As the Manhattan prosecutors are wrapping up their case-in-chief, they have left several legal and factual questions still unanswered, even a year after many of us raised these questions about their indictments: Who or what was the target of Trump’s alleged “intent to defraud”? Who would be defrauded by entirely internal documents (e.g. the pay stubs, invoices, and daily ledger entries)?
New York courts have never allowed a case based on what the prosecutors have presented so far: a 175.10 intent to defraud the general public or the “electorate.” They have not required a financial or pecuniary fraud. Nor have they narrowly interpreted 175.10 intent to defraud as requiring a specific person as the target, but they have required a “target,” as a slightly broader class.
In similarly structured statutes, like breaking and entering with intent to commit another crime, the NY courts have allowed prosecutors to charge someone with breaking and entering an apartment building with intent to burglarize one of the apartments, without specifying which apartment. NY courts have allowed a 175.10 intent to defraud to apply to defrauding a targeted class of investors, without specifying a particular investor.
But they have needed prosecutors to identify a relatively narrow “target,” and they have never allowed a 175.05 or 175.10 “target” as broad as the general public or the voters. First, here is the relevant section from my NY Times Guest Essay. Second, I offer more detail from NY decisions.
1. Background from my Guest Essay:
Here was one of my questions that I raised originally a year ago, and re-stated three weeks ago in The NY Times:
After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the district attorney has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.
To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.
Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and that only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.
A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. He may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.
In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.
Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.
However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan district attorney’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.
Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”
As a reality check: It is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.
In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.
The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.
In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan district attorney is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.
First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime. Whether state prosecutors have avoided doing so as a matter of law, norms or lack of expertise, this novel attempt is a sign of overreach.
Second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The district attorney responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, the prosecutors could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal and a single jury instruction do not count).
Third, no New York precedent has allowed an interpretation of defrauding the general public. Legal experts have noted that such a broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, and a conviction based on it may not survive a state appeal.
2. New York Precedents on 175.10 Intent to Defraud a “Target”
New York courts do not require a financial or pecuniary fraud, nor an intent to target a specific individual, but they do require a target of a foreseeable class. They have not allowed “intent to defraud” to apply to such a broad class as the general public or “the voters.”
A. People v. Coe (1986)
Supreme Court, New York, Criminal Term, Part 48.April 14, 1986 131 Misc.2d 807 501 N.Y.S.2d 997
“The statute requires an expressed intent to defraud. However, the target of such attempt is not set forth.”
Leonora Coe was “charged in a two-count indictment with wilful violation of health laws, in violation of Section 12–b of the Public Health Law in that she is alleged to have violated Section 2803–d of the Public Health Law and regulations enacted pursuant thereto, and with falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of Section 175.10 of the Penal Law. The case was tried before me without a jury. Motion was made to dismiss the indictment at the close of the entire trial.
The People have proven the following facts:
Coe is a registered nurse who was in charge of the third floor, at the Isabella Geriatric Center prior to and on July 10, 1984. Erwin Gersh was a resident of the **999 third floor at the Center. Coe was familiar with Gersh, and with his medical history, since he had been a resident at the Center for some time previous.
Gersh was an 86-year old man who was somewhat senile. From time to time he had taken certain items such as papers of various kinds and put them into his pockets. He had a history of heart disease, and other illnesses. Gersh had difficulty expressing himself verbally.
On the afternoon of July 10, 1984, Coe was told that another resident of the floor claimed that two $5.00 bills were missing. Because Gersh had been known to have taken things in the past, Coe went to him and attempted to search through his pockets. Gersh became agitated and resisted the search. Coe stopped searching because of Gersh’s agitation and called a security guard. The guard, James Taylor, came to the area where Gersh was, and there was again an attempt made to search Gersh. Gersh still physically resisted and verbally objected to the search.
Taylor lifted a chair and banged it down in front of Gersh, thus causing a loud noise. Taylor then pinned Gersh’s arms to his sides while defendant searched his pockets. The search did not reveal the two $5.00 bills that defendant was looking for and she then left the area together with Taylor.
