lengthy form published Thursday also includes such miscellaneous entries as $8.5 million from operating ice skating rinks in New York City, and at least $5,000 in royalties for his “Select by Trump” coffee brand. Trump reported earning between zero and $201 in royalties last year on his 2007 book, “Think Big and Kick Ass.” 

Bloomberg News tabulated the total of all the income streams listed at $421.3 million, marking a decline from the $452.6 million Trump reported last year. Trump’s debt also ticked upward, to $315 million from $311 million the year before.

Richer than any American president before him, Trump has stirred controversy for continuing to earn vast sums while running the country. Trump’s hotel in D.C. has been an especially contentious issue because of its popularity among foreign diplomats and lobbyists.

House Democrats have launched investigations into his finances and subpoenaed his tax returns, while trying to figure out whether he may be financially compromised by any deep-pocketed foreign interests.

And they’ve filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s private business activities run afoul of the Constitution’s ban on receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments, a term referred to as the “emoluments clause.”

Last month, a judge in Washington ruled that suit could proceed. 

February 4, 2019

Trump Sought A Loan From Deutsch Bank During the 2016 Campaign

 Deutsche Bank lent more than $100 million to the Trump Organization to finance its Doral resort in Miami. In 2016, the organization suggested expanding the Doral loans to fund work on Turnberry.CreditEvan Vucci/Associated Press

By David EnrichJesse Drucker and Ben Protess

Donald J. Trump was burning through cash.

It was early 2016, and he was lending tens of millions of dollars to his presidential campaign and had been spending large sums to expand the Trump Organization’s roster of high-end properties.

To finance his business’s growth, Mr. Trump turned to a longtime ally, Deutsche Bank, one of the few banks still willing to lend money to the man who has called himself “The King of Debt.”

Mr. Trump’s loan request, which has not been previously reported, set off a fight that reached the top of the German bank, according to three people familiar with the request. In the end, Deutsche Bank did something unexpected. It said no.

Senior officials at the bank, including its future chief executive, believed that Mr. Trump’s divisive candidacy made such a loan too risky, the people said. Among their concerns was that if Mr. Trump won the election and then defaulted, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between not collecting on the debt or seizing the assets of the president of the United States. 

Two of the people familiar with the loan request said the Trump Organization had been seeking to borrow against its Miami resort to pay for work on a golf property in Turnberry, Scotland.

A Trump Organization spokeswoman, Amanda Miller, denied that the company had needed outside funding for Turnberry.

“This story is absolutely false,” Ms. Miller said. “We bought Trump Turnberry without any financing and put tens of millions of dollars of our own money into the renovation, which began in 2014. At no time was any money needed to finance the purchase or the refurbishment of Trump Turnberry.” 
Donald J. Trump at the Turnberry resort in June 2016, when he was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. A Trump entity lent at least $45 million to the resort that year.CreditJeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Troy Gravitt, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, declined to comment.

The failed loan request is an untold chapter in Mr. Trump’s long and tortured relationship with the banking industry. It shows that he was actively engaged in running his business in the midst of the presidential campaign, and it is likely to attract scrutiny from Democrats on two House committees that are investigating his two-decade relationship with Deutsche Bank. 

In the early 1990s, Mr. Trump’s hotel and casino properties declared bankruptcy four times, leaving prominent banks, including Citicorp and Manufacturers Hanover, with painful losses. The real estate mogul was all but excommunicated from Wall Street.

Deutsche Bank, which was eager to gain a foothold in the lucrative American market and more tolerant of risk than many of its rivals, filled the void. In 1998, it lent Mr. Trump $125 million for renovations on a Wall Street skyscraper. The relationship blossomed, and over the next 17 years, Deutsche Bank lent or participated in loans to Mr. Trump and his companies totaling more than $2.5 billion.

Then, just as the first votes were being cast in the Republican presidential primaries, Mr. Trump’s lender of last resort got cold feet.

The funding of Mr. Trump’s golf empire has been something of a mystery.

In the decade before he was elected president, Mr. Trump’s company spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying or renovating about a dozen clubs and resorts around the world. Despite Mr. Trump’s self-proclaimed fondness for relying on debt, the Trump Organization has reported that it used its own money for most of the acquisitions and upgrades.

A prominent golf journalist, James Dodson, said Mr. Trump’s son Eric had told him in 2013 that the company’s golf properties were funded by Russians. Eric Trump has denied making the comment.

Mr. Trump did borrow money for some of his golf properties. In 2012, Deutsche Bank lent the Trump Organization a total of more than $100 million to finance the 72-hole Doral resort near Miami, home to the famed Blue Monster course. 

Two years later, the Trump Organization bought the Turnberry hotel and golf course for a reported $63 million. The course, which features sweeping views of the sea west of Scotland, has hosted the British Open several times.
Deutsche Bank lent more than $100 million to the Trump Organization to finance its Doral resort in Miami. In 2016, the organization suggested expanding the Doral loans to fund work on Turnberry.
Evan Vucci/Associated Press 

Deutsche Bank lent more than $100 million to the Trump Organization to finance its Doral resort in Miami. In 2016, the organization suggested expanding the Doral loans to fund work on Turnberry.CreditEvan Vucci/Associated Press

In 2014 and 2015, a Trump legal entity lent at least $96 million to the subsidiary that operated Turnberry, according to British regulatory filings. The next year, the Trump Organization would go back to Deutsche Bank for more.

