US.

Department

of Justice

United States Attorney
Southern District
on Silvia 1

of New

York

Mann Building

0": Sum! Andrzw ': Plan
New Ym'k, New York 10007

August 21, 2018

BY EMAIL

Guy Petrillo, Esq.
Pettillo Klein & Boxer LLP
655 Third Avenue, 22"“ Floor
New

York, NY 10017
Re: United States

v.

Michael

Cohen, 18

Cr.

(WHY)

Dear Mr. Petrillo:

This prosecution and the protection against prosecution, with respect to tax offenses, set
below
have been approved by the Tax Division, Department of Justice.
forth
0n the

understandings specified below, the

Office of the United States

Attorney

for the

Southern District of New York (“this Office”) will accept a guilty plea from Michael Cohen
“defendant”) to Counts One through Eight of the above-referenced Information

(the
(the

“Information”).
Counts One through Five of the Information

charge the defendant with evasion

of personal

income tax, for the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 72011 Counts One through Five each carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 5

maximum term of supervised release of 3 years; a maximum fine of $100,000, twice the
gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other
than the defendant resulting from the offense; and a $100 mandatory special assessment.
years;

a

Count Six of the Information charges the defendant with making false statements to a
financial institution in connection with a credit decision, fi'om at least in or about February 2015,
up to and including in or about April 2016, in violation of 18 U,S.C. § 1014. Count Six carries a
maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 5 years; a

maximum fine of $1,000,000; and

a

$100 mandatory special

Count Seven of the Information

charges

assessment.

the defendant with

willfully causing

an

unlawful

corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October
2016, in violation of52 UrS.C. §§ 3011801) & 30109(d)(l)(A), and 18 U.S.C. §2(b). Count Seven
maximum term of imprisorunent of 5 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 3
maximwn
fine of $250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived fi'om the offense, or
years;
twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense; and
carries

a

a

a

$100 mandatory special

Rev, 041242018

assessment.

 Page

Count Eight of the Information

charges the defendant with making an

about October 27, 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C.
& 30109(d)(l)(A), and 1:; USC. § 20:). Count Eight carries

contribution,

on

or

2

excessive

campaign
§§ 30116(a)(1)(A),

a maximum term of
30116(a)(7)
of
release
of
3
of
5
a
maximum
term
years; a maximum fme of
imprisonment
years;
supervised
$250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary
loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense, and a $100 mandatory special

assessment.

The total maximum term of imprisorunent

on

Counts One

through Eight is

65 years.

It is further understood that at least two Weeks prior to the date of sentencing, the defendant

provide copies to the Office, accurate
through 2016.

shall file with the IRS, and

the calendar years 2012

In consideration of his

plea

to the above

amended

personal tax returns

offenses, the defendant will

for

not be further

and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division,
prosecuted criminally by
for
crimes
any
relating to: (I) evasion of payment of income taxes, for the
Department of Justice,
calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information; (2)
this Office

making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least
in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of
the Information; (3) causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June
2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information; (4) making
an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 27, 2016, as charged in Count Eight of
the Information, and (5) making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a
credit decision by Sterling National Bank, from at least in or about October 2016, up to an
including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of
such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent
prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 USC §§ 1961 2! seq. In
addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s) against
the defendant This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution except as set
forth above. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a
“prevailing party” within the meaning of the “Hyde Amendment,” Section 617, PL. 105-119
(Nov. 26, 1997), and will not file any claim under that law.
The defendant

hereby

admits the forfeiture

allegation

with respect to Count Six of the

Information and agrees to forfeit to the United States, pursuant to pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), any property constituting or derived from, proceeds obtained
or indirectly, as a result of the commission of offense alleged in Count Six. It is fimher
understood that any forfeiture of the defendant’s assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any
fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty the Court may impose upon him in

directly

addition to forfeiture.
The defendant further agrees to make restitution in an amount ordered by the Court in
accordance with Sections 3663, 3663A and 3664 of Title 18, United States Code, and that the
obligation to make such restitution shall be made a condition of probation, see 18 USC {7

Rev. 0424 20] 3

 Page

3

supervised release, see 18 USC § 3583(d), as the case may be. In particular,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(a)(3) and 3663A(a)(3), the defendant agrees to pay restitution to
the IRS for the amount of additional taxes, penalties and interest due as a result of his filing of tax
returns for tax years 2012 through 2016, and as determined by the Internal Revenue Service
35630:)(2),

or

of

(“IRS"), which based on current information is $1 ,495,305 in past taxes due and owing for calendar
of civil fraud
years 20l2 through 2016. The defendant also agrees not to contest the applicability
as
restitution.
The
taxes
due
and
owing
penalties and interest with respect to the aforementioned
restitution amount shall be paid according to a plan established by the Court. If the Court orders
the defendant to pay restitution to the IRS for the failure to pay tax, either directly as part of the
sentence or as a condition of supervised release or probation, the IRS will use the restitution order
as the basis for a civil assessment. See 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(4)(C). Neither the existence of a
restitution payment schedule nor the defendant’s timely payment of restitution according to that
schedule will preclude: (l) the [RS and the defendant from reaching an agreed upon schedule for
payments of past due taxes, civil penalties and interest, or (2) the IRS from administrative
collection of the restitution-based assessment, including levy and distraint under 26 U.S.C. § 6331.
In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) Section 631.4, the parties hereby stipulate to the following:
A. Offense Level

1.

on

The November 1, 2016 Guidelines

apply to

these offenses.

