Just a “bookkeeping error.”
That’s how Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has characterized the crimes alleged in the indictment of former President Donald Trump. In fact, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal other crimes. Politics no doubt animates some of the more hysterical responses to the charges. But they are also a good reminder that people of all political stripes too often dismiss the seriousness of so-called white-collar crime.
Offenses committed by the business elite can be just as serious as those committed by street criminals.
In reality, offenses committed by the business elite can be just as serious as those committed by street criminals. In fact, I would argue that in some cases, white-collar crime is more egregious than crime committed by destitute people desperate for cash. These are crimes often motivated by greed, instead of need.
And minimizing white-collar crime also ignores its victims — individuals and our society at large. The category includes investment fraud, like the scheme perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, who wiped out the life savings of some of his clients. It also encompasses cases of public corruption, as with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who, among other things, tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, preparing to leave the people of Illinois represented by the highest bidder rather than by someone who would best serve their interests. Far from “bookkeeping errors,” these kinds of crimes can cause financial ruin and undermine the foundation of democracy.
Which brings us back to Trump’s alleged crimes. According to Bragg, Trump falsified business records to conceal hush money payments. He did this, according to Bragg, to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The statement of facts filed with the indictment alleges that Trump paid off two women, believed to be former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, to keep secret their claims of sexual relationships with Trump. In addition, the statement of facts alleges that Trump paid a Trump Tower doorman to conceal claims that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. While these payments alone are not crimes, concealing them is.
According to the indictment, Trump orchestrated a scheme with others to “purchase negative information” about Trump “to benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.” The alleged scheme involved shell corporations and a complex series of financial transactions to disguise the payments as legal fees. According to the charging documents, the false records violated election and tax laws. And the goal was to keep information about a presidential candidate secret, thereby potentially altering the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and the course of American history.
But even if the alleged scheme did not cause any voters to change their minds, the financial crimes are a serious matter. According to Bragg’s announcement of the charges, “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct.” In other words, if we allow everyone to lie in their business records, then business markets will collapse because no one will be able to rely on them. Bragg noted that this crime is one that the Manhattan DA’s office charges on a regular basis.
That sounds like a pretty clear and compelling motivation. So why in America do we still minimize these types of felonies?
That sounds like a pretty clear and compelling motivation. So why in America do we still minimize these types of felonies? In my experience as a former federal prosecutor, sentences in white-collar cases are often far less severe than the sentences handed down in drug cases, which often carry significant mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. White-collar criminals and their advocates argue they do not present risks to physical safety, making imprisoning them unnecessary. But criminal punishment is intended not only to incapacitate defendants for public safety. It also serves to deter others from engaging in the same misconduct. If business executives and politicians see that their colleagues get slaps on the wrist or even passes, they are incentivized to engage in the same kind of conduct. Without the risk of serious penalty, why not cheat with impunity?