A short time later, approximately five minutes, defendant returned and saw that Gersh had collapsed on a chair. He was gasping for breath. Defendant attempted to administer CPR and oxygen in order to revive Gersh but her attempts were unsuccessful. Gersh died.
Coe entered the following note in Gersh’s records:
“Observed resident was extremely confused and talks incoherently. Suddenly became unresponsive and cyanotic; no pulse, no B/P; cardiac message and 02 3/L Min. has no effect. Supervisor informed and responded. Patient ceased breathing at 6:20/P. Dr. Hussain contacted. Resident was pronounced dead at 7:55/P by same. Family Dr. E. Sorell were unable to contact via phone. Post mortem care done. Body brought to morgue. L. Coe, R.N.”
Coe was a registered nurse for a number of years before 1984. During her employment at Isabella, she had attended various in-service lectures relating to her responsibilities. Among those lectures were lectures about the requirements of law as to the treatment of patients, and more specifically the avoidance of mistreatment of residents. Some of the lectures covered the material specifically set forth in Section 2803–d(7) Public Health Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. This material is some times known as the “Patients’ Bill of Rights.” It was discussed at an in-service lecture, which Coe attended.
B. People v. Schrag (1990)
County Court, Rockland County, New York.June 8, 1990 147 Misc.2d 517 558 N.Y.S.2d 451
The court below “found that conduct to be insufficient to establish an ‘intent to defraud’ as charged since there was no evidence that “another person” was deprived of any property or right as a result of the defendant’s actions. A review of the Article 175 crimes illustrates that the use of the term “intent to defraud” is not qualified by any language which limits their applicability to property or pecuniary loss.
When the Legislature intended to limit the scope of a fraud statute it has done so (i.e., Penal Law Sections 195.20 and
190.60.). While several Penal Law fraud statutes are directed specifically to preventing property or pecuniary loss, the fraud crimes in Article 175 of the Penal Law are not so delimited and therefore the “intent to defraud” terminology must be interpreted so as to effectuate their object, spirit and intent. A Court must interpret a statute in light of the purpose underlying its enactment.
Both the People and the defendant have discussed People v. Coe, 131 Misc.2d 807, 501 N.Y.S.2d 997 (N.Y.Cty., 1986); aff’d. 126 A.D.2d 436, 510 N.Y.S.2d 470; aff’d. 71 N.Y.2d 852, 527 N.Y.S.2d 741, 522 N.E.2d 1039, which involved a nurse who omitted from her nursing notes any facts relating to her search of a patient. The trial Court found that the intent to defraud required by Penal Law § 175.10 “is the intent to defraud anyone.” The trial court stated the target of the intent to defraud could have been the facility, the patient’s relatives, the defendant’s supervisors, or others. Similarly in this case it may be that the target of the intent to defraud could have been the defendant’s supervisors, the *519 defendant’s employer, or the victim of the assault himself. The Court of Appeals found the defendant’s challenge to her conviction for a lesser included charge, with the same element of intent to defraud, to be without merit.
C. People v. Elliassen (2008)
Supreme Court, Richmond County, New York. September 5, 2008
20 Misc.3d 1143(A); 873 N.Y.S.2d 236
“Falsifying Business Records in the First and Second Degrees, charge the defendants with not preparing and filing the juvenile log report or the UF 250 stop and frisk report relating to their interaction with Rayshawn Moreno. These statutes require defendants to have an “intent to defraud”. It is not necessary to show a property or pecuniary loss from the fraud, and, in this case, it is sufficient to show that the NYPD’s legitimate official actions and purposes were impeded. See, People v. Schrag, 147 Misc.2d 517 (County Court, Rockland County, 1990); People v. Coe, 131 Misc.2d 807, 812 (Supreme Court, New York County, 1986) [“…. the target of the intent to defraud could have been defendant’s supervisors, defendant’s employer or the victim….”].”