Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 1 of 91 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States of America, ) Criminal Action ) No. 17-CR-201 Plaintiff, ) ) SENTENCING vs. ) ) Washington, DC Paul Manafort, Jr., ) Date: March 13, 2019 ) Time: 9:30 a.m. Defendant. ) ) ___________________________________________________________ 11 TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ____________________________________________________________ 12 A P P E A R A N C E S 10 13 For Plaintiff: ANDREW WEISSMANN GREG D. ANDRES JEANNIE SCLAFANI RHEE U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel's office 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20530 202-514-1746 Email: Aaw@usdoj.gov Email: Gda@usdoj.gov Email: Jsr@usdoj.gov For Defendant: KEVIN M. DOWNING 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 730 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 754-1992 Email: Kevindowning@kdowninglaw.com 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOMAS EDWARD ZEHNLE Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW Suite 620 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 368-4668 Email: Tzehnle@milchev.com Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 2 of 91 1 RICHARD WILLIAM WESTLING Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 1227 25th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 861-1868 Email: Rwestling@ebglaw.com 2 3 4 5 Also Present: Michael Ficht Renee Michael Court Reporter: Janice E. Dickman, RMR, CRR Official Court Reporter United States Courthouse, Room 6523 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-354-3267 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 * * * 2 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 3 of 91 3 1 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, good morning. 2 This morning we have case No. 17-201-1, the United 3 States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. 4 present in the courtroom, Your Honor. 5 present for these proceedings are Miss Kramer-Soares and Miss 6 Moses-Gregory. 7 8 Mr. Manafort is Probation officers Will counsel for the parties please approach the lectern, identify yourself for the record. 9 MR. WEISSMANN: Good morning, Your Honor. Andrew 10 Weissmann for the government. 11 is, for the government, Counsel Jeannie Rhee and Greg Andres. 12 And in addition, Evan Binder, a paralegal with our office. 13 with the FBI, Renee Michael and Mike Ficht. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. DOWNING: And at the government's table All right. And Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. Kevin 16 Downing, Richard Westling, Thomas Zehnle, the defendant, Paul 17 Manafort. And with us is our paralegal Tim Wang. 18 THE COURT: All right. Good morning. 19 I have a question or two for you, Mr. Downing. We're 20 here this morning, obviously, for Mr. Manafort's sentencing. 21 The final presentence report in this case was filed on March 22 6th. 23 it? Have both you and your client had an opportunity to read 24 MR. DOWNING: 25 THE COURT: We have, Your Honor. And I think I understand, from reading Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 4 of 91 4 1 the objections and all the back-and-forth, that there aren't 2 any factual disputes that I need to resolve right now, is that 3 correct? 4 MR. DOWNING: 5 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. And with respect to the legal issues, we 6 have to determine whether I'm going to apply the adjustment for 7 acceptance of responsibility and the enhancement for a 8 leadership role in the offense. 9 aren't any other legal issues to be resolved, is that correct? 10 MR. DOWNING: But other than that, there I believe that's correct. And, Your 11 Honor, with the respect to the defense, we rest on our papers 12 that we filed with respect to the guideline determinations. 13 14 15 THE COURT: argument on that then. Okay. Okay. All right. So I won't ask for You can be seated. Thank you. I've received additional materials, in addition to 16 the presentence report, concerning the defendant, including the 17 government's memorandum in aid of sentencing and its exhibits; 18 also, the defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing and a 19 number of letters. 20 his two daughters; Mr. Bennett, a friend for more than 30 21 years; Lieutenant Colonel Holland, a friend for over 30 years; 22 other lifelong friends, Mr. Cimadon and Mr. Mazzarella; the 23 first cousin of his wife; the defendant's brother and 24 brother-in-law; his brother-in-law's wife; one of his wife's 25 friends; a niece; a Mr. Panuzio, who was a friend and a I received a letter from his wife; one of Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 5 of 91 5 1 colleague in the Ford administration; and a Mr. Davenport, 2 another colleague and friend. 3 4 I want you to know that I appreciate all the letters and I've read them all. 5 In a criminal case there's a statute that tells me 6 how I'm supposed to go about sentencing someone and it's 18 7 U.S. Code §3553. 8 Court's supposed to consider, and the advisory sentencing 9 guidelines are one of the factors I must consider in 10 It lists a number of important factors the determining the appropriate sentence. 11 Congress has created a commission that assigned 12 recommended sentencing ranges to each offense and they can go 13 up or down based on various factors set out in the guidelines. 14 The guidelines are advisory, but the Court is required to 15 calculate what they would recommend in every case. 16 where I'm going to start. 17 want to emphasize that that's only a very small part of the 18 analysis. 19 So, that's And it may take some time, but I Before I get to what the guidelines would recommend, 20 I think it's important to make clear at the outset that there 21 are boundaries to what sentence can be imposed that are 22 established by laws and cannot be changed. 23 that are before me and there are laws that aren't. 24 25 And there are laws Defendant's conviction for the crime of filing false tax returns was not in this court. His conviction for failure Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 6 of 91 6 1 to file a foreign bank account report in 2012 was also not in 2 this court. 3 in this court and he wasn't convicted of those here. 4 sentenced for each of the individual offenses for which he was 5 convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Court 6 decided there that all of those sentences would be served 7 concurrently to one another. 8 cannot be a review or a revision of a sentence that was imposed 9 by another court. 10 The bank fraud charges were not brought or tried He's been What's happening today is not and Here, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of 11 violating 18 U.S. Code §371. That section prohibits 12 conspiracy, either to commit any offense against the United 13 States or to defraud the United States. 14 maximum penalty of 60 months, or five years, imprisonment. 15 charge here carries the sort of potential maximum sentence that 16 the defendant was facing for bank fraud in the other case. Conspiracy carries a No 17 In Count 1 he pled guilty to conspiracy with multiple 18 objects; to commit the offenses of money laundering, tax fraud, 19 failure to file foreign bank account reports, violating the 20 Foreign Agent Registration Act and making false statements; 21 that is, lying to the United States Department of Justice. 22 This list of the objects of the conspiracy -- and by that I 23 mean the crimes the coconspirators agreed to commit -- include 24 some of the same violations of tax laws and the laws regarding 25 foreign bank accounts reports for which he was convicted in the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 7 of 91 7 1 Virginia case, as well as crimes that were not part of the 2 Virginia case. 3 In Count 2 he pled guilty to conspiracy in 2018 to 4 obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses in this case while 5 the charges were pending in this court. 6 again, for Count 2 is 60 months, or five years. 7 he was sentenced to serve the maximum sentence on the two 8 counts consecutively, the maximum sentence that may be imposed 9 by this Court is ten years. 10 The maximum sentence, Thus, even if There's no provision that permits exceeding the 11 statutory maximum due to violations of the plea agreement. 12 sentencing guidelines, as you'll learn, would recommend more 13 than ten years because there's so much money involved. 14 there is no provision that permits sentencing in accordance 15 with the guidelines if the applicable guideline is greater than 16 statutory maximum. 17 The But No charge here carries the sort of potential sentence 18 the defendant was facing for bank fraud in the other case. 19 there is one more restriction on this court, §5G1.3(b) of the 20 guidelines says: 21 another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense 22 of conviction -- which means the offense before the Court at 23 this instant -- the sentence for the instant offense shall be 24 concurrent. 25 And If a term of imprisonment resulted from What does that mean? That means that while the bank Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 8 of 91 8 1 fraud counts in the Eastern District of Virginia were not based 2 on conduct relevant to Count 1 in this court, the counts for 3 filing false tax returns and failure to file a foreign bank 4 account report were. 5 overlapping sentences for overlapping counts. 6 And, therefore, the guidelines require What do the guidelines provide in this case? The 7 offense level is complicated by the fact that there are two 8 charges and by the fact that the first conspiracy charge is a 9 conspiracy to commit a number of other charges, which have 10 different individual guideline calculations. 11 answer is, the highest applicable guideline controls. 12 13 14 15 And the short So, Mr. Downing, I guess I have a question for you. Are you handling the sentencing portion here? MR. DOWNING: I think we're going to break it up a little bit, depending upon the subject matter, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I just want to ask about the 17 general guideline calculation. Is that you? 18 MR. DOWNING: That would be Mr. Westling. 19 THE COURT: 20 At the time of the plea, the anticipated guideline All right. Mr. Westling. 21 calculation was different than what's in the presentence 22 report, which rolled the two counts together. 23 though, that your only objection to the calculation in the 24 presentence report now is the application of the enhancement 25 for leadership role under §3B1.1 and acceptance of I take it, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 9 of 91 1 9 responsibility? 2 MR. WESTLING: 3 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. I know you have a policy disagreement, 4 but you don't challenge the technical application of the 22- 5 level increase for the amount of the fraud? 6 MR. WESTLING: 7 THE COURT: That's correct. Okay. And that is what leads us to 8 starting at a base offense level of 30 for the money laundering 9 and foreign bank account object of the conspiracy. 10 MR. WESTLING: 11 THE COURT: Correct. And you're also not objecting to the 12 enhancements under the money laundering guideline, the two 13 two-level enhancements -- 14 MR. WESTLING: 15 THE COURT: That's also correct, Your Honor. -- under section 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) and 16 (b)(3). And you're also not objecting to the two-level 17 enhancement for the obstruction of justice regarding the false 18 statements to the Department of Justice. 19 MR. WESTLING: 20 THE COURT: Correct. So I will address the two objections, but 21 we agree that the Court can otherwise follow the calculations 22 set out in the presentence report on pages 30 to 33 and I don't 23 have to go through it all in great detail? 24 MR. WESTLING: 25 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. Okay. According to the presentence Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 10 of 91 10 1 report, the base offense level for the money laundering object, 2 which is what drove the sentence for the conspiracy as a whole, 3 was 30. 4 and the four-level enhancement to which you do object, you get 5 to Level 40. 6 two levels for acceptance of responsibility. 7 they reached 38. 8 9 If you add the enhancements to which you don't object, The presentence report writer did not subtract And that's how Your position is that it should have been Level 36 to start with, minus the four-level enhancement, and then a 10 reduction of two levels that would take it to Level 34, is that 11 correct? 12 MR. WESTLING: 13 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. But also at the time of the plea you did 14 agree that a sentence at Level 37 would be a reasonable 15 sentence, is that right? 16 MR. WESTLING: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. WESTLING: 19 THE COURT: That's correct. Okay. You can be seated. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. So I think I need to address the disputed 20 enhancements. 21 guidelines, is when the people who didn't realize math was 22 going to be involved need to understand that there's a 23 considerable amount of algebra that goes into the application 24 of the sentencing guidelines. 25 And all of this, when you talk about the §3B1.1 of the guidelines talks about the defendant's Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 11 of 91 11 1 role in the offense. 2 criminal activity that involved five or more participants or 3 was otherwise extensive, you can increase the offense level by 4 four levels. 5 manager or supervisor but not an organizer or leader of the 6 criminal activity, or two levels if he was a leader, manager or 7 supervisor in any criminal activity that isn't described in the 8 first two paragraphs. 9 If he was an organizer or leader of a It can be increased by three levels if he was a The presentence report writer recommended a 10 four-level increase because he was an organizer or leader of a 11 criminal activity that involved five or more participants. 12 The defense has argued in its sentencing memo that an 13 aggravating role enhancement is appropriate only in the context 14 of a criminal organization or enterprise; that is, according to 15 the defendant, an organization with a primary objective of 16 engaging in crime. 17 thoroughly and the defense is resting on its papers. 18 19 Both sides have briefed this issue I take it the government is happy to rest on its papers as well? 20 MR. WEISMANN: 21 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Basically nothing in the plain text of 22 the guidelines or the application notes or any case law 23 suggests that there is such a limitation on this enhancement. 24 §3B1.1 talks about organizers and leaders of, quote, criminal 25 activity, close quote. There's no requirement that the group Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 12 of 91 12 1 of individuals that the defendant led, managed or supervised be 2 involved in what is solely or primarily a criminal enterprise. 3 The second application note to the guideline defines 4 an activity in terms of the number of people involved only. 5 says to qualify for an adjustment under this section, the 6 defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager or 7 supervisor of one or more other participants. 8 about the objective or any primary objective. 9 It It's silent Note three says in assessing whether an organization 10 is otherwise extensive, all persons involved are to be 11 considered. 12 Doesn't mention what they were doing. Application note number four, in distinguishing a 13 leadership and organizational role from one of mere management 14 or supervision, titles such as "kingpin" or "boss" are not 15 controlling, which is sort of inconsistent with the defense 16 theory. 17 include the exercise of decision-making authority, the nature 18 of participation in the commission of the offense, the 19 recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share 20 of the fruits of the crime, the degree of planning -- 21 participation in the planning or organizing the offense, the 22 nature and scope of the illegal activity and the degree of 23 control exercised over others. 24 than one person who qualifies as a leader of a criminal 25 association or conspiracy. It also says the factors the Court should consider There can, of course, be more Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 13 of 91 1 13 So the nature and scope of the illegal activity is 2 only one factor, and this section isn't limited by the need to 3 show a primary purpose either. 