2. Because the offenses charged in Counts One through Eight are determined largely
the basis of the total amount of harm or loss, they group pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d) (the

“‘Group”).
3.

Because different Guidelines

apply to

therefore

applies
4.

offense

to the

charged in Counts One through
highest offense level for
in
the
results
highest offense level and

the offenses

3Dl .3(b), the Guideline that results in the

§
Eight,l pursuant
the Group applies.2 Here, application of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1
to U.S.S.G.

Group.

Pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§

2B1. I(a)(l), the base offense level is 7 because at least

one

comprising the Group has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more.

applicable Guideline to the offenses charged in Counts One through Five is U.S.S.G.
§ 2T1 .1. The applicable Guideline to the offense charged in Count Six is U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.1. The
applicable Guideline to the offenses charged in Counts Seven and Eight is U.S.S.G. § 2C1.8.
2
There is no stipulation regarding Whether the tax counts group with the bank fraud and campaign
finance counts under U.S.S.G. § 3D] .2. Under the Government’s grouping analysis, set forth
above, all counts group under Section 3Dl.2, resulting in an offense level of 24. The defendant
I

The

believes that the tax counts do not group with the false statements and campaign finance counts.
Under the defendant’s grouping analysis, the Guidelines offense level would be 23. The parties
on the grouping analysis.
agree not to appeal or challenge collaterally the Court’s determination

Rev. 0434,2018

 Page 4

added pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(l), because
involved more than $1,500,000, but less than $3,500,000.

An additional 16 levels

5.

the offenses that comprise the

Group

are

added pursuant to U.S.S.G. § ZBl.1(h)(10) because
of sophisticated means, including the defendant’s creation of shell

An additional two levels

6.

are

the Group involved the use
companies and fake invoices

added pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3131.3 because the
defendant used a special skill—to wit, his education, training and licensing as an attorney in New
York State—in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the
7.

offense

An additional two levels

are

comprising the Group

Assuming the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, to the
of
the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduct prior to the
satisfaction
imposition of sentence, a two-level reduction will be warranted, pursuant to U.SlS.G. § 3E1 .1(a).
Furthermore, assuming the defendant has accepted responsibility as described in the previous
8.

sentencing for an additional one-level reduction, pursuant
to U.S,S.G. § 3E1 .1(b), because the defendant gave timely notice of his intention to enter a plea of
guilty, thereby permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to
allocate its resources efficiently.
sentence, the Government will

move

In accordance with the

at

above, the applicable Guidelines offense level is 24 under the

Govemment’s calculations and 23 under the defendant’s calculations.
B. Criminal

History Category

Based upon the information now available to this Office
defense), the defendant has zero criminal history points.
In accordance with the
C.

(including representations by the

above, the defendant’s Criminal History Category is I.

Sentencing Range

Based upon the calculations set forth above, the defendant’s Guidelines range is either 51
to 63 months’ imprisonment under the Government's calculations, or 46 to 57 months’
imprisonment under the defendant’s calculations. Accordingly, the stipulated Guidelines range is
In addition, afier
46 to 63 months’ imprisonment (the “Stipulated Guidelines Range”).
determining the defendant’s ability to pay, the Court may impose a fine pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§

SE12. At

an

offense level of 23

or

24, the applicable fine range is $20,000

to

$1,000,000,

parties agree that neither a downward nor an upward departure from the Stipulated
Guidelines Range set forth above is warranted. Accordingly, neither party will seek any departure
or adjustment pursuant to the Guidelines that is not set forth herein. Nor will either party in any
such a departure or adjustment under
way suggest that the Probation Office or the Court consider
The

the Guidelines.