The relationship between Mr. Trump and Deutsche Bank had survived some rocky moments. In 2008, amid the financial crisis, Mr. Trump stopped repaying a loan to finance the construction of a skyscraper in Chicago — and then sued the bank, accusing it of helping cause the crisis. After that lawsuit, Deutsche Bank’s investment-banking arm severed ties with Mr. Trump.

But by 2010, he was back doing business with Deutsche Bank through its private-banking unit, which catered to some of the world’s wealthiest people. That unit arranged the Doral loans, and another in 2012 tied to the Chicago skyscraper.

Mr. Trump’s go-to in the private bank was Rosemary Vrablic, a senior banker in its New York office. In 2013, she was the subject of a flattering profile in The Mortgage Observer, a real estate magazine owned by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also among her clients. In 2015, she arranged the loan that financed Mr. Trump’s transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into the Trump International Hotel, a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

In early 2016, as Mr. Trump was lending tens of millions of dollars to his campaign, his company contacted Ms. Vrablic about getting money for Turnberry, said two of the three people familiar with the request, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The proposal was to expand Deutsche Bank’s outstanding loans backed by the Doral by well over $10 million and to use the proceeds for work on Turnberry, the people said.

Around the time that Mr. Trump was winning New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, officials in the private-banking unit informed their superiors that they were inclined to provide him with the loan, according to one of the people familiar with the internal discussions.

Senior executives in New York balked, arguing that Mr. Trump’s candidacy made such a loan unacceptably risky, the three people said. In part, they feared the bank’s reputation could be harmed if the transaction were to become public because of the polarizing statements Mr. Trump was making on the campaign trail. 

Officials in the private-banking unit protested that Deutsche Bank already had numerous outstanding loans to Mr. Trump and that there was no reason not to make another, two of the people said. The decision was appealed to Deutsche Bank’s top executives in Frankfurt.

Rep. Adam Schiff wants to look closely at Deutsche Bank because it has previously paid regulatory penalties for laundering money for Russians. 

Rep. Adam Schiff wants to look closely at Deutsche Bank because it has previously paid regulatory penalties for laundering money for Russians.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
That was the first time that some senior officials realized the extent of their bank’s dealings with Mr. Trump, the three people said.

The proposed loan was examined by an internal committee that is responsible for vetting transactions to ensure they do not pose serious risks to the bank’s reputation, the people said. That March, the committee unanimously rejected the loan. Christian Sewing — who was in charge of Deutsche Bank’s wealth-management division and would become chief executive two years later — was among those who made the final decision, the people said.

A Trump entity ended up lending at least $45 million to Turnberry that year, on top of the $96 million it had lent Turnberry in the previous two years.

Even though the Deutsche Bank loan didn’t go through, it will most likely draw the interest of congressional Democrats.

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, has said he wants to look closely at Deutsche Bank because of its past involvement in laundering money for Russian nationals. And Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, overseen by Representative Maxine Waters, have been asking questions about Deutsche Bank’s loans to Mr. Trump since 2017.

Mr. Schiff and Ms. Waters are planning to conduct a joint investigation of Mr. Trump’s involvement with Deutsche Bank. 

During the campaign, Mr. Trump sought to take advantage of that relationship when rivals painted him as a bad businessman who was frozen out of the mainstream financial system.

The same month that Deutsche Bank rejected the loan proposal, Mr. Trump sought to blunt those attacks by citing his warm relationships with Wall Street firms. He singled out Deutsche Bank.

“They are totally happy with me,” he told The New York Times in March 2016. “I do business with them today.”
Susanne Craig contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 3, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York edition 

October 18, 2018

Saudi Arabia Delivers $100 Million Pledge to US As Pompeo Lands in Riyadh..What is the Money for? Timing?

I was just wondering..What would be the commision the Trump's will get off $100 Million. Trump is not supposed to get anything but his family (which is the reason a family should not be involved in business transactions that involve anyone high up in the government). The Trump's have ignored that as they ignore the law. Most of it they don't know but they don't care about learning from their lawyers. Again supposed it was a 15% comm= $15 million dollars. My point on this is that Trump will not do anything to Saudi Arabia when they finally come out with the truth or Turkey comes out with proof and the Saudis play dumb.

No matter how much The Senator from South Carolina might jump up and down, which he has become good at it and sheds his rainbow plumage, he has less power with Trump that he thinks. He sold his firing powder with the vote of the Supreme Court. His gun is got no more bullets and the personal gun is been empy of gun powder for a long time! Hope he zips that big mouth of his and "boos himself."   🦊Adam

Image result for pompeo with the king in saudi
 Pompeo and the Powerful Crown Prince business friend of Jarred Kushner