4 The defense says, look at the section called 5 background. 6 organization. 7 immediately after the term "organization," the background 8 section says, in a parenthetical, i.e., that is, the number of 9 participants in the offense. 10 It talks about the size of a criminal But the defendant admits the fact that So this enhancement is all about an activity 11 committed by a group and who was in charge of the group, and no 12 other element is stated or implied. 13 in the defendant's memorandum simply uses the word 14 "organization" or "enterprise." 15 authority that adopts the gloss that he has added and holds 16 that those words necessarily mean an enterprise with a primary 17 criminal purpose. 18 memorandum, the government cites many cases that specifically 19 reject this argument. 20 Every case that is cited He hasn't pointed to any Meanwhile, on pages 8 to 9 of its So, I believe it's not a valid argument. Here, the 21 number of people involved far exceeds five. We have Mr. Gates 22 and Mr. Kilimnik, the people at each of the media lobbying 23 outfits; Companies A and B and Law Firm A. 24 the presentence report on pages -- paragraph 61 and 88 to 91, 25 and in the superseding indictment. They're listed in And, therefore, I find that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 14 of 91 1 the enhancement applies and we start at a Level 40 for 2 calculating the guideline that goes with this offense. 3 14 The other dispute concerns Mr. Manafort's acceptance 4 of responsibility. §3E1.1(a) says it applies if the defendant 5 clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his 6 offense, he gets a two-level reduction. 7 additional one-level reduction upon motion of the government. 8 The government has not filed such a motion; it's been freed 9 from its promise to do so by my findings concerning the So there's an 10 potential breach of the plea agreement and by defendant's 11 concession that the government's argument that he breached the 12 plea agreement was in good faith. 13 And, so, all that is at issue right now is the 14 two-level reduction. The application note to this guideline 15 lists appropriate considerations, and they include, but they 16 are not limited to, whether he truthfully admitted the conduct 17 comprising the offense, and admitted or didn't falsely deny 18 relevant conduct, his voluntary termination or withdrawal from 19 the criminal conduct or association, his voluntary assistance 20 to authorities to the recovery of the fruits of the offense, 21 and the timeliness of the defendant's conduct in manifesting 22 his acceptance of responsibility. 23 and some of these are weaker, but many of these apply. Some of these are stronger 24 Note three says entry of a guilty plea prior to the 25 commencement of trial, combined with truthfully admitting the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 15 of 91 15 1 conduct comprising the offense of conviction, and truthfully 2 admitting or not falsely denying any relevant conduct for which 3 he's accountable will constitute significant evidence of 4 acceptance of responsibility for the purposes of subsection 5 (a). 6 of the defendant that's inconsistent with such acceptance of 7 responsibility. However, this evidence may be outweighed by the conduct 8 In connection with that, my ruling on whether he lied 9 during his cooperation sessions and breached the plea agreement 10 has some relevance and, therefore, I think it's important to 11 take a little detour for a moment and rule on docket 540, which 12 is the defendant's motion for reconsideration of my finding 13 that he breached the plea agreement in certain respects. 14 One issue that I was asked to discuss at that time 15 was information where the testimony regarding -- testimony of 16 Richard Gates regarding what transpired at a meeting on August 17 2nd varied from the defendant's description of that meeting. 18 agree with the defense that the exhibit that I found at the 19 time to be corroborative of Gates's testimony, but not 20 dispositive, was actually irrelevant to that subject matter 21 and, therefore, it was necessary to look back at my conclusion 22 that he lied about that particular matter without reliance on 23 that exhibit. 24 25 I And so I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing, the supporting exhibits, and the new information provided by Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 16 of 91 16 1 the government, and I still find that the Office of Special 2 Counsel proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Manafort 3 intentionally gave false testimony with respect to that matter, 4 which was just one of several matters that fell within the 5 category of false statements regarding his interactions with 6 Mr. Kilimnik. 7 I note that the fact that the witness, Mr. Gates, 8 corrected the record and the inaccurate impression left by the 9 exhibit, lends credence to his testimony. And, therefore, the 10 motion to reconsider my finding that the defendant gave false 11 statements regarding his interactions with Mr. Kilimnik is 12 denied. 13 With respect to whether I should give him credit for 14 acceptance of responsibility now, does either side want to 15 argue that point? 16 MR. ZEHNLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. ZEHNLE: Yes, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Zehnle. Your Honor summarized essentially what 19 3E1.1 says in her lead-up to this argument. 20 position is that 3E1.1(a) -- and we're only dealing with (a) 21 because we do understand that (b) is made only upon motion by 22 the government. 23 The defense We're only dealing with 3E1.1(a) here. The commentary talks about whether the defendant 24 truthfully admitted the conduct comprising the offense of 25 conviction, as the Court pointed out, and truthfully admitted, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 17 of 91 17 1 or not falsely denied, any relevant conduct for which he is 2 accountable under 1B1.3, which is the relevant conduct 3 provisions that the Court spoke of earlier today, or at least 4 in terms of addressing the EDVA charges. 5 Your Honor, our position is that Mr. Manafort did 6 accept responsibility under 3E1.1(a). The misrepresentations 7 that the Court just referenced -- and there were five, five 8 areas, five topic areas, as the Court recalls. 9 the Court found that the government had met its burden of The three where 10 establishing an intentional misrepresentation were related to 11 other areas of the government's broad investigation. 12 area that actually touched upon the offense conduct in this 13 case was the one dealing with Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik and 14 the issue dealing with the witness tampering. 15 instance the Court found that the government had not met its 16 burden of establishing that, even under the preponderance 17 standard. 18 The one In that specific So, Your Honor, our position is that when you look at 19 3E1.1, the words of it, it basically says did he truthfully 20 admit the conduct comprising the offense of conviction? 21 he did. 22 discuss the part that's been properly redacted. 23 might recall that I actually stood up and talked about that 24 particular issue. 25 Yes, In the February 4th meeting, which -- and I'll only THE COURT: I do. The Court Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 18 of 91 1 MR. ZEHNLE: 18 And so, our view is that he did not back 2 away. 3 they're not arguing about whether or not he's trying to 4 sugarcoat his own acceptance of responsibility for that 5 conduct. 6 was he trying to essentially diminish Mr. Kilimnik's conduct 7 with respect to that conspiracy. 8 found that the government did not meet its burden in that 9 particular respect. 10 And I remember the Court saying that's not the issue, The Court pointed out, the government's issue was, And the Court has now since So my point is that Mr. Manafort has come forward, 11 he's accepted responsibility by pleading guilty to both the 12 multi-object conspiracy in Count 1 and, in Count 2, the 13 conspiracy for witness tampering through the sending of the 14 text directly and indirectly to the people over there. 15 THE COURT: Yes. 16 MR. ZEHNLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 Does the government want to address this issue? 19 MR. WEISSMANN: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. WEISSMANN: 22 points and a couple factual points. No, that's okay. Okay. Thank you. Briefly. Okay. 23 THE COURT: 24 MR. WEISSMANN: 25 I don't want to cut you off. Your Honor, we have a couple law All right. First, with respect to the law points, we understand this is a matter that is very much within Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 19 of 91 19 1 the discretion of the Court in deciding what to do. 2 call Your Honor's attention to a recent case in the D.C. 3 Circuit, United States versus Leyva, which was decided on 4 February 26. 5 defendant's burden to show that he is entitled to the 6 acceptance of responsibility. 7 I would In that case the Court repeated that it is the Further, that case was interesting because there the 8 Court was dealing with a defendant who had challenged his 9 leadership role enhancement under the guidelines. And the 10 Court noted that Leyva would confess and avoid on the ground 11 that he merely sought to require the government to justify 12 enhancements through reliable information. 13 rejected that and said he cannot accept responsibility for his 14 conduct and simultaneously contest the sufficiency of the 15 evidence that he engaged in that conduct. 16 THE COURT: But the Court And the Court -- I don't think in challenging the 17 leadership role here they were challenging the underlying 18 evidence, they were challenging the applicability. 19 MR. WEISSMANN: I wanted to address that. So there 20 were two factual issues. 21 the Court said with respect to the legal argument. 22 there's absolutely no basis, and the government is not saying 23 that because the defense is raising a legal argument that that 24 in any way relates to acceptance of responsibility. 25 something that lawyers are entitled to do, and if the law I would completely agree with what I think That's Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 20 of 91 1 20 supported their position, that would be fine. 2 My point goes to not the legal challenge, but there 3 is a factual challenge that the defendant did make. So I think 4 there are two bases here factually with respect to acceptance 5 of responsibility. 6 the defense sentencing submission, that he in fact was not a 7 leader. 8 that the only two people involved in the conspiracy were 9 Richard Gates and he. One is the defendant said, on page 35 of He cited to the testimony of Richard Gates, saying And he cites a page of a trial 10 transcript that in fact does not support that. 11 what Mr. Gates said. 12 leader of this organization, knowing that it was more than he 13 and Mr. Gates, should not have been putting forth that factual 14 contention. 15 That is not And, of course, Mr. Manafort, being the Again, I'm bringing that to the Court's attention. 16 I'm not saying it's dispositive or not well within the 17 discretion of the Court, but there is a factual representation 18 that was made in the defense brief. 19 More to the point is the issue of the defendant's 20 conduct after he entered the plea agreement in this case where 21 the Court has found by a preponderance of the evidence that the 22 defendant made false statements to the FBI and made false 23 statements under oath to the grand jury. 24 acceptance of responsibility guideline is not one that is 25 trying to just encourage pleas. Repeatedly. And the If it were just about taking a Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 21 of 91 21 1 plea, the guideline would read very differently; it would be if 2 you plead, you get acceptance, if you don't plead, you don't. 3 And in fact, it works quite the opposite way. 4 plead and not get acceptance, and you can not plead and get 5 acceptance. 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. WEISSMANN: In fact, you can That's rare. It is rare, but the guidelines 8 actually note that if, for instance, you're preserving a legal 9 issue, you could be in that position where you're factually 10 accepting, and it's like the issue we just talked about in 11 terms of preserving a legal challenge. 12 Here, although we haven't found a D.C. Circuit case 13 that says you can consider conduct that is outside of the crime 14 of conviction or relevant conduct, we have cited a series of 15 circuit cases outside of the D.C. Circuit that say that the 16 Court can consider that. 17 reading because the acceptance of responsibility is -- again, 18 it's not about accepting pleas, it's a proxy for what the Court 19 is thinking about this defendant in terms of recidivism. 20 a way of saying the defendant, who truly has accepted 21 responsibility, poses a lesser risk and is deserving of a 22 lesser sentence. And we think that is the correct It's 23 So, here, I think that the -- what we would ask the 24 Court to consider is whether that really is true for somebody 25 who, in this circumstance, has repeatedly, as the Court found, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 22 of 91 22 1 engaged in deceitful conduct, both with the FBI and under oath. 2 Thank you. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 4 I agree that I can consider conduct related to issues 5 other than the conduct involved in the offense, but I think if 6 you read the guideline itself and you read the application 7 notes, that the offense conduct is really the driving factor 8 with respect to the application of this particular enhancement. 9 And, therefore, given his plea and given his sworn admissions 10 in court, that he committed the offense for which he was 11 charged, I believe the defendant has met his burden and I will 12 give him credit for the two-level reduction, which means that 13 the total offense level for guideline purposes is Level 38. 14 I note, given his criminal history category, which is 15 that he has no prior criminal convictions and he's in Category 16 I, that even with that reduction the advisory sentencing 17 guideline range far exceeds the maximum sentence available 18 under the statutes in this case for either count individually, 19 and even for both combined. 20 guideline range is 235 to 293 months, which is 19.4 to 24.4 21 years, and Level 40 would have started at 292 months and gone 22 up to 365 months. 23 At Level 38 the recommended I do want to say that acceptance of responsibility 24 for purposes of the guidelines is not the same thing as 25 acceptance of responsibility in a more existential and personal Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 23 of 91 23 1 sense. And how that might bear on the consideration of the 2 statutory factors here, such as the history and characteristics 3 of the defendant and what is sufficient but not greater than 4 necessary to fulfill all the goals of a sentence under the 5 statute, I'm going to address all of that later. 6 I do note that in its memorandum, the defense pointed 7 to guideline §5H1.4, which says that an extraordinary physical 8 impairment may be a reason to depart downward. 9 to make clear that there's no formal motion for a downward But I just want 10 departure under that section. 11 asking me to take all those factors into consideration in 12 connection with a possible variance or what to impose under the 13 statute? 14 MR. WESTLING: 15 THE COURT: 16 Yes? 17 MR. DOWNING: Am I correct that you're simply That's correct, Your Honor. Okay. All right. So I think -- Your Honor, just a matter of 18 administrative convenience, you said earlier when you were 19 talking -- 20 21 22 THE COURT: Can you come to the lectern so we can get you on the record? MR. DOWNING: A little bit earlier you were talking 23 about the issue of concurrent sentencing under the guidelines. 24 I just wanted to point out, I believe I heard you say that the 25 loan fraud is not implicated in this case. In the superseding Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 24 of 91 24 1 information, in paragraph 58, there is a reference to: 2 Further, Manafort defrauded the banks that loaned him the money 3 so that he could withdraw more money at cheaper rates than 4 otherwise would have been permitted. 