Deutsche Bank Tells 2nd Circuit It Has Tax Returns of at Least 1 Trump Entity
The bank wrote in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it had the tax returns of someone, or multiple people, targeted by congressional subpoenas, but redacted any identifying information.
August 27, 2019 at 04:06 PM
6 minute read
Attorneys for Deutsche Bank told a federal panel of judges Tuesday afternoon that the company has in its possession copies of the tax returns of at least one member of President Donald Trump's family or business entity owned by the family, but did not publicly state whose financial documents they were.
The bank indicated that it had tax documents for either the president or one of his three eldest children, who have played key roles in his business dealings.
A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is expected soon, could allow Congress to obtain those filings and other financial documents of Trump or his children.
The bank wrote in a letter to the Second Circuit that it had the tax returns of someone, or multiple people, targeted by congressional subpoenas, but redacted any identifying information.
Those subpoenas, issued earlier this year, asked Deutsche Bank and Capital One for documents related to the finances of Trump, and his three eldest children: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump.
Deutsche Bank wrote in the letter to the Second Circuit Tuesday that it had the tax returns of at least one of those individuals, and also documents related to parties not named in the subpoena who may be considered immediate family.
An attorney for Capital One wrote, in a separate letter, that the company did not possess the tax returns of any of the individuals named in the subpoenas.
The federal appellate court is currently considering whether to uphold a decision handed down earlier this year by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York, who declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the subpoenas at the time.
During arguments before the Second Circuit last week, attorneys for Deutsche Bank and Capital One refused to say whether they had copies of the president's tax returns. When pushed by the federal panel on the question, those attorneys said they were barred by contractual obligations.
Deutsche Bank is represented by Raphael Prober from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. Capital One is represented by James Murphy from Murphy & McGonigle in Manhattan.
Both financial institutions, but Deutsche Bank in particular, have been used by Trump and his three eldest children to borrow significant amounts of money in recent years.
As part of an investigation into foreign influence on the federal government, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee served a series of subpoenas on Deutsche Bank and Capital One earlier this year. They're seeking the financial records of Trump and his family, along with other documents.
Trump, who was represented before the Second Circuit by Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy, has argued that the subpoenas were served with no other purpose than to target him politically. They're asking for the subpoenas to either be thrown out or narrowed, though Ramos declined to do either in his ruling three months ago.
Instead, Ramos issued a decision from the bench affirming the power of Congress to conduct investigations, though he said the subpoenas were "undeniably broad."
"Put simply, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process," Ramos said.
He said, during his decision, that Trump and his children were unlikely to succeed in the litigation on their arguments that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to issue the subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
Attorneys for Trump are asking the Second Circuit to reverse that decision, which could send the lawsuit back to Ramos for further proceedings. During a hearing last week, they argued that Congress was improperly taking on the role of law enforcement, rather than a legislative body.
During the hearing, Strawbridge called the subpoenas the "broadest possible subpoenas ever served that target a sitting president."
Douglas Letter, general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, argued that the subpoenas had a legitimate purpose for Congress. They were part of a broader effort to investigate money laundering and foreign influence on the U.S. government, according to Letter.
If allowed to stand, the subpoenas would allow Congress to obtain several of the president's financial documents, but it was unclear during the hearing whether that would include his tax returns, or those of his family.
When asked whether they were in possession of those tax filings, attorneys for both Deutsche Bank and Capital One said they couldn't say as much in open court.
Second Circuit Judge Peter Hall, who appeared to grow frustrated at the answer, had asked the attorneys whether they would have to seek legal intervention over the query.
"Do we have to go to court to seek an order?" Hall said. "I'm serious."
The end result was an order handed down by the Second Circuit Monday evening requiring attorneys for both financial institutions to file a letter saying whether they had copies of the president's tax filings or not.
It's not the only litigation directed at revealing the financial information of Trump, who broke decades of tradition by refusing to disclose copies of his tax returns during his run for president in 2016. Since then, Democrats have been seizing at opportunities to learn more about his finances.
The U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee, for one, issued a subpoena to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, after his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that the president may have previously inflated the value of his assets to financial institutions.
That subpoena was upheld by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., and is currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A decision is expected soon.
New York Attorney General Letitia James has also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank based on the same testimony, but there has yet to be any updates on those inquiries.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readEx-Moody's GC Gets 8 Months in Prison for Not Filing Tax Returns on $54M in Income
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250