Rev 04.24.2018

 Page

5

The parties agree that either party may seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines
United
based
Range
upon the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence pursuant to Title 18,
'

States

Code, Section 3553(3).

in any written Proffer Agreement(s) that may have been entered into
between this Office and the defendant, nothing in this Agreement limits the right of the parties
(i) to present to the Probation Office or the Court any facts relevant to sentencing; (ii) to make any
arguments regarding where within the stipulated Guidelines Range of 46 to 63 months’

Except

as

provided

imprisonment (or such other range as the Court may determine) the defendant should be sentenced
and regarding the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 3553(a); (iii) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range if it is
determined based upon new information that the defendant’s Criminal History Category is
different from that set forth above; and (iv) to seek an appropriately adjusted Guidelines range or
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment if it is subsequently determined that the defendant
qualifies as a career offender under U.STS.G. § 41311 Nothing in this Agreement limits the right
of the Government to seek denial of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1. l, regardless of any stipulation set forth above, if the defendant fails clearly to demonstrate
acceptance of responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and
subsequent conduct prior to the imposition of sentence. Similarly, nothing in this Agreement limits
the right of the Govemrnent to seek an enhancement for obstruction of justice, see U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1, regardless of any stipulation set forth above, should it be determined that the defendant
has either (i) engaged in conduct, unknown to the Government at the time of the signing of this
Agreement1 that constitutes obstruction ofjustice or (ii) committed another crime afler signing this
Agreement,

§ 6131 .4(d), neither the Probation Office nor the
Court is bound by the above Guidelines stipulation, either as to questions of fact or as to the
determination of the proper Guidelines to apply to the facts. In the event that the Probation Office
or the Court contemplates any Guidelines adjustments, departures, or calculations different from
those stipulated to above, or contemplates any sentence outside of the stipulated Guidelines range,
the parties reserve the right to answer any inquiries and to make all appropriate arguments
concerning the same.
It is understood that pursuant to U.S.S.G.

imposed upon the defendant is detemiined solely
that
the
Guidelines are not binding on the Court. The
by the Court. It is further understood
defendant acknowledges that his entry of a guilty plea to the charged offenses authorizes the
It is understood that the sentence to be

any sentence, up to and including the statutory maximum sentence.
does
and
This Office cannot,
not, make any promise or representation as to what sentence the
defendant will receive. Moreover, it is understood that the defendant will have no right to
withdraw his plea of guilty should the sentence imposed by the Court be outside the Guidelines

sentencing

court to

impose

range set forth above.

agreed (i) that
challenge, including but not
It is

2255 and/or Section

Rev. 04.24.20”

2241;

the defendant will not file

limited to

nor

seek

a

an

application

a

direct

appeal;

nor

bring

a

collateral

under Title 28, United States Code, Section

sentence modification

pursuant to Title 18, United States

 Page

6

Stipulated Guidelines Range of 46 to
63 months’ imprisonment, and (ii) that the Government will not appeal any sentence within or
above the Stipulated Guidelines Range. This provision is binding on the parties even if the Court
employs a Guidelines analysis different from that stipulated to herein. Furthermore, it is agreed
that any appeal as to the defendant’s sentence that is not foreclosed by this provision will be limited
to that portion of the sentencing calculation that is inconsistent with (or not addressed by) the
above stipulation. The parties agree that this waiver applies regardless of whether the term of
imprisonment is imposed to run consecutively to or concurrently with the undischarged portion of
at the time of
any other sentence of imprisonment that has been imposed on the defendant
term
of
not
to
defendant
further
in
this
case.
The
supervised release
agrees
appeal any
sentencing
also
that is less than or equal to the statutory maximmn. The defendant
agrees not to appeal any
fine that is less than or equal to $1,000,000, and the Government agrees not to appeal any fme that
is greater than or equal to $20,000. The defendant also agrees not to appeal any order of restitution
that is less than or equal to $1,495,305, and the Government agrees not to appeal any order of
restitution greater than or equal to the same, Finally, the defendant agrees not to appeal any special
assessment that is less than or equal to $800. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to be a waiver of whatever rights the defendant may have to assert
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, whether on direct appeal, collateral review, or
otherwise. Rather, it is expressly agreed that the defendant reserves those rights.
Code, Section 3582(0), of any

sentence within

or

below the

hereby acknowledges that he has accepted this Agreement and decided to
plead guilty because he is in fact guilty. By entering this plea of guilty, the defendant waives any
and all right to withdraw his plea or to attack his conviction, either on direct appeal or collaterally,
on the ground that the Government has failed to produce any discovery material, Jencks Act
material, exculpatory material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), other than
information establishing the factual innocence of the defendant, or impeachment material pursuant
to Giglio v. United Stores, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), that has not already been produced as of the date
of the signing of this Agreement.
The defendant

The defendant recognizes that, if he is not a citizen of the United States, his guilty plea and
conviction make it very likely that his deportation from the United States is presumptively
mandatory and that, at a minimum, he is at risk of being deported or suffering other adverse
immigration consequences The defendant acknowledges that he has discussed the possible
immigration consequences (including deportation) of his guilty plea and conviction with defense

The defendant affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration
consequences that may result from the guilty plea and conviction, even if those consequences
include deportation from the United States. It is agreed that the defendant will have no right to
withdraw his guilty plea based on any actual or perceived adverse immigration consequences
(including deportation) resulting from the guilty plea and conviction. It is further agreed that the
defendant will not challenge his conviction or sentence on direct appeal, or through litigation under
counsel.