5 fraud issue in EDVA is in fact implicated here. 6 THE COURT: We believe that the loan I don't think bank fraud is one of the 7 offenses for which he was convicted and for which he pled. 8 offense was conspiracy to -- the tax counts are the same, 9 conspiracy to not file the foreign bank account reports. The But 10 he was not charged in this case with conspiring to defraud the 11 banks that made loans to him. 12 MR. DOWNING: In the superseding indictment, no. In 13 the superseding information, paragraph 58 refers to loan fraud, 14 Your Honor. 15 It's in here. THE COURT: I'm just letting you know. It's not an object of the conspiracy, 16 it's just a fact that's set out in the information. 17 it's important. 18 19 20 MR. DOWNING: Okay. I do think I'm just making the point, the initial indictments that came out in this case referenced -THE COURT: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking 21 about the offense conduct here is what he pled guilty to. 22 Count 1 had multiple objects, and one of those objects was not 23 bank fraud; am I correct? 24 25 MR. DOWNING: And Well, what I'm saying to you is that in their conspiracy allegation they are spelling out loan fraud. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 25 of 91 25 1 It's in the superseding information. 2 wanted to make. 3 what he pled to here because it's directly in that superseding 4 information. 5 because they thought it was extraneous. 6 sum and substance of the overall conspiracy, and that's how we 7 read 58. 8 That's the only point I I don't think that means it's not related to And I don't think the government put it in there They're saying this is So I just want to point that out for the Court. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Weissmann, can you tell 9 me off the top of your head whether the statement of offense to 10 which he pled guilty -- I know it talks about disguising income 11 as loans as part of the tax fraud object of the conspiracy, but 12 under -- in the statement of offense does he admit to 13 defrauding the banks in connection with the loans that he was 14 either convicted of or were presented to the jury in the 15 Eastern District of Virginia? 16 MR. WEISSMANN: Your Honor, the statement of offense 17 only addresses the bank fraud issues in the other-acts portion 18 of the statement of offense. 19 20, 21, 22, and 23, at the -- which is paragraphs 47 to 54, 20 Your Honor may recall that the defendant, in the statement of 21 offense, admitted the bank frauds as to which there were hung 22 counts in the Eastern District of Virginia. 23 THE COURT: 24 MR. WEISSMANN: 25 So, if the Court looks at pages Yes. Yes. But then in the case here, as Your Honor can see from the presentence report, none of the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 26 of 91 26 1 bank fraud conduct is -- it is noted that the defendant was 2 convicted and has admitted the bank fraud conduct, but that is 3 all dealt with as a matter of description; it doesn't in any 4 way govern the guidelines or is calculated in any way in terms 5 of either Count 1 or Count 2. 6 THE COURT: All right. We're now at the point where 7 I'm going to invite each side to speak regarding the 8 appropriate sentence in this case. 9 is going to handle that? 10 MR. WEISSMANN: 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. WEISSMANN: So, who from the government I am. All right. You can come back. Your Honor, there is also -- I have a 13 question for Your Honor as to how you would like to proceed 14 with respect to the, sort of, financial aspect of the case? 15 16 THE COURT: I've been presented with an agreed order of forfeiture and I've signed it. 17 MR. WEISSMANN: 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. WEISSMANN: Okay. Is there something else? The other issue that I wanted to 20 raise really had to do with paragraph 152 in the presentence 21 report, which is where the probation department calculates the 22 defendant's liabilities and assets to -- I wanted the Court to 23 note that the liabilities essentially are counted twice. 24 counting the defendant's assets, they have deducted already the 25 mortgages on the properties. So in In other words, they have not Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 27 of 91 27 1 counted the full market value. But in the liabilities they've 2 counted already the mortgages. So, there actually is double 3 counting of those liabilities. 4 THE COURT: All right. Are you asking that in 5 addition to all the forfeiture, that I sentence him to pay a 6 fine? 7 MR. WEISSMANN: I think that it's within the Court's 8 discretion. We understand the guideline range, but I do think 9 that if the Court notes the double counting, it ultimately 10 results in over a $20 million spread. 11 understand that if you consider the $6 million restitution 12 order to the IRS, which we're asking for, as well as the 13 forfeiture order that is proposed, that a fine here is well 14 within the discretion of the Court. 15 you look at the paragraph 152, there would be assets to pay 16 that. 17 So, we totally But there would be -- if We, obviously, leave to the Court whether that's 18 something that is necessary, given the other financial 19 components. 20 it. 21 22 23 But I wanted to make sure the Court is aware of THE COURT: Are you arguing that it's necessary, given the other financial components? MR. WEISSMANN: We're not arguing that it's 24 necessary, but we wanted to make sure the Court had the correct 25 factual information about the financial wherewithal of the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 28 of 91 28 1 defendant, given what seemed like a considerable double 2 counting. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. WEISSMANN: 5 MR. WESTLING: So, addressing the facts here -Your Honor, I hate to interrupt. 6 know you've just been talking about the forfeiture. 7 one issue I want to put on the record, if that's okay. 8 it whenever it's convenient for the Court. 9 THE COURT: I There is I'll do Why don't we do it right now. 10 So don't go far. 11 MR. WESTLING: I apologize. So I just wanted to 12 clarify, the government submitted an order of forfeiture and 13 was correct in saying that we had approved the order as to 14 form. 15 agreement with regard to the specific assets, which are 16 specifically identified and have been agreed to be forfeited by 17 the plea agreement. We also understand our obligation under the plea 18 The issue we did want to put an objection on the 19 record to is the government's request for an $11 million money 20 judgment. 21 originally and I understand that the Court has made a ruling on 22 the breach issue, which frees the government to seek additional 23 remedies. 24 25 That is not something that was in the plea agreement But we did want to make clear, obviously we've objected to the breach, we don't think that occurred, the Court Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 29 of 91 29 1 has differed with us. 2 am clear that we do not think the $11 million money judgment is 3 appropriate. 4 5 THE COURT: But it's important for the record that I All right. I thought this order was being presented to me as an agreed order. 6 MR. WESTLING: 7 THE COURT: I understand. All right. Well, when it's time for you 8 to allocute, or whoever is going to allocute, you can let me 9 know why you believe that shouldn't be in the order that was 10 presented to me -- 11 MR. WESTLING: 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. WESTLING: 14 THE COURT: Understood. -- by both parties for my signature. Understood. Thank you, Your Honor. And, Mr. Weissmann, you can touch on this 15 in your remarks as well. 16 MR. WEISSMANN: Starting just with that issue, we 17 submitted that because we'd given the draft, as revised by 18 defense counsel, who said that it was fine to submit and they 19 don't object to it, and that's why we made the representation 20 that we did in the submission to Your Honor. 21 from speaking to defense counsel this morning, is that they 22 were going to note an objection for the record, given that they 23 wanted to preserve an issue of breach, but they weren't 24 actually interposing a substantive objection to the order. 25 THE COURT: All right. My understanding, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 30 of 91 1 MR. WEISSMANN: 30 We do think that simply looking at 2 Government Exhibit 437, which is a chart of -- just one of the 3 charts related to monies that were earned and proceeds of the 4 FARA violation would support the order that was submitted. 5 Your Honor, we're here today because of crimes Paul 6 Manafort committed for over a decade, beginning in 2006 and 7 going up through 2018. 8 have learned -- and I'm going to use a quote -- a harsh lesson, 9 unquote, from his being brought to justice for his crimes. Paul Manafort claims, in mitigation, to And 10 says further that he has lived to seek -- to promote American 11 ideals and principles. 12 government submits that his conduct belies both of those 13 things. 14 Again, that's a quote. But the Let me first address the tax and foreign bank account 15 crimes. 16 to avoid a duty all Americans have, which is to pay taxes. 17 hid his wealth in over 30 offshore accounts, in three foreign 18 countries, holding over $50 million in money from his work for 19 a foreign government, Ukraine, as well as a Russian oligarch, 20 Oleg Deripaska. 21 falsified tax returns, and fake loans to disguise his income 22 and thereby avoid paying over $6 million in taxes, money he 23 used to fuel an extravagant lifestyle. 24 25 Some of those crimes involved a sophisticated scheme He He used these hidden, offshore accounts, Manafort makes much in his sentencing submission that he also supported his family and friends financially. He makes Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 31 of 91 31 1 other mitigating arguments. 2 the exclusive argument, but he makes much of having financially 3 supported people. 4 admirable. 5 money. 6 impose an order of restitution to the IRS in the amount of 7 $6,164,032. That, in other circumstances, would be truly It is less so when it is done with other people's We ask that the Court, as part of the sentence here, 8 9 I'm not trying to say that this is There are more crimes to cover. Let me turn to the Foreign Agent Registration Act and money laundering crimes. 10 Mr. Manafort committed crimes that undermine our political 11 process and subverted the due process of law. 12 well aware of the Foreign Agents Registration Act through his 13 work for decades representing foreign governments and 14 individuals. 15 omits Angola, Saudi Arabia, Mr. Deripaska, who I referenced 16 earlier. 17 Mr. Manafort was His brief lists some of them, but not all. He As we noted to the Court in our sentencing 18 submission, Mr. Manafort was audited by the Department of 19 Justice. 20 knew what he could and could not do under the Foreign Agents 21 Registration Act. 22 appointment in light of that audit. 23 in our submission, does not allow someone to be both a 24 government official and an agent of a foreign government. 25 Manafort sought a waiver from the Reagan White House, they said He knew from -- at the very least, from that audit he Indeed, he had to give up a presidential The law, as we explained Mr. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 32 of 91 32 1 no, and he had to make a choice, was he going to represent 2 foreign governments or was he going to represent the United 3 States. 4 And he decided to represent foreign governments. Now, the Foreign Agents Registration Act lets the 5 American public, as well as public officials who are being 6 lobbied, know what foreign governments are lobbying our 7 government to do. 8 articles are being written on behalf of the foreign government, 9 what senators are being contacted, what people in the executive It all has to be reported. What press 10 branch are being importuned to do; when, where, what and how 11 much money is being spent. 12 Mr. Manafort. 13 to do for Ukraine. 14 That law got in the way of Secrecy was integral to what Mr. Manafort wanted On behalf of Ukraine, Mr. Manafort engaged for years 15 in illegal lobbying in the United States, secretly contacting 16 members of Congress and members of the executive branch to 17 promote the corrupt Yanukovych regime. 18 ghost-written opinion pieces in newspapers; paid, ostensibly, 19 independent bloggers to write favorable Ukraine stories. 20 passed off former senior European leaders as independent 21 dignitaries supporting Yanukovych, when in truth and in fact, 22 these senior former European leaders were handsomely paid 23 lobbyists for Ukraine. 24 25 His operation placed He He created fake scandalous stories about Yanukovych's political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, going so far as to say that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 33 of 91 33 1 she engaged in murder for hire. 2 supposedly independent report justifying the imprisonment of 3 Tymoshenko, even though Manafort knew a series of undisclosed 4 facts that would have cast the report in a very different 5 light. 6 Manafort promulgated a For instance, Mr. Manafort knew that the law firm 7 that wrote the report was tasked with also representing Ukraine 8 in the Tymoshenko case and in training the prosecution team. 9 None of that was disclosed. Mr. Manafort, in essence, 10 undermined the very ideal of due process. 11 jail because it would serve to prop up the Yanukovych regime 12 and thwart calls in the United States -- in the United States' 13 political leadership for Ukraine sanctions in condemnation. 14 His work, in sum, was corrosive to faith in a political process 15 in the United States and abroad. 16 Keeping a woman in Now, Mr. Manafort's crimes did not stop there in 17 terms of undermining the rule of law. When the Department of 18 Justice started investigating, in the fall of 2016, his 19 compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 20 Mr. Manafort lied to his legal counsel and had her submit 21 unknowingly and unwittingly on her part a series of false 22 statements to the Department of Justice to throw them off the 23 track. 24 Registration Act, in addition to the underlying violation of 25 the Act. These were independent crimes under the Foreign Agents Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 34 of 91 1 34 I'll turn later to the Hapsburg Group obstruction in 2 a separate piece, although it does relate to the Foreign Agents 3 Registration Act and money laundering. 4 I want to call the Court's attention to a number of 5 ways in which the Foreign Agents Registration Act violation 6 here is egregious. 7 prosecution of this Act. 8 9 It is hard to imagine a more righteous Mr. Manafort violated the Act in three separate ways. He violated the money laundering statute to promote the 10 violation of the Act, and he obstructed justice twice to thwart 11 getting caught for this crime. 12 act himself, he did so in a particularly corrosive manner. 13 just going to tick off the way I get to those -- that analysis. 14 15 18 I'm As mentioned, he was explicitly warned about its requirements. 16 17 And he -- when he violated the Nevertheless, he chose to violate it for years. Second, he violated the act himself over and over again. Third, he got many, many other people and entities to 19 violate the Act. 20 respect to Companies A and B and Law Firm A, who have all filed 21 corrective filings with the Department of Justice. 22 many other entities and people that are named in the 23 presentence report. 24 25 Your Honor has noted three of them with There are In addition, I would note to the Court that Mr. Manafort importuned one company not to file, and then only Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 35 of 91 35 1 after that company stopped working with Mr. Manafort did they 2 go ahead and file belatedly. 3 Fourth, Mr. Manafort laundered $11 million to promote 4 those FARA violations. So it simply isn't true, as the defense 5 claims, that he cannot be guilty of FARA and also -- not also 6 have violated the money laundering statute. 7 crime of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but not 8 also be the person who's financing other people to violate the 9 Act. One could commit a Those are very separate pieces of behavior. 10 Fifth, when investigators were on to Mr. Manafort, he 11 lied repeatedly to the Department of Justice, yet another 12 violation of the Act. 13 Six, which I'll discuss in a moment, he then tampered 14 with two witnesses to avoid getting caught for the Foreign 15 Agent Registration Act crime and the money laundering with 16 respect to that crime. 