Cohen's new apartment...I'm just sayin, this mobby mofo has more money than the law allows grrrrrrrr

[Leghorn21]

Michael Cohen bought a $6,700,000 apartment in
April in a new Manhattan skyscraper that is being developed
by two of Trump’s longtime friends, people familiar with
the transaction tell WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
michael-cohen-purchases-new-york-city-apartment-for-6-7-million-1531410460 …

Link to tweet

From April 27:

“Cohen And His Father-In-Law Loaned $26M To Taxi Mogul In Marijuana Biz”

NEW YORK (AP)

It’s not clear whether Shtayner used any of the loans — $6 MILLION OF WHICH HAVE COME DIRECTLY FROM COHEN SINCE 2014 — to finance his grow operation.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cohen-and-father-in-law-taxi-mogul-loan-marijuana-business

(my emphasis)

[kentuck]

1. Wow!

I thought he was almost broke??

Two friends of Trump developed an apartment in a skyscraper, and Cohen purchased one in April?

[Leghorn21]

4. Nyet - dollars to spare, k. He gets his cut from laundering for SpankMe45 - (cough) allegedly -

and when 45 took office there was all this delicious lobbying cash from Vecklesberg (sp), AT&T,
Novartis ETC - - and those are just the entities that we KNOW of who vied for Spanky’s favors.

Now, I had to google bc I FORGOT, but Cohen was raided on April 9, which means that he made this transaction just before or after his bust.

Edit - he appears to have bought this April 3 (I can’t read the article, will take a tweeter’s word for it!!)

Also, someone noted

We are seeing Cohen/Trump/Qatari $1.2 billion bribe getting laundered in real time.

Link to tweet

...me, I don’t know nuttin

[msongs]

2. loads of ppl in entertainment have as much or more. nt

[TexasTowelie]

3. I doubt that Michael will get to spend much time there.

His future accommodations won't be as elegant.

[lapfog_1]

5. one more asset to seize

too bad the taxpayers won't get our money out of it ( probably he overpaid ).

[former9thward]

6. Assets seized for violation of what law?

I will be interested to see what you come up with.

[lapfog_1]

7. he hasn't been charged yet

but I suspect there are charges of money laundering, influence peddling, conspiracy, etc.

[former9thward]

8. "Influence peddling" is not illegal.

Assets are not seized because of a "conspiracy" conviction. Depending on what money and how much, assets can be seized in a money laundering conviction. I don't know what "etc." laws are. Why progressives cheer lead authoritarian asset seizing I don't know. 99% of the time it is used against people who can't afford legal representation and the authority seizes a car to auction off so they can have more toys.

[lapfog_1]

9. I didn't specify a time at which the assets would be seized

perhaps forfeited is the better term...

And I forgot the favorite crime of the Trump criminal enterprise... tax evasion.

I would prefer to see the assets frozen instead of seized...until conviction. I understand the government's interest in not having assets sold off by the defendant to either move offshore or disbursed to other individuals which would make it harder to collect upon conviction.. I do not support the government in seizing assets of people on suspicion of criminal activity (sometimes even before a charge is made).

In any event... If Mr. Cohen is convicted of one or more crimes... then yes, his assets should be forfeit.

As for influence peddling... it is a crime if he is operating at the behest of a foreign entity and has not registered so with the government. As for domestic attempts, it may be bribery.

[former9thward]

10. You last sentence is just not true.

There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of attempts to influence political officials every single day. It is not illegal. People are creating crimes out of thin air and rumors and internet fake news in this investigation. I have posted before that people will be very disappointed at the end.

[lapfog_1]

11. Let's refer to the US Code, shall we.

Section 201 of Title 18 is entitled "Bribery of public officials and witnesses." The statute comprises two distinct offenses, however, and in common parlance only the first of these is true "bribery."

The first offense, codified in section 201(b), prohibits the giving or accepting of anything of value to or by a public official, if the thing is given "with intent to influence" an official act, or if it is received by the official "in return for being influenced."

The second offense, codified in section 201(c), concerns what are commonly known as "gratuities," although that word does not appear anywhere in the statute. Section 201(c) prohibits that same public official from accepting the same thing of value, if he does so "for or because of" any official act, and prohibits anyone from giving any such thing to him for such a reason.

The specific subsections of the statute are:

Bribery

a. § 201(b)(1): offering a bribe to a public official
b. § 201(b)(2): acceptance of a bribe by a public official

Gratuities

a. § 201(c)(1)(A): offering a gratuity to a public official

b. § 201(c)(1)(B): acceptance of a gratuity by a public official.

The two offenses differ in several respects. The most important of these differences concerns how close a connection there is between the giving (or receiving) of the thing of value, on the one hand, and the doing of the official act, on the other. If the connection is causally direct - if money was given essentially to purchase or ensure an official act, as a "quid pro quo" then the crime is bribery. If the connection is looser - if money was given after the fact, as "thanks" for an act but not in exchange for it, or if it was given with a nonspecific intent to "curry favor" with the public official to whom it was given -then it is a gratuity. The distinction is sometimes hard to see, but the statute makes it critical: a § 201(b) "bribe" conviction is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while a § 201(c) "gratuity" conviction permits only a maximum 2-year sentence. In addition, with a "bribe" the payment may go to anyone or to anything and may include campaign contributions, while with a "gratuity" the payment must inure to the personal benefit of the public official and cannot include campaign contributions.

----

IF Cohen accepted money from corporations or individuals promising them certain political favors by the President of the United States, a jury may find that this constitutes bribery under the US Code... depending on the determination of the "quid pro quo" and the determined "casually direct"

[Blue_true]

12. His wife's dad is a very rich man.

The father-in-law may be sending the money through his daughter. $6 million is peanuts for the FIL.

[Leghorn21]

13. Yes, Blue!! Fima's done quite well for himself, and we don't know squat about this guy (yet!!?)

From link in OP:

NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, whose business dealings are being investigated by the FBI, and the lawyer’s father-in-law have lent $26 million in recent years to a taxi mogul who is shifting into the legalized marijuana industry, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Semyon “Sam” Shtayner, a longtime business associate of Michael Cohen’s father-in-law, created Nevada-based Cannaboss LLC the day before the 2016 election. A few months later, he took a majority position in a company that is provisionally licensed to cultivate medicinal marijuana and produce edibles, the records show.

——————————-The articles I’ve seen on Cohen’s father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, only mention his taxi business - but google reveals that he also runs, or ran, a real estate business...there are no dates connected to these links, and virtually no info (grrrr) ...the outfit is simply called “Shusterman Fima”...

https://www.corpdetails.com/us/new-york/816952-new-york/shusterman-fima

https://www.bizexposed.com/New_York-USA/B/Shusterman__Fima-New_York.php

————————He is also mentioned in the Steele Dossier (4th bullet point down, sorry for fuzzy screenshot)



I do hope to find out someday if Cohen’s and Manafort’s wives have lent a hand in helping their husbands prosper so magnificently....

[Blue_true]

14. The FIL's money is most likely dirty.

But tracing it must be very difficult. The Russian mob is good at hiding money and connections, and Putin may be helping the either overtly or covertly.