Trump Organization’s Accounting Firm Severs Ties Over Unreliable Documents

Espionage Act

Mazars, the international accounting firm behind the Trump Organization’s annual financial reports, said that the documents, which helped Donald Trump’s flagship company get lucrative loans, were unreliable. The Attorney General of New York said that the documents, which helped rub up Trump’s image as a successful and wealthy businessman, contained false statements.

Mazars USA LLP informed the attorney of the Trump Organization, advising it to inform others not to rely on the documents to assess the financial position of Trump’s company.

The firm revealed it was severing links with the Trump Organization, which was a high-profile client. The letter went public on Monday’s court hearing, and weeks after Letitia James the AG of New York said a civil investigation had uncovered incriminating data. 

It proved misleading and fraudulent valuation of the skyscrapers, golf clubs, and various other properties. These properties were used to receive huge tax benefits and loans.

Mazars Said They Found Trump Organization Financial Papers Unreliable

William Kelly, the General Counsel of Mazars said that though the firm did not determine that the financial papers were fraudulent, they could no longer be considered reliable. Alan Garten, Trump Organization’s Chief Legal Officer was informed about this development by Kelly.

Based on these revelations, William Kelly told Alan Garten that the accounting firm could not work with Trump any longer due to vested interest. Kelly advised him to appoint a different tax preparer.

Several tax returns are yet to be completed. The Trump Organization has expressed its disappointment that the firm has parted ways. But they believe that the firm has not found physical discrepancies in the statement released by Trump Organization.

Trump Organization stated that the letter endorses that a review of past statements has revealed that Mazars has followed every principle and standard of accounting and has not found material discrepancies. They interpreted the statement from Mazars to say that the firm had confirmed that the conclusion by the AG and the DA were disputable.