,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Here are my quick thoughts (thanks, @Mimirocah1 & others for asking): NY indictment charges 3 things (essentially): (1) mortgage fraud for counts on which Manafort was convicted, (2) falsifying business records of the banks, & (3) mortgage fraud for counts on which jury hung. /1
On #3, because the jury hung and the defense sought a mistrial, those charges are highly likely *not* to be subject to #NYS's expansive "transaction test" for double jeopardy. /2
On #1 and #2, question is whether the federal counts and NY counts have at least 1 different element (they do), AND whether they were "designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil." /3
For falsifying business records, there's a very good argument (likely correct) that that charge was to prevent a very different harm/evil than federal bank fraud, since no federal analogue was charged. (Counterargument is false records charge requires "intent to defraud"). /4
For #1, bank frauds for which Manafort *was* convicted, it's a tougher road for @manhattanda. Argument that DA will have to win is that mortgage fraud was designed for different harm than bank fraud. /5