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 and/or Section 2%], on the basis of any actual or
perceived adverse immigration consequences (including deportation) resulting fi'om his guilty plea
and conviction.

conviction(s) following the defendant’s plea(s) of guilty
for any reason, then any prosecution that is not time—barred

It is further agreed that should the

pursuant to this Agreement be vacated

Rev, 04.14.20”

 Page 7

signing of this agreement (including any
counts that the Government has agreed to dismiss at sentencing pursuant to this Agreement) may
be commenced or reinstated against the defendant, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
limitations between the signing ofthis Agreement and the commencement or reinstatement of such
prosecution. It is the intent of this Agreement to waive all defenses based on the statute of
limitations with respect to any prosecution that is not time-barred on the date that this Agreement
is signed.
by

the

applicable

statute of limitations

on

the date of the

It is further understood that this Agreement does not bind any federal, state, or local
prosecuting authority other than this Office and, to the extent set forth above, the Tax Division,

Department of Justice.

Rev, 04.14.20”

 Page

8

Apart firom any written Proffer Agreement(s) that may have been entered into between this
Office and defendant, this Agreement supersedes any prior understandings, promises, or
conditions between this Office and the defendant. No additional understandings, promises, or
conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this Agreement, and none will be
entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT KHUZAMI,

Attorney for the United States
Acting Under Authority Conferred
By 28 Use § 515
/—\

By:
Rachel Ma'
Thomas McKay
Nicolas Roos
Assistant United States

(212)

Attorneys

637-2200

APPROVED:

RUSSELL CAPONE
Chief, Public Corruption Unit

EDWARD B. DISKANT

Deputy Chief, Public Corruption Unit

AGREED AND CONSENTED T0:

8/;lé:1!’
ATE
/

APPROVED:

fl
.

uy Petri lo,

Attorney

Esq.

for Michael Cohen

Rev‘ 04 M 2018

{2/ é/J/
D

TE

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

-

-

x

INFORMATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
18 Cr.
- v. -

_

(WHP)

18CBIM

MICHAEL COHEN,
Defendant.
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- ·- -

-

-

-

-

\I

x

DOC L11', ff:T\ T

\l ELLCTR01\!CALLY FILED

The United States Attorney charges:

I

DOC 71:

-

' D:\i"E F!Ll::.D :Al}G

Background

2

-·----

The Defendant
1.

From in or about 2007 through in or about January

2017, MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant, was an attorney and employee

of a Manhattan-based real estate company (the "Company").

COHEN

held the title of "Executive Vice President" and "Special Counsel"
to the owner of the Company ("Individual-1").
2.
and

began

In or about January 2017,

holding

himself

out

as

the

COHEN left the Company
"personal

attorney"

to

Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the
United States.
3.

In addition to working for and earning income from

the Company,

at all times relevant to this Information, MICHAEL

COHEN,
Chicago

the defendant, owned taxi medallions in New York City and
worth

millions

of

dollars.

COHEN

owned

these

taxi

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 2 of 22

'•

medallions as investments and leased the medallions to operators
who paid COHEN a portion of the operating income.
Tax Evasion Scheme

4.

Between tax years 2012 and 2016, MICHAEL COHEN, the

defendant, engaged in a scheme to evade income taxes by failing to
report more than $4 million in income, resulting in the avoidance
of taxes of more than $1.4 million due to the IRS.
In

5.

or

about

late

MICHAEL

2013,

COHEN

I

the

defendant, retained an accountant ("Accountant-1") for the purpose
of handling COHEN'S personal and entity tax returns.

After being

retained, Accountant-1 filed amended 2011 and 2012 Form 1040 tax
returns for COHEN with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").
tax years

2013

through

2016,

Accountant-1

prepared

For

individual

returns for COHEN and returns for COHEN'S medallion and real estate
entities.

To confirm he had reviewed and approved these returns,

both COHEN and his wife signed a
through 2016,
8879

Form 8879 for tax years 2013

and filed manually for tax year 2012.

contained an affirmation,

"[u] nder penal ties

Each Form

of perjury,"

that COHEN "examined a copy of [his] electronic individual Income
tax return and accompanying schedules and statements" and "to the
best

of

[his]

knowledge and belief,

it

is

true,

correct,

and

accurately lists all amounts and sources of income [COHEN] received
during the tax year."
2

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 3 of 22

6.
the defendant,

Between 2012 and the end of 2016,

MICHAEL COHEN,

earned more than $2. 4 million in income from a

series of personal loans made by COHEN to a taxi operator to whom
COHEN

leased

certain

of

his

Chicago

taxi

medallions

("Taxi

Operator-1"), none of which he disclosed to the IRS.
7.
agreement,

Specifically,

in March 2012,

pursuant to a

loan

Taxi Operator-1 solicited a $2 million personal loan

from MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, so that Taxi Operator-1 could
cover various personal and taxi business-related expenses.
April 28,

On

2014, Taxi Operator-1 and his wife entered into a new

loan agreement with COHEN,

increasing the $2 million loan,

principal of which remained unpaid,

to $5 million.