This summer, Saudi Arabia promised the Trump administration $100 million for American efforts to stabilize areas in Syria liberated from the Islamic State.
That money landed in American accounts on Tuesday, the same day that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo landed in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for discussions with the kingdom’s leaders about the fate of a missing Saudi dissident.
Securing the funding is a win for President Trump, who has complained about how much the United States spends abroad and has tried to get allies to foot more of the bill. But the timing of the money’s arrival raised eyebrows even among some of the bureaucrats whose programs will benefit from the influx of cash.
“The timing of this is no coincidence,” said an American official involved in Syria policy who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak to journalists. The official confirmed that the money arrived on Tuesday.
The disappearance of the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, has battered the image of Saudi Arabia and of its powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, a key player in many of the Trump administration’s ambitions for the Middle East. Turkish officials say that Mr. Khashoggi was slain inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by Saudi agents on Oct. 2 while he was trying to secure a document he needed to get married.
Saudi leaders have denied harming Mr. Khashoggi, but have not provided a credible explanation of what happened to him.
Mr. Trump threatened “severe punishment” if it was confirmed that Saudi Arabia killed Mr. Khashoggi. But after speaking with King Salman of Saudi Arabia on Monday, he suggested that “rogue killers” could have been responsible and dispatched Mr. Pompeo to Riyadh to see the Saudi king.
In his strongest language to date over the mystery surrounding the missing journalist, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday: “Here we go again with you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
On Monday, a person with knowledge of Saudi Arabia’s plans said the kingdom was planning to blame the killing on rogue elements who did not act on official orders — a scenario that could allow the monarchy to acknowledge Mr. Khashoggi’s death while protecting its leaders from culpability.
An endorsement of that conclusion by the Trump administration could help limit damage to Saudi Arabia’s international reputation.
Brett McGurk, the United States envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, dismissed the idea that Mr. Pompeo’s visit and the disbursement of funds were connected. The Saudis had committed the money in August, he said, and the United States had expected to receive it in the fall.
“The specific transfer of funds has been long in the process and has nothing to do with other events or the secretary’s visit,” Mr. McGurk said.
But the official involved in Syria policy said the payment process had been unpredictable.
The money was pledged in August but it was unclear when it would show up, if at all until it suddenly landed in American accounts on Tuesday.
Since he took office, Mr. Trump has been trying to limit the role of the United States in Syria, where a seven-year war has shattered the country, killed hundreds of thousands of people and left entire cities in ruins.
He has spoken positively about the idea of withdrawing the approximately 2,000 American soldiers who are based in eastern Syria in areas once controlled by the Islamic State, although he now appears committed to leaving them there. In August, his administration decided not to spent $230 million that had already been earmarked for stabilization programs in that area.
The Saudi money, in addition to another $50 million given by the United Arab Emirates, will allow American programs there to continue, but on other countries’ tabs.
The funds will be used by USAID and the State Department for a variety of programs, including infrastructure repairs and provision of health, education and sanitation services

September 19, 2018

Stormy Daniels Describes Trump's Privates as "Toadstool"

Reuters / Mike Blake

Ever since Stormy Daniels said she was writing a tell-all book, there has been feverish anticipation about what dirt she’d reveal about Donald Trump—but it’s safe to say no one predicted this. According to a copy obtained by The Guardian, the book gives excruciating detail of her alleged affair with Trump, including one nightmarish image in which she compares the president’s penis to Toad—the incredibly annoying mushroom character from Mario. “He knows he has an unusual penis,” Daniels writes in a book fittingly titled Full Disclosure. “It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool… 
 Toadstool mushroom

 I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart... It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.” So, now you know.

July 16, 2018

Russia Is Been Financing Trump~ Would Trump Loose His Money Because a Stupid Presidency? Follow The Money Here

FOLLOW THE MONY IS NEVER BEEN PROVEN WRONG! Here is the Money Do you want to know? 🦊

Gettyimages 585535074One October day in 2007, a celebrity real estate developer in a greatcoat and powder-blue tie alighted from a stretch limousine in Toronto’s financial district. Before a bank of photographers, he took hold of a golden shovel. To his left, also holding a novelty spade, was his partner in a $500 million skyscraper, construction of which was to begin that day: a Russian-Canadian billionaire whose fortune had its origins in the collision of communism, capitalism and the KGB at the fall of the Soviet empire.
Also present were representatives of the project’s financial backers — an Austrian bank that would soon be accused of failing to conduct sufficient checks on the sources of its ex-Soviet clients’ money.
Camera flashes glinted on the shovels as the grinning dignitaries plunged them into a neat patch of dirt on which had been painted the word “Trump.” So commenced work on the Trump International Hotel and Tower Toronto. “People really want to own what I do,” Donald Trump told an interviewer that day, declaring that, among other qualities, the tower would be “taller than other buildings.”