17 Seventh, in violating that Act he not only kept what 18 he was doing from the American public, he also kept what he was 19 doing from the people he was lobbying. 20 was using, for instance, the Hapsburg Group to lobby in the 21 Oval Office, in the Senate, none of those people were told that 22 those former European leaders were in fact paid lobbyists for 23 Ukraine. In other words, when he 24 So, there's sort of -- this isn't a simple situation 25 where you have a lobbyist who's otherwise being transparent in Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 36 of 91 36 1 terms of what they are doing and who they're acting for. 2 the Court knows, Mr. Manafort went about creating a sham 3 entity. 4 was set up precisely so that there wouldn't have to be a filing 5 under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and that could be 6 used, as one of the witnesses said, as a fig leaf, to avoid 7 having to make these disclosures. You have the European Center for a Modern Ukraine that 8 9 As And finally, in the belated FARA filing that Mr. Manafort filed in June of 2017, the one that he touts so in 10 his brief as saying this all could have gone away as a simple 11 civil regulatory matter, I would invite the Court to look at 12 that filing. 13 It is woefully false and incomplete. What kinds of things does it leave out? It leaves out that he did work for Ukraine. Well, let's 14 see. 15 out that he did work for President Yanukovych. 16 all of the United States lobbying that was directed by him by 17 Law Firm A, by Company A, by Company B, by the Hapsburg Group. 18 The very, very lengthy charts that we have submitted to the 19 Court documenting all of the steps that Mr. Manafort directed, 20 all of that is left out except for one day. 21 It leaves It leaves out There is one day that is listed, and the only reason, 22 I would submit, that that day is listed, which is March 13 of 23 2013, is because Company A had already filed its corrective 24 filing and it listed exactly what happened on those days -- on 25 that date. Sorry. So that is the one day, if you look at Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 37 of 91 37 1 Mr. Manafort's filing, where he says he did anything in the 2 United States. 3 So it simply isn't the case that a false and 4 incomplete filing was going to be the end of the day. 5 neither would, could, nor should be absolution for a criminal 6 prosecution. 7 It I would note that Mr. Manafort is also not the first 8 person who has been charged with the Foreign Agents 9 Registration Act. He is also not the first person who's been 10 charged with money laundering to promote a violation of the 11 Foreign Agents Registration Act. 12 attention to the case of Tongsun Park in the Southern District 13 of New York. 14 oil-for-food case. 15 crime remarkably similar, a 371 conspiracy that involved a 16 conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act and 17 money laundering, with the SUA -- the specified unlawful 18 activity -- being the promotion of the Foreign Agent 19 Registration Act crime. 20 I would call Your Honor's He was prosecuted in 2007 in connection with the And there, Mr. Park was charged with a Exactly as was done here. For that single crime of conviction, because of the 21 level of more than and the limited role of the offense, 22 Mr. Park had a guideline range of 57 to 71 months, a Level 25. 23 Because it's a five-year count, the Court could not sentence 24 more than 60 months. 25 and then he cooperated with the government and his sentence And Mr. Park was sentenced to 60 months Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 38 of 91 1 38 eventually was lowered. 2 If the Court would like, there are two published 3 decisions on that case where the Court notes what it did in 4 terms of sentencing, so it can verify what I'm saying about the 5 case. 6 One of the cites is 533 F.Supp.2d 474. Let me go on to other crimes, because Mr. Manafort's 7 crimes did not stop with his indictment of the tax offenses, 8 the Foreign Agents Registration Act offenses, the foreign bank 9 account offenses, the money laundering offenses, or even the 10 bank fraud charges in Virginia, which involved crimes up 11 through 2017. 12 after being indicted, while on bail from two federal courts, in 13 a high profile matter, Mr. Manafort engaged in crimes that go 14 to the heart of the American criminal justice system; tampering 15 with witnesses. 16 In a further subversion of the rule of law, As the Court knows, that criminal conduct, trying to 17 induce two witnesses to lie for him to avoid criminal 18 accountability, resulted in his bail being revoked. 19 Court noted at the time, in something that I think is relevant 20 to sentencing, it could not conclude that Mr. Manafort would 21 abide by the Court's directions and directives. 22 As the The court (sic) submits that it is useful to stop for 23 a moment to think about that conduct, about the fact that you 24 have somebody who is the former campaign chairman for a major 25 political party under indictment in two cases, with a national Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 39 of 91 39 1 spotlight on him, with two Court orders releasing him on bail 2 but directing that he cannot commit further crime, something 3 that ordinary citizens do not need to be told with a Court 4 order; everyone knows you can't do that. 5 while under house arrest, to commit the crime of obstruction of 6 justice by tampering with witnesses. 7 And he then chose, I believe that that is not reflective of somebody 8 who's learned a harsh lesson. 9 remorse. It is not a reflection of It is evidence that something is wrong with, sort of, 10 a moral compass, that somebody in that position would choose to 11 make that decision at that moment. 12 But as the Court knows, that doesn't even end the 13 story. 14 found guilty, after pleading guilty before Your Honor, and even 15 after being afforded the unusual opportunity after trial to 16 cooperate with the government, Mr. Manafort engaged in further 17 misconduct. 18 oath to the grand jury. 19 room face-to-face with FBI agents; under oath, face-to-face 20 with at least 16 grand jurors. 21 again to them. 22 Mr. Manafort finally, after going to trial, after being The Court found that he lied to the FBI and under He did so repeatedly, sitting in a He chose to lie over and over The Court is aware of the nature of those lies, the 23 particular subject matters and the fact that they are material 24 to the government's investigation here and in another District. 25 To conclude, Paul Manafort's upbringing, his Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 40 of 91 40 1 education, his means, his opportunities could have led him to 2 lead a life to be a leading example for this country. 3 juncture, though, Mr. Manafort chose to take a different path. 4 He engaged in crime again and again. 5 harsh lesson. 6 ideals of honesty, transparency, and playing by the rules. 7 leave to the Court to fashion a punishment that reflects the 8 seriousness of this conduct. 9 11 He has not learned a He served to undermine, not promote American THE COURT: 10 At each We Thank you. Thank you. Would defense counsel like to speak on defendant's behalf? 12 MR. DOWNING: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I'm 13 going speak for a short period of time on a discrete issue and 14 then Mr. Westling is going to deal with a separate discrete 15 issue, and then Mr. Zehnle, if that's okay with the Court. 16 just kind of broke it up subject matter-wise. 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. DOWNING: We That's fine. To start with, Mr. Manafort recognizes 19 these are serious crimes that he's pled to and being convicted 20 of. 21 and to show that he truly is sorry for violating the law. And he will address the Court at the time you allow him to 22 The FARA violation itself I would like to address off 23 the bat. Obviously it's a felony not to file a Foreign Agent 24 Registration form, and that is definitely serious. 25 like to a make a distinction about this case as to some of the But I would Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 41 of 91 41 1 other cases that have been prosecuted in the past. 2 Honor, there's only been about six cases since 1966. 3 And, Your The Park case which Mr. Weissmann was talking about 4 before, the underlying crime there was bribing members of 5 Congress. 6 serious issue in Park. 7 bribing of congressmen and providing them with illegal campaign 8 contributions. 9 different than what we have here. 10 It wasn't just not filing a form. It was a very The money laundering stemmed from the So we think the nature of that offense is quite But what I would like to concentrate on is the 11 important issue behind FARA. 12 that both the citizens of the United States and the government 13 should know about foreign agents' activity; it should be known 14 to both. 15 with respect to the Ukraine were well publicized in newspapers 16 throughout the country. 17 evidence before -- and this is the sealed part of the case, so 18 I can't get in to the detail. 19 FARA's two-pronged approach is In this particular case, Mr. Manafort's activities But more importantly, you heard Someday it will be unsealed. But Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik, on a regular 20 basis, were dealing with State Department officials in the U.S. 21 embassy in Kyiv. 22 about his activities in the Ukraine, and shared information, 23 was shared at the highest levels of the State Department. 24 25 And the information that was being conveyed So, while, yes, he did not file the form, I do think the requisite notice about his activities was out there. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 42 of 91 42 1 Not -- he did not comply with the FARA requirement, but I think 2 the Court should take that into consideration. 3 the fact that Mr. Manafort -- 4 THE COURT: I also think Where is it in the record that 5 Mr. Manafort was communicating with the State Department in 6 Kyiv? 7 MR. DOWNING: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. DOWNING: 10 In the 302s that were part of the -- That Mr. Kilimnik was. No, it also referenced Mr. Manafort. And the United States government has -- 11 THE COURT: And in that he was talking about the 12 lobbying that he was doing in the United States? 13 there? 14 15 MR. DOWNING: Is that in No, we're talking about the activities in the Ukraine. 16 THE COURT: Go ahead. 17 MR. DOWNING: The government has conceded this issue 18 also, Your Honor, that Mr. Manafort was in regular contact with 19 officials at the embassy, that's part of one of our hearings. 20 So that's really not in dispute. 21 THE COURT: What does that have to do with the 22 Foreign Agents Registration Act? 23 MR. DOWNING: I'm saying it has to do with notice to 24 the U.S. government. I mean, the highest level State 25 Department officials knew of Mr. Manafort's activities. That Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 43 of 91 43 1 matters. It's not that he was hiding his activities from the 2 very State Department people that were most interested in what 3 he was doing. 4 registration -- So I'm just making the point that the FARA 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. DOWNING: 7 Well, the State Department in Kyiv communicated -- 8 9 The State Department in Kyiv. THE COURT: I want to make sure that's the one we're talking about. 10 MR. DOWNING: We are. But also, it's not just there, 11 Your Honor. The 302s that are sealed also refer to 12 communicating that information to the highest levels of the 13 State Department here in the United States. 14 go back and take a look at those, I think that's very 15 important. So if you want to 16 So, the officials who really wanted to know what 17 Manafort -- some of those officials knew because they were 18 communicating with him. 19 distinction from some of these other cases, where the activity 20 itself was not known to anyone in the U.S. government. 21 think that should be considered by the Court in terms of the 22 non-file. 23 other publications were reporting on what Mr. Manafort was 24 doing in the Ukraine, which goes to public knowledge. 25 other one has to do with the knowledge of the U.S. government, And I think that an important And I Because the two goals, one is the New York Times and And the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 44 of 91 44 1 the State Department officials, who both he and Mr. Kilimnik 2 were communicating with. 3 So I think that's an important issue. I also think it's important for the Court -- and it's 4 in detail in our brief, that this office itself was working 5 with Mr. Manafort and decided on their part, from the 6 information they had, that Mr. Manafort had to file a FARA 7 registration. 8 was stopped and the case was taken over by the Office of 9 Special Counsel. 10 So, there was a determination on their part that -- 11 12 And he was in the process of doing that when it THE COURT: You talked about this determination, many times. 13 MR. DOWNING: 14 THE COURT: Yes. And I understand that they -- nothing 15 came of what they were doing. But what is the basis for your 16 claim that they made a decision? 17 MR. DOWNING: There is a letter from the office 18 stating that despite not getting information from Mr. Manafort, 19 they have sufficient evidence that he needs to file a FARA 20 registration with respect to his representation of the 21 Ukrainian government, the Party of Regions, and Mr. Yanukovych. 22 That came from -- 23 THE COURT: And does it say: And, therefore, we will 24 take no further action with respect to his prior failure, that 25 will end the matter, that they made a determination that that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 45 of 91 1 was the end of it? 2 And what was the date of that letter? MR. DOWNING: 3 believe it was June. 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. DOWNING: 6 But I All right. Your Honor, it was in the March, April timeframe. THE COURT: 8 MR. DOWNING: 10 I don't have the letter on me. One moment, please. 7 9 45 letters to the Court. March, April 2017? '17. And we can get copies of those I apologize for not having it on me right now. 11 But -- and the determination was that the filing was 12 required. 13 filing done with the FARA office. 14 this, and it doesn't -- it's, obviously, no legal impediment to 15 the Department of Justice or the Office of Special Counsel 16 bringing the charge, I'm not raising it for that issue. 17 the office itself had told the Inspector General that what its 18 mission is, is to get more folks in and get them filed; not to 19 bring criminal prosecutions. 20 this, kind of, more communicative style of dealing with folks 21 that are out there to get more information in. 22 And Mr. Manafort was in the process of getting that The only reason I'm raising But That they were trying to have As a result of this prosecution -- we put in the 23 sentencing memo -- that the FARA filings have more than 24 doubled. 25 exponentially. And that the amendments to FARA filings have grown So I think it's important that the Court also Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 46 of 91 46 1 know that as a result of this, that there has been a general 2 increase in compliance on FARA and, also, the deterrent effect 3 has been made known. 4 With respect to other individuals or entities that 5 were involved with Mr. Manafort, including a major law firm, 6 those matters are being resolved civilly, as we understand. 7 One, in fact, recently has occurred, with respect to the law 8 firm, for about $4.7 million. 9 that's just how that office generally operates. It's been resolved civilly. And It's not to 10 say it can't be a criminal prosecution, but I think it's 11 important for the Court to consider that process was ongoing at 12 the time and there was that determination by that FARA office, 13 with Mr. Manafort working through a lawyer to get that 14 compliance done. 15 I also would like to point out -- 16 THE COURT: 17 The same lawyer that he directed to lie to the Department of Justice? 18 MR. DOWNING: 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. DOWNING: The very same, Your Honor. All right. I would also like to point out, in 21 terms of knowledge of the United States as to activities, FBI 22 agents did go and talk to Mr. Manafort in 2014, and Mr. Gates, 23 regarding an offshore investigation of Mr. Yanukovych and 24 monies he allegedly took from the Ukraine. 