Finally,

the
in

2015, Taxi Operator-1 and his wife entered into an amended loan
agreement with COHEN, increasing the principal amount of the loan
to $6 million.

Each loan was interest-only, carried an interest

rate in excess of 12 percent,

and was collateralized by either

Chicago taxi medallions or a property in Florida owned by Taxi
Operator-1 and his family.

COHEN funded the majority of his loans

to Taxi Operator-1 from a line of credit with an interest rate of
less than 5 percent.
8.
COHEN,

For each of the loans, at the direction of MICHAEL

the defendant,

Taxi Operator-1 made the interest payment

checks out to COHEN personally, and the checks were deposited in
3

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 4 of 22

COHEN's personal bank account,

or an account in the name of his

wife.

records

COHEN did not provide

that would have allowed

Accountant-1 to reasonably identify this income.
9.

Pursuant

between MICHAEL COHEN,

to

the

terms

of

the

loan

agreements

the defendant, and Taxi Operator-1, COHEN

received more than $2. 4 million in interest payments from Taxi
Operator-1 between 2012 and 2016, and reported none of that income
to the IRS.

COHEN intended to hide the income from the IRS in

order to evade taxes.
10.
income taxes,

As a

further part of the scheme to evade paying

MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant,

also concealed more

than $1.3 million in income he received from another taxi operator
to whom COHEN leased certain of his New York medallions
Operator-2").

("Taxi

First, COHEN did not

This income took two forms.

report the substantial majority of a bonus payment of at least
$870,000, which was made by Taxi Operator-2 in or about 2012 to
induce COHEN to allow Taxi Operator-2 to operate certain of COHEN'S
medallions.

Second,

substantial

additional

between

2012

taxable

and

income

2016,
he

COHEN

received

concealed
from

Taxi

Operator-2's operation of certain of COHEN'S taxi medallions.
11.

To

ensure

the

concealment

of

this

additional

operator income, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant , arranged to receive
a portion of the medallion income personally, as opposed to having
4

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 5 of 22

the

income

paid

to

COHEN'S

medallion

entities.

Paying

the

medallion entities would have alerted Accountant-1, who prepared
the returns for those entities,

to the existence of the income

such that it would have been included on COHEN'S tax returns.
12.
MICHAEL COHEN,

As a

further part of his scheme to evade taxes,

the defendant,

also hid the following additional

sources of income from Accountant-1 and the IRS:
a.

A $100,000

payment

received,

in

2014,

for

brokering the sale of a piece of property in a private aviation
community in Ocala, Florida.
b.

Approximately $30,000 in profit made, in 2015,

for brokering the sale of a Birkin Bag,

a highly coveted French

handbag that retails for between $11,900 to $300,000, depending on
the type of leather or animal skin used.
c.

More than $200,000 in consulting income earned

in 2016 from an assisted living company purportedly for COHEN's
"consulting" on real estate and other projects.
COUNTS 1 THROUGH 5

(Evasion of Assessment of Income Tax Liability)

The United States Attorney further charges:
13.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

12 are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein.

5

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 6 of 22

14.
years

set

From on or about January 1 of each of the calendar

forth

below,

through

the

present,

in

the

Southern

District of New York and elsewhere, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant,
who during each calendar year set forth below was married,

did

willfully and knowingly attempt to evade and defeat a substantial
part of the income tax due and owing by COHEN and his wife to the
United States by various means, including by committing and causing
to be

committed the

following

affirmative acts,

preparing and causing to be prepared,
signed,
about

among others:

signing and causing to be

and filing and causing to be filed with the IRS,
the month of

April

of

each

said calendar year,

in or
a

U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for each of the calendar
years set forth below,

on behalf of himself and his wife, which

falsely omitted substantial amounts of income in or about the years
listed below.
Count

Tax Year

Unreported Income

Tax Loss

1
2
3
4
5

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

$893,750
$499,400
$670,667
$969,616
$1,100,618

$192,188
$299,229
$232,883
$375,390
$395,615

(Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201.)

