Michael Cohen wasn’t the only one.

The court filing in the case of Cohen, president Donald Trump’s self-described fixer, indicates for the first time that others at Trump’s company had a role in the financial arrangements used to silence women who claimed they had affairs with him, after the hush money payments were made.

Two senior Trump Organisation executives had involvement in the financial arrangements, according to the 22-page court filing.

Separately, one or more members of the 2016 Trump campaign were cited as having worked to identify stories about Mr Trump’s romantic entanglements “so they could be purchased and their publication avoided,” the filing said.

Cohen, the filing said, “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls,” about the nature and timing of the payments, which were made to influence the election.

The people are not identified in the documents.

It is unclear whether they face any sort of legal risk, but the filing does raise questions about the conduct of the Trump Organisation itself.

Cohen paid Stephanie Clifford, an adult film actress, $130,000 (£100,000) to ensure she would not speak publicly about an affair she said she had with Mr Trump, and he was then reimbursed through the Trump Organisation.

Michael Cohen's lawyer says he will not accept pardon from 'criminal' Donald Trump

The court filing, which outlines campaign finance violations and other crimes to which Cohen pleaded guilty, traces the reimbursement through the company.

It begins when Cohen requested it, submitting a bank statement from a shell company he created to mask the payment’s connection to Mr Trump, and ends with the Trump Organisation’s monthly disbursements to Cohen.

The reimbursement was processed using unusual accounting practices, a nonexistent retainer agreement, and equally unusual tax decisions, helped along the way by Trump Organisation executives who, it seemed, at best, looked the other way.

A representative of the Trump Organisation declined to comment Wednesday.

Cohen said in federal court in New York City on Tuesday that Mr Trump had told him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 campaign to keep them from going public about affairs they said they had with Mr Trump. Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance law, as well as tax fraud and making false statements to a bank related to his personal business interests.

Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Show all 16 1 /16 Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions New York Post Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The Washington Post Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Newsday Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions St Louis Post Dispatch Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Chicago Sun Times Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The Star Ledger Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Daily News Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The New York Times Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions San Francisco Chronicle Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The Boston Globe Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Houston Chronicle Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Miami Herald Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions Detroit Free Press Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The Wall Street Journal Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions The Dallas Morning News Trump's presidency: US media reacts to Manafort and Cohen convictions USA Today

Cohen made the statement about Mr Trump’s role in the payments to the two women – Ms Clifford and a former Playboy playmate – as he pleaded guilty to two campaign finance crimes.

One of those charges stemmed from the $130,000 payment he made to Clifford, who is better known as Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 presidential election.

Prosecutors said Trump Organisation executives were involved in reimbursing Cohen for that payment, accepting his phoney invoices that listed it as a legal expense. The other charge concerned a complicated arrangement in which a tabloid bought the rights to the story about the former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, then killed it.

Jenny Johnson Ware, a criminal tax lawyer in Chicago, called the Trump Organisation practices highly unusual.

“I think the allegations reveal that executives in the Trump Organisation – more than one, and not clear how many more than one – were involved in funnelling the payments to Stormy Daniels and may have significant legal exposure as a result of that,” she said, even though their actions came after the fact.

“Obviously, they are trying to hide something,” she added. “There’s a normal way to do this and then there’s the way they did it.”

The company recorded the reimbursement to Ms Clifford as legal fees, which legal experts characterised as unusual.

Cohen paid Clifford $130,000, but he was ultimately reimbursed $420,000 (£326,000) by the Trump Organisation.

Here’s why: Cohen received a $60,000 (£46,000) bonus, and the company allocated about $180,000 (£139,000) to cover the taxes that Cohen had to pay on the hush money.

There was also an additional $50,000 (£39,000) that Cohen received after putting in a claim for “tech services”.

That related to work Cohen “solicited” from a technology company during the campaign, the court filing said.

Several current and former prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers said that if the officials at the Trump Organisation were aware of what the payments were for, they could possibly be criminally culpable.

And they said if the $420,000 in payments to Cohen, which were recorded as legal expenses, were written off as a tax deduction, as would be the general practice, it could lead to criminal tax charges.

But one person with knowledge of the company’s operations and familiar with the details surrounding the payments said neither of the two executives were aware of what the payments were for and the payments were not deducted from the Trump Organisation’s taxes.

The person said only the first two of the 12 monthly $35,000 (£27,000) payments to Cohen were paid by a trust that owns the company; the other 10 were paid from Mr Trump’s personal accounts.

But the person, who would only discuss the payments on the condition of anonymity, could not say who approved the reimbursement; why it was approved if no one knew what it was for; why the payments were recorded as legal expenses; and why, even though they were recorded as such, they were not deducted from the company’s taxes.

Mr Ware said, “It would be highly unusual to record it as legal fees and then not deduct it.”

The court papers and the officials who announced the case did not address whether Cohen’s guilty plea brought the investigation to a close or whether it remains ongoing.

Indeed, a staple of law enforcement news conferences – a senior official intoning, “the investigation is continuing” – was noticeably absent Tuesday when the deputy US attorney, Robert Kuhzami, concluded his remarks announcing Cohen’s guilty plea.