25 interview, both Mr. Manafort himself, and he directed During that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 47 of 91 47 1 Mr. Gates, to cooperate and provide information to help the FBI 2 with respect to that investigation, which they did. 3 they did was they identified some of these offshore accounts 4 and the location of them in Cyprus for the FBI. 5 And what So, again, this is a couple of years before -- or, 6 three years before the existence of the special counsel. 7 it should indicate to the Court, when law enforcement showed 8 up, that Mr. Manafort was in a position and did in fact 9 cooperate and provide information. 10 But So, I think overall in terms of -- 11 THE COURT: When you say he identified some? 12 MR. DOWNING: They identified entity accounts that 13 were in Cyprus. There's a list of them that were identified at 14 the time and the bank where they were located. 15 THE COURT: So how many weren't identified? 16 MR. DOWNING: I don't know the answer to that, Your 17 Honor. But several of the accounts were identified and the 18 location of the accounts. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. DOWNING: So I think these are all important 21 issues. I think that -- one other issue that, you know, the 22 case itself, the Office of Special Counsel situation, just as a 23 general matter, not in particular to this one, is a very -- it 24 can be very harsh. 25 it, the political motivation and disagreement is so unreal in The media attention that comes along with Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 48 of 91 48 1 this particular instance, and so out of whack with what another 2 case would look like if we didn't have a special counsel, if 3 this was just the run-of-the-mill DOJ -- 4 THE COURT: Whose political motivation? 5 MR. DOWNING: Everybody out there. They're all -- 6 everybody is going nuts over this. 7 unbelievable, the press coverage and what have you. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. DOWNING: 10 11 THE COURT: Not here. I want to know if you're saying -- you're talking about the prosecutor's political motivation -MR. DOWNING: 13 THE COURT: 15 Not here. The press and the commentators? 12 14 Last week it was No. No. -- or the political motivation of those who are assessing what they think of what the -MR. DOWNING: Correct, Your Honor. I'm not directing 16 this at the Office of Special Counsel. But the media 17 attention, the media frenzy around this. 18 understood; it's a case of national interest. 19 in a very harsh process for the defendant. 20 Court can consider, unlike other cases which this Court has 21 sentenced people in, where there is nobody in the gallery, 22 there is not going to be this torrent of press that comes out 23 of it and focus on Mr. Manafort and his family, that that 24 harshness, we would appreciate it if the Court could consider 25 in sentencing because it has been real. And it's well But that results And I hope the And but for a short Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 49 of 91 49 1 stint as a campaign manager and in a presidential election, I 2 don't think we would be here today. 3 should consider that, too. 4 5 I'll leave it to my colleagues to address the other issue, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. WESTLING: 8 9 10 And I think the Court All right. Thank you. Your Honor, I have a fairly focused argument related to the money laundering issue in the case. THE COURT: All right. MR. WESTLING: Mr. Weissmann is correct, there is one 11 prior case, the Park case. 12 obviously this fits into sort of the nature of why the 13 guidelines are where they are; again, not -- I think they're 14 correctly computed -- but where they might be if we were in a 15 slightly different situation. 16 aware, if you go back to the late '90s, early 2000s, there were 17 substantial amendments to the money laundering guidelines. 18 I think that just for background, And so as the Court probably is For many years it was you committed an underlying 19 offense and then money laundering was sort of tacked on and it 20 added a whole lot of exposure in that process. 21 sentencing commission did was to look to the need to better tie 22 the sentences to the underlying offense, with the idea that 23 money laundering would be a sort of enhancement to that. 24 so what they did was they readjusted the guideline and they 25 said where there is a base offense, you use the base offense What the And Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 50 of 91 50 1 level and you add two for the money laundering, and whatever 2 the additional enhancements are. 3 We're in a situation here that is somewhat the result 4 of FARA not being all that frequently prosecuted, because there 5 is no FARA guideline to look at. 6 seen a lot of FARA cases, I suspect they would have promulgated 7 a FARA guideline. 8 would be, but based on things like obstruction and other types 9 of what I would call similar offenses, you might have a base And so, if the commission had I can't guess for the Court what that level 10 offense level somewhere in the neighborhood of 14, then add a 11 couple of levels for money laundering. 12 very different scenario for the Court. 13 That would create a Again, I'm not bickering with the computation of the 14 guidelines, simply this unique situation of FARA being the 15 underlying offense and the impact that no guideline being there 16 causes you to default to the 2B1.1 schedule. 17 THE COURT: Isn't it the loss amount, not necessarily 18 whether it's -- I know money laundering had two points that 19 wouldn't have been there otherwise. 20 conspiracy to fail to identify foreign bank accounts and to 21 fail to pay income taxes and you have the dollars that we're 22 talking about here, wouldn't the loss amount have hiked up the 23 guidelines no matter what? 24 MR. WESTLING: 25 THE COURT: But if you've got a To some degree. I mean, they did in your calculation, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 51 of 91 51 1 which was different than the one that the presentence report 2 writer came up with. 3 MR. WESTLING: Understood. But the point I'm making 4 really is if you look at 2S1.1(a)(1), it says look to the 5 underlying offense and don't use the loss table unless you 6 can't find the underlying offense. 7 you'll go first to whatever the guideline is; what, I can't 8 say, because there isn't one. 9 difficult, what the FARA guideline would look like. 10 include a loss table or not? 11 not. 12 13 THE COURT: So there's a default that So I understand that makes this Would it Many offenses of that type do But the conspiracy had other underlying offenses which do have loss tables. 14 MR. WESTLING: It did. And in that case what we 15 would be looking at is tax or something else, which would 16 clearly drop the level below what it is here. 17 just an observation about the structure of the guidelines that 18 create a degree of difficult for the Court, obviously, whenever 19 there is not one that is exactly on point. So it's really 20 In this case, where FARA is the, you know, primary 21 underlying offense, I think it results in what I believe are 22 guidelines that are higher than what we would expect if the 23 money laundering statute was able to apply in a traditional 24 sense. 25 In addition to that, Your Honor, we would point out Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 52 of 91 52 1 that this is a rare case. 2 where money laundering was involved, the Park case, yet it had 3 other conduct involved that is distinct from FARA by the nature 4 of bribery and other things. 5 does have a substantial impact on escalating where the 6 guidelines end up, and we would simply like the Court to 7 consider that as it fashions its sentence under 3553. 8 9 THE COURT: And we know there's one other case Here the money laundering really All right. Didn't the guidelines come out virtually the same place in the Eastern District, even 10 without money laundering, based on the amount of money involved 11 in all these bank accounts and tax accounts? 12 13 MR. WESTLING: They were very high there, too. Again, based on the foreign bank account issue, yes. 14 THE COURT: 15 Mr. Zehnle? 16 MR. ZEHNLE: Thank you. Good morning again, Your Honor. 17 wanted to address in a very focused way the issue of the 18 witness tampering that Mr. Weissmann raised. 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. ZEHNLE: 21 THE COURT: 22 MR. ZEHNLE: 23 24 25 I Can you just scooch up a little bit. Of course. Of course. Thank you. I wanted to address the witness tampering issue that Mr. Weissmann raised. At the end of the day, Your Honor, this Court is quite familiar with that particular statute. And the point Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 53 of 91 53 1 that the defense would like to make is that with respect to the 2 cases that deal with witness tampering, whether they're trial 3 convictions or whether they're guilty pleas, in most of those 4 cases what you have is either bribery of witnesses in order to 5 get them to say things or not say things, or potential 6 intimidating or threatening conduct. 7 Now, of course, the statute is broad enough and it 8 does cover the conduct that Mr. Manafort pled to. And I think 9 it's important for the Court to at least consider, in the cases 10 that are similar under that particular statute, the more 11 significant sentences, which are usually -- and I can give the 12 Court a couple cites in a moment -- you know, usually 13 relatively low, are based upon conduct that I think most people 14 would agree is more egregious; that is, actually paying 15 somebody to lie, or actually threatening them to do that. 16 And as the Court knows, based on the superseding 17 information, based on the information that the government has 18 provided, that's all spelled out in terms of exactly what was 19 done, the texts to the individuals in the -- I can't remember 20 whether they were Individual 1 or Individual 2, but the Court 21 knows who we're talking about. 22 So, in terms of that, we went back and took a quick 23 look at some more recent cases dealing with witness tampering 24 under that particular statute. 25 consideration, United States v. Maldonado, which is 17-CR-620, And just for the Court's Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 54 of 91 54 1 and that was in the District of Hawaii. 2 September of last year. 3 police officer who stole $1800 from somebody during a traffic 4 stop. 5 and his cousin tried to bribe that driver in order to influence 6 him to withdraw the complaint. 7 months imprisonment in that case. 8 9 That was just in That dealt with a defendant who was a And after the driver filed a complaint, the defendant Now, he was sentenced to 24 In another case that we found, from December of 2015, United States v. Konopski, K-O-N-O-P-S-K-I, that's 14-CR-6043 10 in the Western District of New York. 11 witness tampering, where the defendant was ultimately sentenced 12 to six months imprisonment and six months of home detention. 13 And in that case the defendant confronted an individual that 14 they believed was cooperating against the defendant's brother, 15 and they did so in a threatening and intimidating matter -- 16 manner, excuse me, and obtained a false statement. 17 That case also dealt with So those were just some of the cases, just to kind of 18 direct the Court's attention to, when you're dealing with 19 witness tampering and the various gradations, if you will, of 20 how did the person actually tamper with the witness? 21 Here Mr. Manafort has admitted to this Court, 22 September 14th, I believe, the conduct involved with sending 23 those texts to those individuals. 24 as this Court is well aware, the Hapsburg Group. 25 group that was essentially engaged to seek Ukraine's admittance And it dealt with primarily, That is the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 55 of 91 1 into the European Union. 2 majority of that focus, of that group, was to get Ukraine into 3 the European Union. 4 and he's never backed away from the fact that contact and 5 outreach occurred in the United States and that was a 6 violation. 7 8 That's what that dealt with. 55 The Mr. Manafort's admitted, he doesn't deny, But it is important to note the factual contact in which this particular charge came about. 9 THE COURT: 10 All right. Thank you. Mr. Manafort, is there anything you would like to 11 say, that you want me to consider before I impose sentence in 12 this case? 13 microphone at your table there. 14 And you're welcome to use -- there's a live THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Your Honor. In my 15 previous allocution, I told Judge Ellis that I was ashamed at 16 my conduct that brought me into his court, and to this day of 17 judgment as well. 18 Apparently at that time I was not as clear in saying what was 19 in my heart, so I want to say to you now that I am sorry for 20 what I've done and for all the activities that have gotten us 21 here today. 22 For that I said I took full responsibility. The last two years have been the most difficult years 23 that my family and I have ever experienced. The person who I 24 have been described as in public and in this courtroom is not 25 somebody who I recognize. While I know that I am not that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 56 of 91 56 1 person, I still feet ashamed and embarrassment for the 2 suffering that I have caused to my family, to my friends, and 3 to all that have been affected by my behavior. 4 Let me be very clear, I accept the responsibility for 5 the acts that have caused me to be here today. 6 to apologize for all that I did that contributed to these 7 actions and to the effects that have been brought to both 8 people and institutions. 9 Further, I want While I cannot undo the past, I can ensure that the 10 future will be very different. 11 committing to you this: I am especially upset at the pain that 12 I have caused my family. If nothing else, the suffering will 13 be a major deterrent to me in any future behavior of mine. 14 And I stand here today As I have sat in solitary confinement for the past 15 nine months, I have reflected on the life -- on my life and 16 what is important to me. 17 ways that did not always support my personal code of values. 18 I'm upset with myself for these failures and understand that 19 many of these mistakes are what have gotten me here today. 20 And I can see that I have behaved in Because of this new self awareness, I can say to you 21 with conviction that my behavior in the future will be very 22 different. 23 that the lessons of the past two years, and specifically of the 24 last nine months, will be a guide for my future. 25 I have already begun to change, and I'm confident What has been uplifting to me during this crisis is Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 57 of 91 57 1 the incredible support I've received, not just from family and 2 friends, but also from many strangers. 3 by their letters that I've received from them and they have 4 affected me in a very positive way, especially their prayers 5 and encouragement. 6 had an energizing impact on my life already and has given me 7 the ability to cope with the difficulties that I've had to deal 8 with in solitary confinement. 9 me on how I want to conduct my life when this ordeal is over. 10 I've been strengthened This exposure to the goodness of people has Their encouragement has focused I stand here today to assure the Court that I'm a 11 different person than the one who came before you in October of 12 2017. 13 and the importance of family and friends. 14 instilled in me a commitment to turn the notoriety of the past 15 two years into a positive and to show the world who I really 16 am. 17 past and my future. 18 these reflections and I know that it was my conduct that 19 brought me here today. 20 With the power of prayer that God's guiding -- and God's 21 guiding hands, I know that my family and I will emerge stronger 22 from the suffering, and I look forward to setting forth on that 23 journey. 24 25 I have had the time to reflect on my life and my choices My reflections have I see more clearly now both myself and my life, both my I can assure you that I feel the pain from For these mistakes I am remorseful. Again, I apologize to all who have been negatively affected from my behavior. I take responsibility for the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 58 of 91 58 1 consequences of these actions, and I pledge to do all I can to 2 accelerate the healing process. 