6

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 7 of 22

False Statements to a Bank

The United States Attorney further charges:
15.
through

In or about 2010,

companies

he

MICHAEL COHEN,

controlled,

executed

a

the defendant,
$6.4

million

promissory note with a bank ("Bank-1"), collateralized by COHEN'S
taxi medallions and personally guaranteed by COHEN.
in 2011,

COHEN personally obtained a

from Bank-1

(the "Line of Credit"),

taxi medallions.
of

Credit

from

A year later,

$6 million line of credit
also collateralized by his

By February 2013, COHEN had increased the Line
$6

million

to

$14

million,

thereby

increasing

COHEN's personal medallion liabilities at Bank-1 to more than $20
million.
16.
defendant,

In

or

about

November

2014,

MICHAEL

COHEN,

the

refinanced his medallion debt at Bank-1 with another

bank ( "Bank-2"), which shared the debt with a New York-based credit
union (the "Credit Union").

The transaction was structured as a

package of individual loans to the entities that owned COHEN'S New
York medallions,

personally guaranteed by COHEN.

Following the

loans' closing, COHEN'S medallion debt at Bank-1 was paid off with
funds from Bank-2 and the Credit Union,

and the Line of Credit

with Bank-1 was closed.
17.

In or about 2013,

in connection with a successful

application for a mortgage from another Bank
7

( "Bank-3")

for his

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 8 of 22

Park Avenue condominium (the "2013 Application"), MICHAEL COHEN,
the defendant, disclosed only the $6.4 million medallion loan he
had with Bank-1 at the time.
larger,

As noted above, COHEN also had a

$14 million Line of Credit with Bank-1 secured by his

medallions, which COHEN did not disclose in the 2013 Application.
18 .
defendant,

In or

in

purchase

a

concealed

an

attempt

summer
the

around February 2015 ,

$14

home

to

for

million

secure

financing

approximately
Line

of

MICHAEL COHEN,
from

the

Bank-3

$8. 5 million,

again

Specifically,

Credit.

to

in

connection with this proposed transaction, Bank-3 obtained a 2014
personal financial statement COHEN had provided to Bank-2 while
refinancing his medallion debt.

Bank-3 questioned COHEN about the

$14 million Line of Credit reflected on that personal financial
statement,
Application
substance,
that

he

because COHEN had omitted that
to

Bank-3.

COHEN

misled

debt
Bank-3,

from

the

stating,

2013
in

that the $14 million Line of Credit was undrawn and

would

close

it.

In

truth

and

in

fact,

COHEN

had

effectively overdrawn the Line of Credit, having swapped it out
for a fully drawn, larger group of loans shared by Bank-2 and the
Credit union upon refinancing his medallion debt.

When Bank-3

informed COHEN that it would only provide financing if COHEN closed
the Line of Credit, COHEN lied again, misleadingly stating in an

8

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 9 of 22

email:

"The medallion line was closed in the middle of November

2014."
19.
defendant,
credit

In or

around December

2015,

MICHAEL COHEN,

the

contacted Bank-3 to apply for a home equity line of

("HELOC").

In

so

doing,

COHEN

again

significantly

understated his medallion debt.
20.
COHEN,

the

Specifically,

defendant,

in

the

together

HELOC

with

his

application,
wife,

positive net worth of more than $40 million,

MICHAEL

represented

a

again omitting the

$14 million in medallion debt with Bank-2 and the Credit Union.
Because COHEN had previously confirmed in writing to Bank-3 that
the $14 million Line of Credit had been closed,

Bank-3 had no

reason to question COHEN about the omission of this liability on
the HELOC application.

In addition,

in seeking the HELOC, COHEN

substantially and materially understated his monthly expenses to
Bank-3 by omitting at least $70,000 in monthly interest payments
due to Bank-2 on the true amount of his medallion debt.
21.
COHEN,

In or about April 2016,

the defendant,

concealing truthful

for

a

$500,000

Bank-3
HELOC.

information about his

approved MICHAEL
By fraudulently

financial

condition,

MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, obtained a HELOC that Bank-3 would
otherwise not have approved.

9

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 10 of 22

COUNT 6
(False Statements to a Bank)

The United States Attorney further charges:
22.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

3 and 15 through 21 are repeated and realleged as though fully set
forth herein.
23.

From at least in or about December 2015 through at

least in or about April 2016, in the Southern District of New York
and

elsewhere,

MICHAEL

COHEN,

the

defendant,

willfully

and

knowingly made false statements for the purpose of influencing the
action of a financial institution, as defined in Title 18, United
States Code, Section 20, upon an application, advance, discount,
purchase,
loan,

purchase agreement,

repurchase agreement,

commitment,

or insurance agreement or application for insurance or a

guarantee,

or any change or extension of any of

renewal,

deferment

release,

or

of

action or

substitution

of

otherwise,

security

or

the same,

by

the acceptance,

therefore,

to

wit,

in

connection with an application for a home equity line of credit,
COHEN made false statements to Bank-3 about his true financial
condition,

including

about

debts

for

which he

was

personally

liable, and about his cash flow.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1014 and 2 . )

10

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 11 of 22

Campaign Finance Violations

The United States Attorney further charges:
24.
amended,

The

Title 52,

Federal

Election

Campaign

United States Code,

Act

of

1971,

Section 3 0101,

as

et seq. ,

(the •Election Act"), regulates the influence of money on politics.
At all times relevant to the Information,
forth

the

following

requirements,

which

limitations,
were

the Election Act set

prohibitions,

applicable

to

and

MICHAEL

reporting

COHEN,

the

defendant, Individual-1, and his campaign:
a.

