So, Defendant-1 committed (ALLEGEDLY) the very crime of tax evasion that the Comer Clown Committee is trying to hang on Hunter Biden with the help of SC Weiss. The gob, she be smacked (/s).

Rayne mentioned the Chicago Tower in this post:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/07/01/drive-for-show-putt-for-dough-trumps-accountants-putting-method-revealed/

Exactly.

WS: […] One odd item I noticed about the Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC springing loan on Trump’s OGE form was that it listed the interest as “prime +5%”

This seemed unusual to me because Trump had other intercompany loans in Scotland that were all interest free [LINK to a September 2020 WS THREAD][…]

RIP Bill.
And enjoy the view of your red&gold team from above!

It was, Molly, and I followed the score incredulously.

Kind of the opposite of the Warriors meltdowns we’re all too accustomed to by now.

Wiggins is absolutely a drag on the team at this point, but with his huge contract and sporadic play he’s basically untradeable – except to a team looking to unload an big expiring contract.

It is not cash, but it was on his financials which he would present as “evidence” as to his financial net worth if that ever came up in fight over his ability to pay.

Remember what Trump said about his compiled (no outside accountants’ opinion provided) financial statements in trial before Judge Engoron, “lenders to me, beware”?
An audit is done to make sure that internal controls are sufficient to prevent “material” fraud, etc. and do not assure that there is no fraud, etc.
Well, here’s commentary on audited (a high level of accountants’ opinion, but no assurance as to material fraud, etc.) financial statements:
A recent court case involving BDO USA’s audit of AmTrust Financial Services questioned the value of external audits. In the case, as columnist Blake Oliver writes, the appeals court found that the audit opinion was so general that a reasonable investor couldn’t be expected to rely on it. It’s true that the audit has long been simply a kind of pass/fail test, but the court’s decision casts doubt on how material the auditor’s opinion should be when it comes to safeguarding investors from fraud. Much of the boilerplate language in typical audit opinions seems to be a way of avoiding legal liability. In this case the court indeed found that the investors’ “claim that these statements were knowingly and verifiably false when made does not cure their generality, which is what prevents them from rising to the level of materiality required to form the basis for assessing a potential investment.” However, as a general matter, this seems to negate the value of the audit as a way of uncovering fraud and other financial chicanery. Although the ruling was limited to this one case and won’t necessarily set a precedent, it does present a troubling example of how audits are perceived by a federal appeals court and perhaps the wider public.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has been trying to make sure that auditors get tougher and don’t merely do a superficial job in examining their clients’ financial statements….
Accounting Today

I don’t know what all this means, but here it is.

True, I just felt that even in audited financials it’s still “buyer beware”.
Article: https://view.newsletters.arizent.com/messages/1706547613498721c67c71366/raw

[Moderator’s note: Put some effort into cleaning up URLs you share in comments so that EW community members’ privacy isn’t violated. All of this:

is tracking bullshit which tells the accounting company that YOU shared their NEWSLETTER which was part of an advertising CAMPAIGN from May 3, 2021 sent to YOU by EMAIL, and likely a bunch more about your device, your browser, and the users which followed the link are then linked to YOU personally through this site. Cut it off and check the link in your own browser before sharing it. /~Rayne]

The problems with url tracking info, properly marking quotations, and keeping them within fair use guidelines are mentioned here almost weekly, which might explain my curt tone.

Those who rely on audits should assess the capabilities of the firm rendering the audit and read the audit, including all of the fine print and footnotes. Often there will be a section on scope and methodology.

When you say “Trump”, readers should understand, he’s not preparing any of these statements.
He or his higher up financial people are telling subordinates, directly or indirectly, what they want to see, or not see, on those statements.
Or the financial higher ups and/or subordinates may be doing it on their own to, maybe or not, like let’s say screw him.
He, like most of us, wouldn’t know what we’re looking at.

Most definitely fraud.

Kise did do some objecting along the way, but maybe I’m thinking of the NYS prosecution. Either way, I would have expected some cross-training.