3 old in a few weeks. 4 caregiver. 5 this and our need for each other as you deliberate today. 6 Your Honor, I will be 70 years My wife is 66 years old. She needs me and I need her. I am her primary I ask you to think of This case has taken everything from me already; my 7 properties, my cash, my life insurance, my trust account for my 8 children and my grandchildren, and even more. 9 wife and I be together. Please let my Please do not take away from -- us 10 from each other any longer than the 47 months imposed last 11 week. 12 I appreciate the time that you have committed to this 13 case and ask that you find compassion in your sentencing, if 14 not for me, then for my family. 15 you will not regret it. 16 THE COURT: I promise you that if you do, Thank you. Thank you. At this point I'm going to 17 take a brief break so that I can absorb everything that I've 18 heard, some things that I've heard today for the first time. 19 You can all remain seated. 20 10 after, maybe quarter after 11. 21 time. I expect that we'll resume at about So I'll be back at that Thank you. 22 (Recess.) 23 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, recalling criminal 24 case number 17-201-1, the United States of America v. Paul J. 25 Manafort, Jr. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 59 of 91 1 THE COURT: 59 The briefing, and to a lesser extent the 2 argument this morning in this case, has been marked by a great 3 deal of passion and a fair amount of hyperbole and 4 overstatement on both sides. 5 enemy number one, but he is not a victim either. 6 This defendant is not public I also want to make clear from the start that the 7 conclusion of this particular prosecution with the imposition 8 of sentence today will not be a vindication of and will not 9 incriminate anyone who is involved in or the subject of the 10 ongoing investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. 11 Notwithstanding the many references that pepper the 12 sentencing memo, the question of whether there was or was not 13 any coordination or conspiracy or any collusion between anyone 14 associated with the presidential campaign and anyone in Russia 15 was not presented in this case. 16 resolved one way or the other by this case. 17 Period. Therefore, it was not Also, this sentence will not be an endorsement or an 18 indictment of the mission or the tactics of the Office of 19 Special Counsel. 20 Nor does it fall to me today to pass judgment on Paul Manafort 21 as a human being, or to decide, as his daughter asked me to, if 22 he is worthy of forgiveness under God. 23 and he's going to have the opportunity to make something 24 positive out of this, as he's suggested he's going to do, and 25 that's a question left for a higher authority at another time. That question is not before the Court either. His life is not over Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 60 of 91 60 1 The issue today is what is the appropriate sanction 2 in this world for certain things he did, deliberately, over a 3 considerable period of time and in violation of a number of 4 federal laws. 5 As I stated earlier, Congress passed a statute that 6 tells judges what they're supposed to think about when they 7 sentence someone. 8 been here before can tell you I do in every case, I'm going to 9 go through each of those sentencing factors. 10 And as my court reporter and anyone who's The first factor set out in the statute is the nature 11 and circumstances of the offense. 12 sentencing memorandum summed it up well when it said it is 13 undisputed that he was part of a conspiracy that involved money 14 laundering involving millions of dollars of his income being 15 wired from offshore accounts for goods, services, and real 16 estate. 17 the offshore accounts themselves. 18 And I think the government's He concealed that income and the related purchases and He hid millions of dollars of other income by falsely 19 characterizing it as loans. He lied to his bookkeeper and tax 20 preparers, both about the payments from overseas and the 21 existence of the bank accounts from which the money was 22 transferred. 23 the United States on behalf of Ukraine without registering for 24 this work as required. 25 overseas accounts to pay for other lobbyists working for He engaged in extensive lobbying activities in He funneled over $11 million from the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 61 of 91 61 1 Ukraine to engage in unregistered lobbying in the United 2 States. 3 November 2016 and February 2017, he caused false and misleading 4 statements to be made relating to the lobbying work for the 5 Ukraine. And in submissions to the Department of Justice in 6 It is hard to overstate the number of lies and the 7 amount of fraud and the extraordinary amount of money involved. 8 As the prosecutor said, 30 offshore accounts, three foreign 9 countries. And there is no good explanation that would warrant 10 the leniency requested. 11 with some pesky regulations, as the defense would make it out 12 to be. 13 lobbying work from the United States, from the American people 14 who pay their share of taxes so that the government, the 15 military, the national security apparatus, the veterans 16 hospitals and all of the other functions that ordinary people 17 rely on, can operate. 18 out of over $6 million in tax revenue. 19 family, but to sustain a lifestyle at the most opulent and 20 extravagant level possible. 21 enjoy, more suits than one man can wear. 22 This is not just a failure to comport The defendant hid the proceeds of his international And he thereby cheated the U.S. treasury Why? Not to support a More houses than a family can It is important to note, in case there's any 23 confusion, notwithstanding the use of the word "agent," an 24 unregistered foreign agent is not a spy. 25 Lobbying is not illegal. He is a lobbyist. Being paid to do it, even on behalf Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 62 of 91 62 1 of clients who others might view as unseemly or odious or even 2 tyrannical is not illegal, if you follow the laws that govern 3 foreign financial transactions and pay your taxes. 4 defendant kept his money offshore and under wraps so he 5 wouldn't have to pay. 6 But this And the government memorandum makes clear that the 7 tax conspiracy and the failure to file foreign bank account 8 reports is the very conduct underlying some of the convictions 9 in the Virginia case. The government used the same charts and 10 the same exhibits to tell the story. 11 defense that he cannot be sentenced for those components twice. 12 He's already been sentenced for that. 13 a significant forfeiture for that as well; not just to punish 14 him, but restitution because money is owed. 15 And I agree with the And there's going to be So what remains to be considered here? According to 16 the defendant, it's just an administrative matter, a regulatory 17 crime, a violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act. 18 that's not a fair description. 19 he represented from policymakers and the public, and that's 20 antithetical to the very American values that he told me he 21 championed. 22 warned not to do it. 23 And He was hiding the truth of who And this was after he knew and already had been What becomes clear from this record is that 24 defendant's approach in his career, and what he didn't abandon 25 even after he was indicted, was that it's all about strategy, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 63 of 91 1 positioning, public relations, spin. 2 there's nothing wrong with that, at least if you're not a 3 journalist. 4 simply advancing a position as part of a PR campaign. 5 63 And you could say, well, But there is something wrong with it if you're not It's okay to say: Members of Congress, the 6 government of the Ukraine, President Victor Yanukovych, would 7 like you to consider the following when you consider how to 8 respond to his actions, when you determine what the foreign 9 policy of the United States should be. But what you were doing 10 was lying to members of Congress and the American public, 11 saying, look at this nice American PR firm, look at this nice 12 U.S.-based law firm, look at this nice group of prominent 13 former European officials, isn't it great how they've all 14 voluntarily stepped forward to stand up for Yanukovych and the 15 new administration, when all along you were hiding that you and 16 the Ukrainians actually had them on the payroll. 17 This deliberate effort to obscure the facts, this 18 disregard for truth undermines our political discourse and it 19 infects our policymaking. 20 democracy can't work. 21 If the people don't have the facts, Furthermore, this conduct is not, as the defendant 22 would have me conclude, old news. It's not just some ancient 23 failure to comply with a couple of regulations, something that 24 took place so long before the campaign it's just unfair and 25 inappropriate to charge him for it in 2017. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 64 of 91 1 64 He pled guilty to laundering of funds through 2016. 2 He pled guilty to a lobbying campaign in the United States for 3 the government of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, and when he was 4 out of office, his Party of Regions and the Opposition Bloc 5 from 2005 to 2015. 6 government investigated and wrapped it all up and there 7 wouldn't have been a prosecution but for the appointment of the 8 special counsel. 9 And the defense says, well, yes, but the I'm not exactly sure what that prediction -- which 10 they've made to me repeatedly -- is actually based on. 11 believe there is evidence that a formal final determination was 12 made. 13 special counsel, the Department of Justice was already looking 14 into this matter. 15 the Office of Special Counsel -- was looking into the matter, 16 it asked Mr. Manafort questions. 17 and he lied to the Department of Justice. 18 not one, but two letters, falsely stating that he had not 19 performed lobbying activities in the United States on the part 20 of the Ukraine. 21 I don't Prior to the time when anybody was even thinking about a And when the Department of Justice -- not He lied to his own lawyers He had them submit That first lie was in November of 2016, after he 22 resigned as campaign chair but well before the appointment of 23 the special counsel. 24 special counsel investigation was underway. 25 entirely clear that a civil resolution would still have been The second, in February, was after the So it's not Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 65 of 91 1 65 possible at that point. 2 And this disregard for facts, this "I'm just going to 3 manage this, I'm just going to spin this" attitude has 4 continued throughout the pendency of this case and it prompted 5 Count 2, the witness tampering conspiracy, which is also part 6 of the nature and circumstances of this offense. 7 Immediately after the superseding indictment was 8 returned and it became clear that the effort by the Hapsburg 9 Group was going to be involved, the defendant immediately began 10 reaching out to witnesses involved with the lobbying effort by 11 the Hapsburg Group to remind them that all the work was done in 12 Europe. 13 he isn't being straight with me about it now. 14 And he pled guilty, for which he deserves credit, but In the sentencing memorandum the defendant 15 acknowledges and repeats several times that he, quote, 16 contacted, close quote, witnesses. 17 contacting witnesses, that's not a crime. 18 guilty to contacting witnesses. 19 conspiracy, which means agreeing with someone else, in this 20 case Konstantin Kilimnik, to violate the law. 21 to conspiring to corruptly persuade another person, two people, 22 with the intent to influence their testimony in an official 23 proceeding. 24 case against Mr. Manafort himself. 25 He was not stepped back for He didn't plead He pled guilty to the crime of And which official proceeding? He pled guilty This one. The I do want to say and point out again that no other Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 66 of 91 66 1 interactions involving Mr. Kilimnik are before the Court today 2 for sentencing or bear on his sentencing. 3 Mr. Manafort himself sent to a critical witness regarding the 4 role of the Hapsburg Group was, We should talk. 5 clear, they worked in Europe. 6 his co-conspirator, Mr. Kilimnik; Paul is trying to reach that 7 same witness. 8 summary, that he says to everybody, which is true, that our 9 friends never lobbied in the U.S. and the purpose of the I've made it The same message was echoed by Basically, Paul wants to give him a quick 10 program was the EU. 11 the problem was not contacting witnesses. 12 The message that That, of course, was not true. And no, So the sentencing memorandum gave me concern that he 13 really hasn't accepted responsibility for that offense. And 14 this came up recently during the hearing regarding the breach 15 of the plea agreement. 16 pointed out, that I could not find that the Office of Special 17 Counsel had proved that his similarly whitewashed or 18 sugarcoated recitation of what Mr. Kilimnik did during his 19 debriefings was a deliberate falsehood because all I have is 20 the FBI 302. 21 asked and that he was answering. 22 piece of paper alone whether he was asserting false facts or 23 merely parroting false facts that Mr. Kilimnik was saying now. 24 But the fact that then he turned around and advanced a similar 25 version in the sentencing memo now suggests that it was all of I did say, as Mr. Zehnle has correctly I couldn't tell what the question was you had So I couldn't tell from that Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 67 of 91 1 a piece. 2 backed away from the facts. 3 67 While he agreed to plead guilty to this count, he's And he didn't only try to influence witnesses. The 4 dissembling in this courtroom began with the bond proceedings 5 and it never abated. 6 we tried mightily to secure his bond before this Court so he 7 could be released from home detention. 8 actually trying to do that. 9 Mr. Manafort had significant assets and I issued several orders In the first presentation he said, we have these 10 funds in an account, my wife will be the surety, the money will 11 be safe. 12 account where only she has access, you don't have access to it. 13 And then it was, oh, never mind, I don't want to do that. 14 it was, okay, well, you can have this property, this property 15 will be great security for my bond. 16 that property had already been promised to a bank as security 17 for a loan to the bank. 18 write to me that, no, the bank had agreed that it would take it 19 last, it wasn't really going to take that house if it needed to 20 to secure its own loan. 21 documents and it wasn't in there. 22 And then I said, okay, fine, then let's put it in an Then And then it turned out And he said to me, and had a lawyer And they provided me with all the loan It wasn't true. All this appeared to reflect as ongoing contempt for 23 and his belief that he had the right to manipulate these 24 proceedings, and the Court orders and the rules didn't apply to 25 him. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 68 of 91 1 68 He has now admitted that he engaged in attempts to 2 influence the depiction of this case in the media, himself and 3 through his representatives, in direct contravention of a court 4 order. 5 then, but it's certainly worthy of consideration now. 6 That was not why he got stepped back. I didn't know it And he's been less than candid about the conditions 7 of his confinement and made overblown statements about where he 8 was housed when he thought it was to his advantage to do so. 9 The hearing on the alleged breach of the plea 10 agreement suggested that he was trying to get the benefit of 11 the plea without the obligation, to get the government 12 interested in a cooperation deal before the plea with a 13 proffer, and avoid the costs and the risks of a trial and cap 14 his exposure. 15 shield others in ways that I have found were intentionally 16 false. 17 one of those places where facts still matter. 18 But then he began to minimize his conduct and to And it's all very problematic to me because court is The second thing that the sentencing statute tells me 19 I'm supposed to consider is the history and characteristics of 20 the defendant. 21 with a loving family. 22 is a factor to be considered. 23 the fact that the criminal conduct involved in this case was 24 not an isolated, single incident. 