Individual contributions to any presidential

candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or
his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and
presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from
accepting contributions from individuals in e x cess of this limit.
b.
contributions

Corporations

directly

to

were

prohibited

presidential

from

candidates,

making

including

expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and
candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.
25.
presidential

On or about June 16, 2015,
campaign.

While

MICHAEL

Individual-1 began his
COHEN,

the

defendant,

continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title
with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various
times, advised the campaign,

including on matters of interest to
11

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 12 of 22

the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of
the campaign.
26.

At

all

times

relevant

to

this

Information,

Corporation-1 was a media company that owns, among other things,
a popular tabloid magazine ("Magazine-1").
27.

In or about August 2015,

Executive of Corporation-1
MICHAEL COHEN,
campaign,

( "Chairman-1"),

the defendant,

offered

to

the Chairman and Chief

help

in coordination with

and one or more members

deal

with

negative

Individual-l's relationships with women by,

of

stories

the

about

among other things,

assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could
be purchased and their publication avoided.

Chairman-1 agreed to

keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.
28.

Consistent

with

the

Corporation-1 advised MICHAEL COHEN,

agreement

described

the defendant,

stories during the course of the campaign,

above,

of negative

and COHEN,

with the

assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase
of

two

stories

so

as

to

suppress

them and prevent

them

from

influencing the election.
29.
( "Woman-1")

First,

in or about June 2016, a model and actress

began attempting to sell her story of her alleged

extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006
and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because
12

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 13 of 22

of the election.

Woman-1 retained an attorney ("Attorney-1"), who

in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 ("Editor-1"),
and offered to sell Woman-l's story to Magazine-1.
Editor-1 informed MICHAEL COHEN,

Chairman-1 and

the defendant, of the story. At

COHEN'S urging and subject to COHEN'S promise that Corporation-1
would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the
purchase of the story.
30.

On or about August 5,

2016, Corporation-1 entered

into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her "limited life rights"
to the story of her relationship with "any then-married man," in
exchange

for

$150, 000

and a

commitment

to

feature

her

on two

magazine covers and publish over one hundred magazine articles
authored by her.

Despite the cover and article features to the

agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved,
including MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, was to suppress Woman-l's
story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.
31.
2016,

Between in or about late August 2016 and September

MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant,

agreed with Chairman-1

to

assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporationl's

agreement

with

Woman-1

to

COHEN

for

$125,000.

COHEN

incorporated a shell entity called "Resolution Consultants LLC"
for use in the transaction.
signed the agreement,

Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately

and a consultant for Corporation-1,
13

using

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 14 of 22

his

own shell

entity,

payment of $125,000.

provided COHEN with an
However,

invoice

for

the

in or about early October 2016,

after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had
paid the $125,000,

Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him,

in

substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the
assignment agreement.
was

later

found

COHEN did not tear up the agreement, which

during

a

judicially authorized

search of

his

office.
32.

Second,

on or about October 8, 2016, an agent for

an adult film actress

("Woman-2") - informed Editor-1 that Woman-2

was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record
her alleged past affair with Individual-1.

Chairman-1 and Editor-

1 then contacted MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and put him in touch
with Attorney-1,

who was

also representing Woman-2.

Over the

course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement
with

Attorney-1

to

himself

purchase

Woman-2's

silence,

and

received a .signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate
side letter agreement from Attorney-1.
33.

MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant,

execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2.

did not immediately
On the evening of

October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1
told Edi tor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with
another outlet to make her story public.
14

Editor-1, in turn, texted

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 15 of 22

MICHAEL

COHEN,

the

defendant,

that

"[w] e

have

to

coordinate

something on the matter [Attorney-1 is]

calling you about or it

could look awfully bad for everyone."

Chairman-1 and Editor-1

then called COHEN

through an

encrypted

COHEN agreed to make the payment,

telephone

application.

and then called Attorney-1 to

finalize the deal.
34.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant,
corporate

emailed an incorporating service

formation

documents

for

another

to obtain the

shell

corporation,

Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days
prior.

Later that afternoon,

fraudulently

obtained HELOC,

COHEN drew down $131,000 from the
discussed above

in paragraphs

19

through 21, and requested that it be deposited into a bank account
COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants.