The Financial Times has been investigating the money behind Trump Toronto for 10 months. Legal documents, signed statements and two dozen interviews with people with knowledge of the project and the money that flowed through it reveal that the venture connects the U.S. president with a shadowy post-Soviet world where politics and personal enrichment merge.
Some of the money flows that the Financial Times has established raise questions about Trump’s vulnerability to undue influence now that he is in the White House. These include evidence that Trump’s billionaire partner in the Toronto project authorized a secret $100 million payment to a Moscow-based fixer representing Kremlin-backed investors. That payment was part of a series of transactions that generated millions for the backers of the Toronto venture — a project that, in turn, made millions for the future president.
It is precisely this approach to the provenance of the money that has sustained Trump’s business career that concerns many who have examined it closely. After a series of corporate bankruptcies in the 1990s and early 2000s left the property business he had inherited from his father largely unable to borrow from mainstream banks, Trump turned to ever more obscure backers. He was able to borrow sporadically from Deutsche Bank, with whom he had a long and fractious relationship, but, from about the turn of the millennium, he also adopted a new model, under which he licensed his brand to skyscraper developments that the Trump Organization would then manage under contract.
This was a time when the former Soviet Union’s newly minted oligarchs were seeking foreign havens for their wealth. By 2008, Trump’s son, Donald Jr., was telling a real estate conference: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. … We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Some of this came through sales of individual units in Trump-branded properties, where Trump was sometimes entitled to a cut.
Http %2f%2fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp prod us.s3.amazonaws
An alleged Kazakh money-laundering network channeled millions through apartment sales at the Trump SoHo; a Russian oligarch bought a Palm Beach estate from Trump in 2008 for $95 million, more than double what Trump had paid for it four years earlier; in Florida, 63 Russians, some with political connections, spent $100 million buying property at seven Trump-branded luxury towers, Reuters established. The money was not exclusively from the former Soviet Union: At the Trump Panama, some of it allegedly belonged to Latin American drug traffickers.
In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that many of the oligarchs who made their riches amid the downfall of the Soviet Union have protected their fortunes by advancing the interests of the ruling cliques at home. This wealth has been coursing through Western markets, often disguised by shell companies. Trump’s sector, real estate, has long been susceptible to infusions of incognito money. A large proportion of sales of high-end U.S. property takes place through companies whose true owners are hidden. A U.S. Treasury investigation last year found that one in three cash buyers of top-end property was suspicious.
Trump has broken with presidential tradition by refusing to divest his holdings in the dozens of companies that comprise the Trump Organization or to release tax returns that might shine more light on what appear to be multitudinous conflicts of interest. In May last year, his decision to fire James Comey as head of the FBI triggered the appointment of Robert Mueller, himself a former FBI chief, as special counsel to investigate links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey was asked whether the investigation might turn up matters unrelated to the campaign. He replied that “in any complex investigation, when you start turning over rocks, sometimes you find things that are unrelated to the primary investigation that are criminal in nature.”
Paul Manafort, one of Trump’s campaign managers, has already learned what this means in practice. He faces charges, which he denies, of laundering $30 million in connection with his work as a consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, has pleaded guilty to charges that included lying about a lobbying contract he had with Turkey. Much of the rest of Mueller’s investigation is closely guarded, but it is clear that he sees prior financial dealings as fair game.
Tom Warner, a U.S.–based corporate investigator specializing in Russia and Ukraine, is among those who spoke to the FT who believe that Trump’s outlook is shaped by the alignment of his interests with those who brought him the money that sustained his career. When Trump turns on longstanding U.S. allies and suggests that Russia be readmitted to the G8, some analysts see ulterior motives. Such scrutiny intensified this week after Trump attended a NATO summit in Brussels, visited London to meet Prime Minister Theresa May and was then due to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. “Putin or his chosen successor will be there long after Trump leaves office,” Warner said. “And [Trump and his children] need the family business model to still be there.”
The tale of the Trump Toronto illuminates what it means for the U.S. to have a leader whose business model has long depended on exchanging his family name for money with a murky past, no questions asked.
By 2010, the Trump Toronto was supposed to be finished: 65 storeys containing 261 luxury hotel rooms and condominiums, all encased in a shimmering glass façade. But construction dragged on and in October, Alex Shnaider, the billionaire backer who had broken ground with Trump three years earlier, put aside another $40 million for the project. Millions from the project would subsequently flow out to Trump himself — and documents seen by the FT raise serious questions about how Shnaider’s company was making its money in the period leading up to the decision to invest this $40 million in the Trump Toronto.
A few months earlier, documents show Shnaider had approved a secret $100 million “commission” payment to “introducers” representing the Kremlin’s interests. The payment was to facilitate the sale of his group’s prize asset, its stake in the vast Zaporizhstal steel mill in eastern Ukraine — and represented more than 10 percent of the $850 million sale price.