25 considerable period of time. Paul Manafort is an educated, accomplished man He has no prior convictions. And that I have to balance that against It went on for a It involved many years' worth of Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 69 of 91 69 1 false tax returns and filings that weren't filed, and there 2 were many crimes involved. 3 He was convicted in Virginia of five counts of making 4 false statements on his tax returns in five different years; 5 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. 6 failing to file the foreign bank account report in 2012, but he 7 admitted under oath to me that he also failed to do it in 2011, 8 2013, 2014. 9 admitted the others. He was convicted in Virginia of He's convicted of two counts of bank fraud and All in all, he defrauded four different 10 lenders in five separate loan transactions, and there was 11 evidence that he was discussing helping a bank officer secure a 12 job in the administration in return for averting his eyes from 13 the known false representations. 14 So this supports the notion that a significant 15 portion of his career has been spent gaming the system. It is 16 true and it is important that these offenses don't involve 17 violence. 18 promise to ask for this, he does get some credit for 19 cooperation. 20 sessions and answer many questions. 21 lied about everything important, and some of the information he 22 provided the government is relying on in its sentencing came 23 from him. And, yes, while the government wasn't bound by his He did plead guilty. He did sit for many There's no claim that he 24 But the problem is that the defendant's own conduct 25 makes it impossible to assess the value of the information he Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 70 of 91 70 1 did provide because his lies about material matters undermine 2 his reliability as a source of information about anything else. 3 The prosecutors may not have documents about everything, so how 4 can they know now if Mr. Manafort, who they were relying upon 5 to fill the gaps, was being truthful when they talked to him or 6 he wasn't? 7 about others became less incriminating after the proffers and 8 after the plea. So, was he spinning the facts beforehand to 9 get a good deal? Or was he spinning them after to protect 10 It's also problematical that what he had to say other people? 11 I don't know. I read the letters from his friends and family. I 12 want to say that I don't discount them just because he came -- 13 they came from his friends and family. 14 everyone has people standing so firmly in their corner. 15 the letters are detailed and they're heartfelt and they provide 16 specific examples that ring true. 17 It's not true that And I don't doubt their sincerity and I don't doubt the 18 fact that I haven't seen everything there is or can be to Paul 19 Manafort. 20 important they are to him, and the fact that it pains him to 21 cause them to suffer. 22 I believe he was sincere when he told me today how He's been a significant course of support within his 23 family. He was stalwart and unfailingly reliable and 24 supportive when his wife suffered a serious injury, and even 25 earlier he supported her determination to get a law degree and Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 71 of 91 71 1 a career. 2 surrogate father for a niece who lost her own father, and there 3 were testaments to his generosity in other situations, his 4 efforts to assist his brother to make the difficult return to 5 sobriety. 6 activities that were brought to my attention, are a part of his 7 character and they are commendable. 8 9 He stepped up in extraordinary ways to serve as a All of this, and other charitable and philanthropic And it is unfortunate, as he's pointed out, that incarceration can tear apart a family and separate him from 10 people who need him. But that is true in every case where 11 someone is incarcerated. 12 family that has the means to sustain itself in the interim. 13 The sentencing memorandum also states: And at least in this case it is a Mr. Manafort 14 has spent his life advancing American ideals and principles. 15 It starts with his work on numerous political campaigns and 16 positions within some of the administrations, and it goes on to 17 say during his years outside of government service, 18 Mr. Manafort also worked with world leaders. 19 lifetime promoting American democratic values and assisting 20 emerging democracies to adopt reforms necessary to become a 21 part of Western society. 22 He has spent a At times he interacted with politicians and business 23 people in emerging countries to assist in the development of 24 American beliefs of equal justice, human rights, and free 25 markets. There aren't really any exhibits or letters that go Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 72 of 91 72 1 along with that, so I don't have the facts or the record before 2 me that would permit me to either accept or question what is a 3 very general description. 4 settings to assess whether the way the defendant chose to 5 market the access he gained during political campaigns and the 6 work he did for the clients he represented has been 7 characterized accurately. 8 consideration of the history and characteristics of the 9 defendant. 10 It will fall to others in other So it doesn't factor into my He does, though, appear to have brought intelligence, 11 real skill, organization, and structure to the latest U.S. 12 campaign he was asked to step in and run, and to others. 13 those talents are valued in our political system. 14 that he has enormous experience and talent and the capacity to 15 uses it in so many constructive ways makes his dissembling at 16 every turn to serve the purposes of enriching himself and 17 frustrating both the investigation and prosecution all the more 18 troubling. 19 And But the fact It may have been that in addition to thinking of his 20 own finances, he had his clients' ability to win in mind. He 21 knew that revealing the true source behind the lobbying 22 activities would have made those activities ineffective and 23 unsuccessful, as the prosecutor said. 24 But that willingness to win at all costs was contrary to laws 25 designed to ensure transparency in the political process and Secrecy was integral. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 73 of 91 73 1 the legislative process. 2 behavior, particularly when there's no question that this 3 defendant knew better and he knew exactly what he was doing. 4 So it cannot possibly justify the I do appreciate the comments that were made this 5 morning. 6 had his friends and family write -- or maybe he didn't ask 7 them, maybe they wrote on their own accord, but they wrote -- 8 and this person who made his living with words and whose 9 multiple advanced degrees have been detailed in his submission, 10 11 But I have to say, it was very striking to me that he was strangely silent. I've had defendants who didn't finish high school, 12 whom English was a second language, who managed to write me a 13 letter and express remorse about something. 14 today, at least in part, seem to have been prompted by comments 15 made after the last sentencing hearing. 16 morning, the upshot of this defendant's entire sentencing 17 presentation was, Look what they've done to me. 18 remorse and personal responsibility were completely absent. The comments And prior to this The element of 19 Not once in his submission did he even admit to the 20 possibility that he brought any of this upon himself, when in 21 fact he has no one else to blame. 22 in which the special counsel agreed to bring his cooperation to 23 my attention and to ask for a lesser sentence, and he 24 squandered it. 25 He even had a plea agreement What the defense tells me is that because the special Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 74 of 91 74 1 counsel got involved, what was a mere administrative inquiry 2 about missing paperwork was quote, transmogrified, close quote, 3 into a multiple-count, excessive indictment. 4 that is the appropriate verb, if one were to insist on its 5 having a subject in that sentence, it would have to be the 6 defendant who was the transmogrifier. 7 To the extent I don't mean to suggest for a second that sentencing 8 was not the time to mount a vigorous defense. 9 job and your lawyer's job. That was your There was a lot that this defendant 10 mentioned that was properly included in his sentencing 11 submission. 12 and medical condition were important and needed to be brought 13 to my attention. 14 guidelines and the draconian multiplying effect of the loss 15 table. 16 Sentencing is an individual exercise. And his age And there's a lot that can be said about the But this defendant chose to place his emphasis 17 elsewhere. 18 morning, was that, quote, but-for, close quote, the special 19 counsel investigation he wouldn't have been charged in the 20 first place. 21 And his core argument, echoed by Mr. Downing this And that argument falls flat. It is certainly not unusual that investigators 22 uncover crime X when they're looking into crime Y. And the 23 perpetrators who get uncovered that way do not get a pass. 24 Saying I'm sorry I got caught is not an inspiring plea for 25 leniency. Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 75 of 91 1 75 First of all, it's entirely irrelevant to the 2 question before the Court, which is what sanction is 3 appropriate for the conduct he knowingly and willfully and 4 repeatedly engaged in, in violation of many criminal statutes. 5 And the number of times the argument was repeated, 6 notwithstanding the fact that it didn't have any bearing on the 7 question at hand, suggests that it wasn't being repeated for 8 the benefit of the person you were trying to persuade he had 9 accepted responsibility, but it was being repeated for some 10 other audience. 11 So I probably don't need to say too much about it, 12 but I do want to add that the second problem with the argument 13 is that it's not supported by the record. 14 investigation into Ukrainian lobbying was well under way before 15 the special counsel was appointed. 16 in the order denying the motion to dismiss. 17 special counsel's fault that the defendant chose to lie to the 18 Department of Justice again, even after the special counsel had 19 been appointed. 20 The DOJ I dealt with this in detail And it wasn't the The sentencing memo also includes a dramatic 21 paragraph about the execution of the search warrant, armed 22 agents who arrived at the house in the early morning hours and, 23 quote, searched high and low, close quote. 24 statements made at the time about agents breaking into the 25 home. It echoes public But when I asked you specifically in court if you had Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 76 of 91 1 any legal challenge to the manner in which the search was 2 conducted, the defense said no. 3 76 Also, the entire defense team knows perfectly well 4 that the tactic of using search warrants in white collar 5 criminal cases, certainly in the Eastern District of Virginia, 6 but also at other offices and at Main Justice, while it could 7 be the legitimate subject of a very fruitful policy discussion, 8 absolutely do not start with the special counsel or with Paul 9 Manafort, but has been an arrow in the government's quiver for 10 quite some time. 11 Finally, the no-collusion refrain that runs through 12 the entire defense memorandum is, similarly, unrelated to the 13 matters at hand. 14 importantly, close quote, or, quote, it is notable that, close 15 quote, the defendant has not been charged with any crimes 16 related to the primary focus of the special counsel's 17 investigation. 18 unsubstantiated causal link to the theme. 19 2017, unable to establish that Mr. Manafort engaged in any 20 Russia collusion, the special counsel's office charged 21 Mr. Manafort with crimes that did not relate to his work on the 22 2016 presidential campaign, close quote. 23 suggests, without foundation, that the individuals who received 24 relatively short sentences for lying during the investigation, 25 individuals who admitted it quite early, pled guilty, and lied The defense told me over and over, quote, At one point he added an entirely Quote, in October And the memorandum Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 77 of 91 77 1 about a narrowly circumscribed set of facts, received those 2 sentences because, as the defense put it, quote, Courts 3 recognize that these prosecutions bear little or no relation to 4 the special counsel's core mandate of the investigation 5 allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian 6 government to influence the 2016 election, close quote. 7 hard to understand why an attorney would write that. 8 9 It's That sentence, like the others, has no citation following it because not one of the judges involved stated at 10 the time they imposed sentence that they considered that to be 11 a factor in their sentencing decisions. 12 mantra is simply a non sequitur that doesn't bear on the 13 question of the appropriate sentence. 14 whether it's even accurate, since the investigation is as yet 15 unfinished and no report has been issued. 16 particularly persuasive to argue that an investigation hasn't 17 found anything when you lied to the investigators. 18 It is true to say this much: The no-collusion And it's not clear It's also not This defendant has not 19 been charged with any offense related to the election and he is 20 not being sentenced for any offense related to the election. 21 And, therefore, defendant's argument about the Russian 22 investigation is not going to affect my sentence, except in one 23 respect: 24 be happening to him, that the government had no right to 25 investigate him or charge him, and that the prosecution is The defendant's insistence that none of this should Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 78 of 91 78 1 misguided and excessive and invalid, after this Court and the 2 Court in the Eastern District of Virginia both found that he 3 fell squarely within the special counsel's mandate, is just one 4 more thing that's inconsistent with the notion of any genuine 5 acceptance of responsibility. 6 The sentencing statute tells me that the Court is 7 required to impose a sentence that's sufficient but not greater 8 than necessary to accomplish the purposes set out in the 9 statute. And it lists a number of purposes. I have to reflect 10 the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, 11 to provide just punishment for the offense. 12 adequate deterrence to criminal conduct by this defendant and 13 other people. 14 crimes by this defendant, and provide the defendant with 15 education or vocational training or medical care or other 16 correctional treatment in the most effective means possible. 17 I have to afford I'm supposed to protect the public from further I'm not sure we've fully reflected the seriousness of 18 the offense, imposed punishment for all the wrongdoing 19 involved, and we still have a way to go to see something that 20 looks like respect for the law. 21 With respect to protecting the public from the 22 defendant and the government argument that I need to be 23 concerned about deterring him and recidivism, I agree with the 24 defense that that goes a bit too far. 25 reputation and his business and financial wherewithal are in The defendant's Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 79 of 91 79 1 tatters. 2 here, his age and the forfeiture and the punishment that have 3 been exacted combine to make future illegalities seem 4 relatively unlikely. 5 It's not through anyone's fault but his own. But With respect to just punishment, the defense has 6 urged me to conclude that he's been punished enough. And it is 7 true that he's been confined since June of 2018. 8 definitely should, and the Eastern District of Virginia 9 sentence has already ensured that he will receive credit for And he 10 the time he's already served. 11 about his punishment, the solitary confinement, requires 12 context and clarification because it's not the first time that 13 that note has been struck in this case. 14 But the other recurring theme He is at the Alexandria Detention Center now, but how 15 did he get there? 16 a finding that there was probable cause to believe that while 17 he was on court supervision he attempted to obstruct justice 18 and interfere with witnesses. 19 finding. 20 under oath when he pled guilty. 21 violating the media contact order. 22 lawfully detained. 