Paul Manafort bank and tax fraud trial moves to final arguments as defense lawyers rest

Kevin Johnson | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Defense in Paul Manafort's fraud trial rests case The defense in former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's tax and fraud trial has rested its case without calling any witnesses. AP's Chad Day explains. (Aug. 14)

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Lawyers for Paul Manafort told a federal judge Tuesday that they would offer no witnesses in defense of the former Trump campaign chairman in his bank and tax fraud trial. That moves the case directly to final arguments, which are scheduled to begin Wednesday.

“The defense rests,” Manafort attorney Kevin Downing told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III.

Ellis then questioned Manafort directly, asking whether he was provided adequate counsel before the decision.

“I have, your honor,” Manafort said as his wife, Kathleen, looked on from the front row of the packed gallery.

Asked whether he had decided to offer testimony on his own behalf, Manafort answered without hesitation.

“No, sir.”

Downing later told reporters that the defense made its move because the government had "not met its burden of proof"in the financial fraud case.

Earlier Tuesday, Ellis rejected a request by the defense for a directed verdict of acquittal.

More: Key takeaways as the prosecution prepares to rest

More: Six bombshells from Rick Gates' testimony

For the closing arguments, each side is likely to get two hours. The jury could begin deliberations as soon as Wednesday afternoon.

Prosecutors rested their case against Manafort on Monday. During 10 days that featured more than two dozen witnesses and dozens of exhibits in the case, the government asserted that Manafort's pursuit of a lavish lifestyle was fueled by millions of dollars in unreported income stashed in foreign bank accounts and fraudulently obtained bank loans.

Up to $16 million in unreported income allegedly moved through those offshore accounts, mostly based in Cyprus.

The trial has attracted packed galleries to the federal courthouse each day. Ellis set a brisk pace for the proceedings, the first case to come to trial as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Though the Manafort prosecution is not related to Russia's election meddling, the case is an important initial test for Mueller whose legitimacy has been repeatedly questioned by President Donald Trump and his supporters.

Manafort faces 18 criminal counts of bank fraud and tax evasion, in part related to accusations that he failed to reveal the foreign accounts to federal tax authorities.

He could face up to 305 years in prison if convicted on all counts in Virginia. He'll undergo a second trial on related charges next month in Washington.

Tuesday’s court session was delayed by two hours as prosecutors and defense attorneys huddled privately with Ellis.

In the request for acquittal, defense attorney Richard Westling focused the bulk of his argument on the testimony from current and former officials of a Chicago bank that provided Manafort $16 million in loans in 2016.

Westling said there was no evidence of fraud as witnesses testified that they were aware questions had been raised about Manafort’s income and a long delinquent American Express card debt of more than $210,000 but moved forward with the loan, anyway.

Both officials testified that Federal Savings Bank chairman Steve Calk, who sought a role in the Trump campaign, took an active role in expediting Manafort’s loan application.

Ellis rejected the defense request, saying it was an issue for the jury to decide.

Before recessing Tuesday, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judge hashed out the language Ellis will use in jury instructions Wednesday.

Prosecutors won at least one compromise: the judge agreed to amend the instructions to indicate that comments he made during the trial should not be considered as evidence by the jury.

The government has taken issue with the judge's comments on more than one occasion, including an outburst when he learned that a government witness had been allowed to sit through the testimony of other witnesses in the case. Ellis later conceded that he had been wrong, as he had previously authorized the witness to be present in the courtroom.