The Wall Street Journal reported in 2017 that the sale of the mill was financed by Vnesheconombank (VEB), a Russian state-owned bank whose chairman at the time was Vladimir Putin. But this $100 million commission has not previously been reported. Nor has it been revealed that legal filings in a recent commercial dispute between Shnaider and his business partner raised the possibility that some of the money could have ended up with Russian government officials. If that was the case, the steel mill deal would risk falling foul of antibribery laws in Canada and potentially other Western countries that make it a crime to pay foreign officials to gain a business advantage.
With the $100 million commission arranged, the sale went through, and the proceeds flowed into Shnaider’s company, which in turn earmarked funds for the Trump Toronto. Tom Keatinge, a former JPMorgan banker who now specializes in financial crime at London’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said that if the $100 million payment were deemed a bribe, the flow of money through Shnaider to the Trump Toronto meant that “you could argue that the Trump Organization is receiving the proceeds of crime and therefore is being used as a money-laundering opportunity.” Experts on illicit finance say that any legal vulnerability for Trump and his business would depend on what he and other executives knew — or should have known — about the source of his partner’s funds.
The Trump Organization has taken an approach to due diligence — the background checks on a business partner — that one former associate who does not wish to be identified called “willful obliviousness.” Abe Wallach, a former senior figure at the Trump Organization, was quoted in a 2017 Bloomberg article saying: “Donald doesn’t do due diligence.”
Shnaider, born in St. Petersburg and raised in Toronto, amassed a fortune that, like those of several of Donald Trump’s business partners, had its roots in the tumultuous final years of the Soviet Union. Many of today’s oligarchs have sought to portray themselves as unremarkable businessmen, preferring that their life-and-death struggles for riches in the 1990s fade into history. Yet as their influence in the West grows, it becomes more important to understand any links to the authoritarians and kleptocrats back home. That is especially true in the case of those who have done business with a U.S. president whose campaign is under investigation for alleged collusion with the Kremlin.
“Russia has long been associated with dirty money,” said Elise Bean, a former top official on the U.S. Senate’s leading investigative committee and veteran of several money-laundering investigations. “Anyone getting substantial funds originating in the former Soviet Union should have known that the funds were high risk and required a careful due diligence review to ensure the money was clean.”
Shnaider’s rise to become one of Canada’s wealthiest men — he was on Forbes’ list of billionaires by the age of 36 — was helped by Boris Birshtein, his father-in-law and mentor in business. Convivial and ambitious, Birshtein enjoyed the rare privilege among Western-based businessmen of being able to traverse the Iron Curtain. “I’m for many years in business with Soviet Union,” Birshtein, who was born in Soviet Lithuania and emigrated to Canada, told an interviewer in 1993. “I started with [Leonid] Brezhnev and, you know, somehow I manage to get in some way [a] unique position and I met lot of people and made friendship with a lot of very powerful people.”
In May, the FT spoke with a former KGB officer who worked in the 1980s in the agency’s foreign intelligence arm. He explained how, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the Communist party and the KGB scrambled to stash money abroad. He also said that, in the late 1980s, Birshtein was one of the Western businessmen whose companies became linked with KGB figures involved with the agency’s efforts to build up international business interests.
Birshtein’s lawyer told the FT that it would be “preposterous” and “patently false” to say that the businessman was a KGB “operative.” The lawyer added, however, that Birshtein did recall agreeing in the mid-1980s to participate in a Soviet plan to set up international business ventures that was led by Georgi Arbatov, head of a prestigious Moscow think-tank. According to a defector’s account published years later, Arbatov was also a KGB asset codenamed Vasili.
Birshtein’s lawyer said “the joint venture arrangement, while proposed and formalized, never actually materialized into any substantive projects and was formally terminated shortly after its inception.” He added that Birshtein had no knowledge that Arbatov “was in any way affiliated with the KGB”, but noted that “affiliation with the KGB or other arms of the former Soviet state was exceptionally commonplace in the Soviet Union.”
That is not Birshtein’s only recorded connection to a KGB figure. In 1991, shortly before the Soviet Union finally collapsed, Birshtein’s company hired Leonid Veselovsky as an economic adviser on a one-year contract. Birshtein’s lawyer told the FT that his client’s company hired Veselovsky because he had an economics Ph.D. and was a member of the central committee of the Communist party. But the former KGB officer told the FT that Veselovsky had also served as a senior officer in the KGB’s foreign operations arm and had been “the mastermind of KGB money laundering.” (Veselovsky could not be reached for comment; the former KGB officer said he had “disappeared without trace.”)
While Birshtein was cultivating the Soviet elite, Shnaider’s Russian parents had joined a wave of Jewish emigration, settling in 1982 in a Toronto district popular with immigrants. They bought a delicatessen, where the young Shnaider stacked shelves. He was drawn to business and, by the early 1990s, Birshtein was introducing him to the helter-skelter capitalism taking hold in the former Soviet Union. That would bring them both into the orbit of one of its most notorious figures.
Allegations of ties to the American mob have followed Trump throughout his career. For Alex Shnaider, the connection to an alleged Russian gangster runs through his erstwhile father-in-law.
Sergei Mikhailov, known as Mikhas, is widely recognized as the leader of what, in the 1990s and early 2000s, was regarded as Moscow’s most powerful organized crime syndicate: the Solntsevskaya Bratva. The FBI’s top expert on Russian organized crime in the 1990s said the group’s activities included extortion, narcotics, murder and money laundering. In a rare interview with the FT in June, Mikhailov denied this, saying the Solntsevskaya “does not exist.” A great barrel of a man in a maroon checked jacket, his Moscow office festooned with icons of the Orthodox Church, he insisted he was merely a “run-of-the-mill businessman” with interests in trade, tourism and real estate. The former champion wrestler added that, given the turbulence of the post-Soviet years, “my success is that I’m still alive.”