23 made the decision about where he should be placed. 24 25 This Court revoked his bond in June based on The D.C. Circuit upheld that And he's since specifically admitted to doing that He was not locked up for He was unquestionably And then a U.S. marshal, and not the Court, He was awaiting trial in the Eastern District of Virginia at that time. The marshal there selected Northern Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 80 of 91 1 Neck Regional Jail. 2 for our marshal also. 3 80 That would have been one of the options The other would have been D.C. jail. Northern Neck, in my view, presented real concerns 4 about the ability to confer with counsel and get ready for what 5 were then two upcoming trials. 6 that issue to me for action, the defendant presented it to the 7 Court in the Eastern District of Virginia in early July. 8 complained that given the distance from the District, 9 restrictions on electronic and phone communications, there was 10 a severe impact on his ability to prepare for trial and review 11 documents. 12 But before anybody presented He He also attached a brief in which he told the D.C. 13 Circuit, when he challenged my order, that he was in solitary 14 confinement, locked in his cell 23 hours a day. 15 the Eastern District of Virginia made the decision to promptly 16 alleviate those concerns by ordering -- not just 17 recommending -- that he be housed in the Alexandria jail. 18 The Court in Defendant realized that the tactic had backfired 19 immediately and turned around the same day and said never mind, 20 we respectfully ask the Court to permit me to remain at the 21 Northern Neck Regional Jail. 22 government filed its pleading that said, yes, he was housed by 23 himself, but he was housed in a private, self-contained living 24 unit in Northern Neck that included its own bathroom, shower, 25 phone, laptop, and access to a separate work room for review of It became clear why, when the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 81 of 91 81 1 material. And the defense, in its reply, conceded that the 2 government had not misrepresented the conditions, other than 3 disputing whether he was able to send email. 4 I'm not going to split hairs over whether the word 5 "solitary" was technically accurate because he had a room of 6 his own. 7 detention was are not in dispute. 8 disingenuousness on the part of the defense and the attempt to 9 garner public sympathy by repeating the term over and over But the facts about what the true nature of the And it was this 10 again that played a key role in how he got to Alexandria. 11 I think it's more spin and more lack of candor that has 12 characterized the relationship with the Court since day one. 13 And Once he got to Alexandria there have been no 14 complaints lodged with me regarding his confinement or his 15 access to or the quality of his medical care. 16 information had been provided to me by the defendant concerning 17 his classification, but he noted frequently in his submission 18 that he was in solitary confinement, solitary confinement. 19 I asked the presentence report writer to find out what the 20 situation was so I would have a complete and fair understanding 21 of it. 22 No official So And at bottom, the defendant was not in the SHU. I understand now that he is in protective 23 confinement. It is true that his cell is not shared, it has a 24 single bunk, it has a window, radio, newspapers, and view of 25 the television. It is true that he's released for only a few Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 82 of 91 82 1 of his waking hours every day out of that confinement to walk 2 around and be with other people. 3 released to mingle with the other 50 people in the general 4 population of a general local pretrial detention facility, a 5 jail, is so that he will only be with a smaller, more 6 restricted group of people for his own safety. 7 what all that was about. 8 9 But the reason he's not being So I'm not sure Mr. Manafort, I don't want to belittle or minimize the discomforts of prison for you. It is hard on everyone; 10 young and old, rich and poor. 11 representation that you've experienced flare-ups of the gout 12 that you were diagnosed as having before and that the symptoms 13 have worsened during your incarceration. 14 letter or medical record has been given to me so I don't know 15 what to make of it. 16 connection might be between the confinement and the 17 exacerbation of your symptoms, but I hope that you've 18 researched the quality of care before making a recommendation 19 about where you should be designated, which I expect the 20 defense will make at some point. 21 I also don't question the But not one doctor's I don't know how to understand what the The other thing the sentencing statute tells me I'm 22 supposed to do is I'm supposed to avoid unwarranted sentencing 23 disparities among defendants with similar records who have been 24 found guilty of similar conduct. 25 disparities, the defense points primarily to other regulatory With respect to sentencing Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 83 of 91 83 1 cases. But those involve, ordinarily, just a plain failure to 2 register, or a plain failure to reveal a foreign bank account. 3 They're not analogous. 4 to register -- to hide the existence of -- multiple foreign 5 bank accounts for the purpose of laundering millions of 6 dollars, shielding millions of dollars from the IRS. 7 They don't involve, as here, a failure But I do agree with the defendant that a guideline of 8 19 to 24 years, which -- I'm sorry, I do agree with the 9 defendant that the recommended guideline range of 19 to 24 10 years that he was facing in Virginia and he would have faced 11 here if the sentence hadn't been capped at five years on each 12 count overstates the seriousness of this offense. 13 The U.S. sentencing guidelines go up dramatically 14 with the amount of money involved. 15 the guidelines here because the guidelines exceed the maximum 16 that I can impose anyway. 17 versus United States, 522 U.S. 85, and other cases that would 18 even permit me to depart based on a policy disagreement with 19 the Commission alone. 20 I don't have to vary from But there is authority in Kimbrough It's also true that the tax counts and the foreign 21 bank account report aspects of this case have already been 22 sentenced. 23 And I can't and won't sentence him twice for that. So what sentence did he receive there for conduct 24 that is also embraced in the charges here? Counts 1 through 5 25 in the Eastern District of Virginia, filing false tax returns Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 84 of 91 84 1 in connection with money earned for his work as an agent for 2 the Ukraine, he was sentenced to 24 months each. 3 Count 12, failure to file foreign bank account report 4 in connection with money earned for his work as an agent in 5 Ukraine, he was sentenced to 30 months. 6 months' worth of his sentence has been based on overlapping 7 conduct. 8 9 So that's up to 30 Counts 25 and 27 were the bank fraud convictions, involving loans from banks that are not relevant conduct to the 10 offense of conviction here. 11 months, and then the Court ran them all concurrent to one 12 another for 47 months. 13 That was where he got the 47 Since the bank fraud, even if it is mentioned in the 14 pleadings in this case, is not an overlapping count, I do not 15 need to make my sentence concurrent to the entire 47 months 16 sentence from Virginia. 17 30 months. 18 But I believe I am bound to do so with Pursuant 5G1.3(b), I find that any sentence I impose 19 for Count 1 must be concurrent with 30 months of the Virginia 20 sentence because that's the extent of the overlap. 21 So what's left to me? I've got the regulatory FARA 22 piece of Count 1 and the money laundering. 23 that's covered by the Eastern District sentence and I think it 24 has to be addressed. 25 oversight, it's not a missing piece of paper. And I don't believe As I noted earlier, it's not a mere To the extent it Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 85 of 91 85 1 could or should have been treated as a mere administrative 2 matter, I think the defendant forfeited being able to rely on 3 that sort of discretion on the part of law enforcement by 4 having his lawyer lie to the Department of Justice twice on his 5 behalf. 6 I do note that the Eastern District of Virginia found 7 30 months to be an appropriate sentence for the other single 8 regulatory disclosure violation. 9 single failure to register; the defendant prevailed upon others And here, it wasn't just a 10 in the scheme not to register either, and he admitted under 11 oath at the plea that he caused them not to register. 12 Plus, we have the money laundering, which is a 13 separate offense, which hasn't been covered yet. 14 Count 2, obstruction of justice, which hasn't received any 15 consideration yet at all. 16 It is an entirely separate offense. And there's It's an attempt 17 to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and it warrants 18 a separate consecutive sentence. 19 think about what sentence would be appropriate in a situation 20 where, yes, there was a corrupt attempt to persuade, but there 21 were no threats, there were no payments, there was no harm to 22 witnesses. 23 That being said, I do have to The effort was largely nipped in the bud by the 24 witnesses themselves, who recognized the outreach for exactly 25 what it was, and it ended there. So there is some time due for Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 86 of 91 86 1 that offense, but I believe the full five years on that count, 2 which doesn't include any other conduct, would be greater than 3 necessary to serve the purposes of a criminal sentence. 4 Finally, I'm supposed to determine whether 5 restitution is warranted in this case. 6 order in this case already imposed by the Eastern District of 7 Virginia for $6,164,032, which represents the missing tax 8 revenue. 9 There is a restitution Do I need to impose that restitution order again in 10 this case, or should I simply say that paying it is a condition 11 of his supervised release? 12 separate order, in this case, of restitution? 13 MR. WEISSMANN: Does the government think I need a Your Honor, we would ask for a 14 separate order, but we would propose that the Court indicate 15 that, of course, it only needs to be paid once. 16 words, once the victim, in this case the IRS, is paid the full 17 amount, if it's over, it's double counting. 18 THE COURT: Okay. All right. In other For all of the reasons 19 that I've just set out, in an exercise of my discretion, after 20 consideration of all the statutory factors, I find that the 21 following sentence is to be imposed: 22 It is the judgment of the Court that you, Paul 23 Manafort, are hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of 24 Prisons for a term of 60 months on Count 1. 25 to run concurrent to 30 months of the sentence previously This sentence is Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 87 of 91 1 imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern 2 District of Virginia, which has already accounted for the 3 credit you are due for the time served. 4 87 It is further ordered that you are committed to the 5 custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 13 months on 6 Count 2, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count 1 7 and the sentence imposed by the Eastern District of Virginia. 8 9 10 Mr. Downing, are you asking that I make a specific recommendation as to where he be designated? MR. DOWNING: Yes, Your Honor. We made the request 11 in EDVA also, which was granted, to the federal prison camp in 12 Cumberland, Maryland. 13 THE COURT: All right. I will recommend in my order 14 that the Bureau of Prisons designate him to serve his sentence, 15 consistent with the recommendation of the Eastern District of 16 Virginia, at the federal prison camp in Cumberland. 17 You are further sentenced to serve a 36-month term of 18 supervised release on both counts, to run concurrently to each 19 other and concurrently to the term of supervised release 20 imposed in the Virginia case. 21 You are further ordered to pay restitution to the 22 Internal Revenue Service of the United States in the amount of 23 $6,164,032, but that amount only needs to be paid once to 24 satisfy the two restitution orders. 25 I'm going to decline to impose a fine, given the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 88 of 91 88 1 significant sums in the order of forfeiture and the order of 2 restitution. 3 assessment to the court. 4 of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of 5 Columbia. 6 the special assessment through your participation in the Bureau 7 of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. 8 9 You are, however, required to pay a $200 special It's immediately payable to the Clerk While you are incarcerated you can make payments on Within 72 hours of your release from custody you shall report in person to the probation office in the district 10 to which you are released. 11 possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon. 12 or possess an illegal controlled substance, and you shall not 13 commit another federal, state, or local crime. 14 While on supervision you shall not You shall not use You shall also abide by the general conditions of 15 supervision adopted by the U.S. probation office, as well as 16 the following special conditions: 17 §14135a, as for all felony offenses, you must submit to the 18 collection and use of DNA identification information while 19 incarcerated or at the direction of the U.S. probation office. 20 Pursuant to 42 U.S. Code You shall participate in a mental health assessment 21 and, if recommended, a treatment program, which may include 22 outpatient counseling as approved and directed by the probation 23 office. 24 It will be a condition of your supervised release 25 that you pay the restitution order in full, once, until the Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 89 of 91 1 2 89 $6 million sum has been satisfied. You shall provide the probation office with your 3 income tax returns, authorization for release of credit 4 information, and information about any business or finances in 5 which you have a control or interest until all the restitution 6 has been satisfied. 7 Mr. Manafort, you have a right to appeal the sentence 8 imposed by this Court if the period of imprisonment is longer 9 than the statutory maximum or the sentence departed upward from 10 the applicable sentencing guideline range. 11 appeal, you must file any appeal within 14 days after the Court 12 enters judgment. 13 appeal, you may request permission from the Court to file an 14 appeal without cost to you. 15 16 17 If you choose to If you're unable to afford the cost of As I understand, I believe at this point the government needs to make a motion to dismiss the indictment. MR. WEISSMANN: Yes. There are three underlying 18 indictments and we would move it dismiss, without prejudice, 19 the counts. 20 all of the underlying counts in the three indictments. I can name all the counts, if you want. 21 THE COURT: 22 So anything further I need to take up on behalf of 23 All right. But it's The motion will be granted. the United States at this time? 24 The order of forfeiture has been signed. 25 MR. WEISSMANN: And that is part of the sentence, Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 90 of 91 1 90 Your Honor? 2 THE COURT: Yes. It is now. It will be incorporated 3 in the judgment and commitment order as part of the sentence in 4 this case. 5 MR. WEISSMANN: 6 THE COURT: 7 All right. MR. WESTLING: 9 THE COURT: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is there anything further I need to take up right now on behalf of the defense? 8 10 Thank you, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. All right. * * Thank you. * Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 554 Filed 03/20/19 Page 91 of 91 91 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 3 4 5 I, JANICE DICKMAN, do hereby certify that the above 6 and foregoing constitutes a true and accurate transcript of my 7 stenograph notes and is a full, true and complete transcript of 8 the proceedings to the best of my ability. 9 Dated this 13th day of March 2019. 10 11 12 /s/________________________ 13 Janice E. Dickman, CRR, RMR, CRC Official Court Reporter Room 6523 333 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20001 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25