The

next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired
approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1.
On the bank form to complete the wire,

COHEN falsely indicated

that the "purpose of wire being sent" was "retainer."
November 1,
final,

2016,

COHEN received from Attorney-_l

On or about

copies of the

signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter

agreement.
35.
payments

MICHAEL COHEN,

described

herein

the defendant,
in

order
15

to

caused and made the
influence

the

2016

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 16 of 22

presidential election.

In so doing,

he coordinated with one or

more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone
calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.
36.

As a result of the payments solicited and made by

MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to
the press prior to the election.
37.

In

or

about

January

2017,

MICHAEL

COHEN,

the

defendant, in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses,
presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement
from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the
$130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1
in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus
a $35 wire fee,
The $50, 000

adding,

in handwriting, an additional "$50,000."

represented a

claimed payment for

"tech services , "

which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology
company during and in connection with the campaign.
these amounts to a sum of $180,035.

COHEN added

After receiving this document,

executives of the Company "grossed up"

for tax purposes COHEN' s

requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a
bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total.
Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would
be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of

16

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 17 of 22

twelve months,

and

that

COHEN

should

send

invoices

for

these

payments.
38.
defendant,
first

of

On or about February 14, 2017, MICHAEL COHEN,

the

sent an executive of the Company ("Executive-1")

the

his

monthly

retainer agreement,

invoices,

requesting

" [p] ursuant

to

[a]

. payment for services rendered for the

months of January and February, 2017."
for each of those two months.

The invoice listed $35,000

Executive-1 forwarded the invoice

to another executive of the Company ("Executive-2")
by email, and it was approved.

the same day

Executive-1 forwarded that email

to another employee at the Company, stating: "Please pay from the
Trust.

Post to legal expenses.

Put

'retainer for the months of

January and February 2017' in the description."
39.

Throughout 2017, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, sent

to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices,
which stated,

"Pursuant to the retainer agreement,

kindly remit

payment for services rendered for" the relevant month in 2017, and
sought

$35,000

per

month.

payments as legal expenses.

The

Company

accounted

In truth and in fact,

for

these

there was no

such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted
were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in
2017.

17

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 18 of 22

40.
above,

MICHAEL

During 2017,
COHEN,

the

pursuant

to

defendant,

the

invoices

described

received monthly

$35, 000

reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.
COUNT 7
(Causing an Unlawful Corporate Contribution)

The United States Attorney further charges:
41.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

3, and 24 through 40 are repeated and realleged as though fully
set forth herein.
42.

From in or about June 2016, up to and including in

or about October 2016,

in the Southern District of New York and

elsewhere, MICHAEL COHEN,

the defendant, knowingly and willfully

caused

make

a

corporation

to

a

contribution

and

expenditure,

aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2016 calendar year, to the
campaign of a candidate for President of the United States,
wit,

COHEN caused Corporation-1 to make and advance a

payment

to

reimbursement,

Woman-1,
so as

including

through

to ensure that Woman-1

the

to

$150, 000

promise

of

did not publicize

damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential

election and

thereby influence that election.
(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a) and
30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b} .)

18

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 19 of 22

COUNT 8
(Excessive Campaign Contribution)
The United States Attorney further charges:
43.
3,

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

and 24 through 40 are repeated and realleged as though fully

set forth herein.
44.

On

or

about

October

27,

2016,

in

the

Southern

District of New York and elsewhere, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant,
knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made a contribution
to Individual-1, a candidate for Federal office, and his authorized
political committee in excess of the limits of the Election Act,
which aggregated $25,000 and more in calendar year 2016, and did
so by making and causing to be made an expenditure, in cooperation,
consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion
of one or more members

of

the campaign,

to wit,

COHEN made a

$130,000 payment to Woman-2 to ensure that she did not publicize
damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential

election and

thereby influence that election.
(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30116(a) (1) (A),
30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2(b) .)

19

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 20 of 22

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

45.

As a result of committing the offense alleged in

Count Six of this Information, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, shall
forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States
Code,

Section 982(a) (2) (A), any property constituting or derived

from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the
commission of said offense.
Substitute Assets Provision

46.

If any of the above-described forfeitable property,

as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
a.

cannot be
diligence;

located

upon

the

b.

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with,
a third person;

c.

has been placed beyond
Court;

d.

has been substantially diminished in value; or

e.

has been commingled with other property
cannot be subdivided without difficulty;

the

exercise

of

due

jurisdiction of

the

which

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United
States Code, Section

853(p) and Title 28, United States Code,

20

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 21 of 22

Section 2461(c),

to seek forfeiture of any other property of the

defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 982;
Title 21, United States Code, Section 853; and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.)

Acting United States Attorney

21

 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 22 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- v. -

MICHAEL COHEN,

Defendant.

INFORMATION
18 Cr. _

(WHP)

ROBERT KHUZAMI
Acting United States Attorney