Mikhailov, 60, told the FT that he met Birshtein — “a very talented businessman” — at a meeting with the Moldovan president in 1995, and the pair hit it off. “He trusted me, and this is a very important factor in business.” He said the duo made “big plans” for business ventures, most ambitiously to renovate a pipeline that ran from Central Asia to Ukraine. Mikhailov said his job was to source the technical know-how, while Birshtein’s task was to convince the authorities to back the project.
“He had big connections” in Ukraine, Mikhailov said, “as far as I know, all the way up to the president and his entourage.” (Birshtein, through his lawyer, said he had “never been friends” with Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s then-president.) Mikhailov also remembered meeting Birshtein’s young protégé, Alex Shnaider, at a restaurant in Belgium, where Birshtein kept an office.
Donald Trump doing media interviews at the groundbreaking ceremonies for theTrump International Hotel and Tower Toronto in 2007.
Shnaider’s lawyer did not respond to a question about this alleged encounter with Mikhailov. Birshtein’s lawyer said his client did not recall such a meeting. He also said Birshtein had met Mikhailov “a handful of times” but “was never involved with the pipeline project”, had “no business dealings” with him and was not aware of his alleged criminal activity.
Mikhailov said the prospective partnership with Birshtein came to an abrupt end when Mikhailov was arrested in Switzerland in 1996, accused of being a member of a criminal organization. According to an account at the time in an intelligence newsletter, detectives who searched Mikhailov’s Swiss residence found a contract for him to pay Birshtein $150 million — an agreement, Mikhailov said, that was “most likely” connected to the pipeline project. He insisted, however, that no money ever changed hands, dismissing investigators’ claims to the contrary. To Birshtein’s knowledge, “no such contract exists,” his lawyer said.
The Swiss did not pursue charges against Birshtein, but Mikhailov’s case came to court. The trial was held under tight security after a witness was shot dead in Amsterdam. Mikhailov spent two years in jail awaiting a verdict before he was acquitted by a jury and awarded compensation.
From about this time, Birshtein receded from the post-Soviet business scene and his son-in-law emerged. According to a 2017 witness statement by Eduard Shyfrin, a Ukrainian metals trader who became Shnaider’s partner, Belgian police investigating Mikhailov raided Birshtein and Shnaider’s houses in Antwerp in 1996, prompting Shnaider to shift his base back to Toronto. That year, Birshtein sold out of Midland, the group Shnaider and Shyfrin would greatly expand, his lawyer said, adding: “Our client is a law-abiding businessperson with no criminal record.”
Birshtein’s lawyer said his client “had no involvement with [the Trump Toronto] in any manner either directly or indirectly.” A Cypriot company, DE Multi-Finance, which until at least 2003 was controlled by a man who had served as a director of Birshtein companies, was listed in 2016 among the creditors to the Trump Toronto, but Birshtein’s lawyer said Birshtein had “never had any association or connection” with DE Multi-Finance or the Trump Toronto.
Gradually, a rift emerged between Birshtein and Shnaider. Birshtein now describes Shnaider as his “former, long-estranged son-in-law” (neither would confirm whether Shnaider and Birshtein’s daughter had divorced). In 2005, Shnaider told Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper that “due to unfortunate and irreconcilable differences relating to business policy and family matters, I have not had any contact with my father-in-law for more than four years.”
Stocky and with close-cropped hair, Shnaider has a more serious demeanor than the gregarious Birshtein. Like Trump, he owed his opportunity to the previous generation and was keen to show he was his own man, associates said. Nonetheless, Birshtein’s role in Shnaider’s rise to riches is indelible. “Boris did a lot of things for him,” said a former Midland manager, and Shnaider built on “what Boris had created for him.”
The principal launch pad that Birshtein built for Shnaider was in Ukraine, where Birshtein had established interests in metals. In the 1990s, the country’s mineral riches were a scene of lawless and sometimes violent competition. It was here that Shnaider started to make the millions that ultimately helped to build the Trump Toronto.
Shyfrin wrote in his witness statement: “Mr. Birshtein gave Mr. Shnaider some interests in the Ukrainian steel business. Mr. Shnaider, however, knew nothing about steel at the time. He had no involvement with Ukraine or metallurgy prior to his marriage to a daughter of Mr. Birshtein.”
The Ukrainian steel business would catapult Shnaider and Shyfrin into the ranks of the global super-rich. First, they established themselves as middlemen between the old Soviet steel plants and global markets. Then, in the late 1990s, during the wave of cut-price privatizations that created many oligarchs, the chance arose to buy the Zaporizhstal steel mill.
Vadim Grib, a banker who led a rival consortium in the privatization, claimed when he spoke to the FT recently in Kiev that Shnaider and Shyfrin were unfairly favored by the Ukrainian authorities, who designated them “strategic investors,” giving them an advantage over competitors. Their partner in the bid was Vasyl Khmelnytsky, a businessman who was then a member of Ukraine’s parliament. In an interview with the FT, Khmelnytsky agreed that connections were key. “Fifteen years ago, to be a successful businessman, you have to have access to those in power,” he said. By 2001, Shnaider and Shyfrin had paid a reported $70 million for a stake in Zaporizhstal that, within five years, would be valued at nearly 10 times as much.
From there, Shnaider and Shyfrin expanded. One major 2003 acquisition, of the storied Red October steel plant in the Russian city of Volgograd, showed that they were able to navigate the emerging business scene in Russia as they had in Ukraine. Mathieu Boulègue, an expert at the Chatham House think-tank in London, said Red October was “one of the few remaining Russian companies able to produce the armored steel and reinforced steel you need for the military industry.” Securing permission to buy and run the plant would involve maintaining a relationship with the upper echelons of the Russian military, Boulègue said.
Shnaider also amassed the standard trappings of enormous wealth. He bought a 170-foot yacht, an Israeli football club and a Formula One team. For entertainment at a family party in Toronto, he booked Justin Bieber. And then there was the must-have asset for billionaires who got rich in the former Soviet Union: a prime piece of Western real estate.
To the sound of Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man,” Alex Shnaider and Donald Trump cut a red ribbon to mark the belated opening of their Toronto skyscraper in April 2012. Trump’s three adult children were present: Ivanka, who would later work alongside her father in the White House, and Donald Jr. and Eric, who would take over the family business. As the Trumps strode through the marble lobby, anyone would think this was their building. But the money had come from elsewhere.
More than a decade had passed since Trump signed up to the project in 2001, alongside Ritz-Carlton and a little-known developer called Leib Waldman. The project almost collapsed the following year when Waldman was exposed as a fugitive fraudster and Ritz-Carlton pulled out. But Trump pressed on. Shnaider joined the venture in about 2003. Neither he nor Trump answered the FT’s questions about how they met.
Over the years that followed, while Trump was trying and failing to have his mobster associate Felix Sater secure a deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow, Shnaider poured funds into the Toronto skyscraper. All the while, his steel mill was becoming embroiled in Putin’s efforts to project Russia’s influence beyond its borders — a strategy that would eventually expand to include meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Employing 50,000 people, the Zaporizhstal steel mill is among Ukraine’s biggest industrial operations. It lies just 150 miles from the Russian border. In the years before Putin’s 2014 invasion, Russia waged an economic incursion in eastern Ukraine, securing industrial assets either directly or through sympathetic oligarchs.
In May 2010, Shnaider received a call from Shyfrin in Moscow. It was the start of a series of events that have not previously been reported and that are described in the documents seen by the FT, including a complaint Shnaider brought against Shyfrin in 2016 in a London arbitration court and one of Shyfrin’s witness statements in response.
According to Shnaider’s arbitration claim, Shyfrin told him that buyers acting “on behalf of the Russian government” wanted to buy their Zaporizhstal stake and that he was coming “under pressure” to sell. At the time, Moscow was capitalizing on a slump in demand for Ukrainian steel to snap up assets in order to maintain influence over a neighbor being courted by the West. Shnaider said Shyfrin told him that Moscow regarded buying the Zaporizhstal mill as “politically strategic.” Shyfrin wrote in his witness statement that a top Russian official told him “in very clear terms” to proceed with the deal, hinting that, if he did not, his Russian assets would be in jeopardy.
The deal was to be financed by VEB, the Russian state-owned bank that was then chaired by Putin. It serves as a financial arm of the Kremlin, sometimes even more, such as when a Russian spy in New York used a job as a VEB banker as his cover. (After Russia invaded Ukraine, VEB was placed under Western sanctions.) The FT reviewed corporate filings for the Cyprus and British Virgin Islands companies to which Midland sold its Zaporizhstal stake. These strongly suggest that VEB itself put up the entire purchase price and ended up with control of Midland’s stake in the steel mill. In effect, Shnaider and Shyfrin’s deal was with the Russian state itself. VEB declined to comment.
Midland received $850 million for its stake, $160 million more than the amount that Shnaider and Shyfrin had been offered for the steel mill by Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest oligarch. But there was a twist. The documents show that of the $160 million in extra cash from the Kremlin-backed buyers, $50 million would cover a termination penalty owed to Akhmetov, $10 million would be a sweetener for Midland — and $100 million would need to be sent, via shell companies in Cyprus and other circuitous routes, to what Shnaider called the “introducers” who arranged the deal.
The man who set up the sale, according to Shyfrin’s witness statement, was Igor Bakai.
Bakai is a well-known figure in both Kiev and Moscow. He served in senior positions in Ukraine’s state gas company and the presidential administration before fleeing for Russia during the 2004 Orange Revolution. The new Ukrainian government accused him of embezzlement, but the Russian authorities declined to send him home, and he set up in Moscow as a business fixer. By 2010, according to Shyfrin’s witness statement, he was “well connected politically at the highest levels” and fronting a deal that the Kremlin was very keen to see done.
The most pressing question, said analysts to whom the FT has outlined this money flow, was what became of the $100 million commission. Was a transaction that ultimately saw millions flow to a future U.S. president facilitated by the illicit enrichment of Russian officials?
In his witness statement, Shyfrin acknowledged that this “substantial” commission “may appear unusual compared to Western-style business dealings. However, while doing business in Russia and Ukraine, Midland paid various commissions, as it was common practice.” Crucially, he added: “I did not even know if the commission was to be purely for [Bakai]” or also for “additional recipients” who Bakai represented. Given that the ultimate backer of the deal was the Kremlin, that raises the possibility that money passed from Trump’s business partner to Russian officials.
Shnaider offered an alternative version of events in his arbitration claim — but one that ends with similar suspicions over whether there may have been illicit enrichment of Russian officials. He claimed that, under the pretext of having to send a secret commission to Bakai, Shyfrin diverted the money to himself. Shnaider said Shyfrin told a Midland manager in Moscow at about the time of the deal that he needed money “to pay off officials in the Kremlin.” (In his witness statement, Shyfrin denied saying this.)
Bakai signed a statement in the arbitration case saying he did indeed receive the money. Asked whether he stood by that statement, Bakai told the FT he was prevented from providing comment for publication because he was under house arrest in a separate case and prohibited from speaking to the media. For his part, Shyfrin appears not to have fallen foul of the Kremlin. In October 2016, days before Trump’s victory, he was granted Russian citizenship.
Several people with knowledge of the deal offered differing accounts to the FT of where the $100 million ended up. Each version, however, gives rise to important questions about Trump’s business partner’s dealings. There appears to be no dispute in the documents that Shnaider signed off on the $100 million payment on the understanding that it was heading for representatives of the Kremlin’s interests.
Months after Shnaider authorized this “commission” and the Zaporizhstal sale was completed — bringing in hundreds of millions for Midland — the documents show that he earmarked $40 million for further investment in the construction of the Trump Toronto. Thereafter, at least $4 million subsequently flowed out of the project to Trump in licensing and management fees — possibly much more, given that his financial disclosures as candidate and president only cover the years since 2014.
Both Shnaider and Shyfrin declined to be interviewed or to answer questions from the FT for this article. Their lawyers said the arbitration documents were confidential.
One of the most striking things about the history of the Trump Toronto is the number of independent threads that connect Trump to post-Soviet money. Raiffeisen, the Austrian bank whose representatives stood alongside Trump and Shnaider at the Toronto groundbreaking in 2007, had previously backed Midland projects in the former Soviet Union. It was persuaded to finance the Trump Toronto, Shnaider said at the time, thanks to “the universal appeal of the Trump brand and the Trump Toronto team’s global business experience.”
Raiffeisen had funded other North American real estate ventures, but most of its business lay east of Vienna. It had expanded aggressively in the former Soviet Union, at times becoming embroiled in regional power struggles, such as when its investment arm was revealed in 2006 to have represented the concealed interests of a Ukrainian oligarch in an opaque gas deal with Russia’s Gazprom.
Many Raiffeisen projects received funding from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a World Bank–type institution for the post-Soviet region. In the years leading up to 2010, some EBRD directors became alarmed with what they saw as Raiffeisen’s cavalier attitude to the origins of its clients’ money, according to two people familiar with the matter.
“This is irresponsible behavior,” Kurt Bayer, a former Austrian finance ministry official who was an EBRD director at the time, told the FT in describing Raiffeisen’s dealings at the time. “You just push and build market share without doing the controls that are required.” The EBRD told the FT that in 2010, concerned by “an alleged incident,” it “worked closely with the [Raiffeisen] management team to develop an appropriate response, the central part of which was a comprehensive review of the bank’s compliance system.” Raiffeisen said that its compliance processes and staffing “had to be adjusted” due to its growth in central and eastern Europe and increased regulation. This was, Raiffeisen added, “a development in the entire banking industry.”
Raiffeisen put up $310 million for the Trump Toronto — then treated the developers remarkably kindly. First, it required them to presell just 80 percent of the units before releasing loan funds, less than the 100 percent that local media reported was the usual standard. When sales lagged, Raiffeisen allowed deadlines to slip at least 10 times. When Trump Toronto finally went bust in 2016, the bank was still owed all but about $7 million of its initial loan. Asked to explain its leniency, Raiffeisen told the FT that Austrian bank secrecy laws prevented it from discussing the project.
Now that Trump is president, his administration’s approach to the division between affairs of state and personal interests at times appears to echo how business is often done in the post-Soviet states where many of his backers made their money.
In May, the BBC reported that Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, received a $400,000 payment arranged by intermediaries acting for Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, to set up talks with Trump. (The two leaders did meet in June last year, but Poroshenko and Cohen have denied the BBC’s claims.) Reports of conflicts of interests across the wider administration proliferate. The Washington Post reported in February that the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico were trying to influence Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser and the scion of another New York real estate family, through his business interests.
Several experts on financial crime and espionage told the FT that the most troubling part of the interplay between Trump’s past in business and his present in public office was his potential susceptibility to blackmail. Keatinge, the RUSI expert on illicit finance, calls such a scenario “the number-one fear of any intelligence agency.” Knowledge of an illicit transaction might not be as sensational as the most notorious claim in the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele’s dossier on Trump’s Russian connections — that Russian intelligence had footage of the future president instructing prostitutes to urinate on the Moscow hotel bed in which the Obamas had once slept. But it could be at least as powerful if used as kompromat with which to pressure the president.
Trump-branded property ventures have a way of going bust, even in booms. Sales at the Toronto tower came in lower than the developers had predicted during construction, but Trump still made his millions. In 2017, a property fund bought out the bankrupt venture and renamed it the Adelaide Hotel.
The M came off first, then the P. Soon the T, R and U were gone too. It was July 2017, Donald Trump was seven months into his presidency and Washington was fizzing with news that he had held an undisclosed private rendezvous with Putin during a trip to Germany and that Donald Jr. had met a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton during the campaign. The Trump name was everywhere but, in Toronto, a crane was removing it, letter by enormous letter, from the pinnacle of Canada’s second-tallest building. The past, however, is not so easily erased.
Additional reporting by Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Max Seddon in Moscow, David Blood in London, Jim Brunsden in Brussels and Kerin Hope in Athens.
Source that put us on the right track:Ozy

Featured Posts

More Than 100 Members of Congress Ask Trump To Stop His Harmful Stands Against LGBTQ

By Tim Fitzsimons NBC More than 100 members of Congress sent  a letter  to President Donald Trump on Thursday th...