How did Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg justify elevating falsifying business records to felonies in the Trump case?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Alvin Bragg justified treating 34 counts of falsifying business records as felonies by invoking New York Penal Law §175.10, which upgrades a basic falsification misdemeanor to a felony when the defendant falsifies records “with intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” and by alleging that the false entries were made to conceal multiple other unlawful acts tied to a 2016 hush‑money scheme . Bragg’s filings and public statements framed the falsifications as part of a calculated cover‑up—aimed at hiding payments that could influence the election—while critics and defense lawyers have contested whether the alleged “other crimes” (especially federal campaign‑finance violations) can properly serve as the felony’s object offense .
1. The statutory mechanism Bragg relied on: elevating misdemeanor falsification to felony
New York law makes basic falsifying business records a misdemeanor but contains an explicit elevator: Section 175.10 permits a felony charge if the falsification is done to commit or conceal another crime, which also extends the statute of limitations and increases penalties; Bragg’s indictment is built squarely on that language . Bragg’s office charged all 34 counts under §175.10, arguing each alleged false entry in Trump Organization records was not an isolated bookkeeping mislabel but instead part of a broader concealment effort tied to the hush‑money payments .
2. What “other crimes” Bragg said the falsifications concealed
In his public explanation and in court papers, Bragg identified multiple potential object offenses that the record‑falsifications served to hide: violations of federal campaign finance law under FECA, state election law violations, tax offenses, and additional falsifications of business records . Bragg emphasized the political context—asserting the payments and the false entries were designed to keep damaging information from voters during the 2016 election—which fed the argument that the falsifications were committed to conceal crimes that went to the heart of the electoral process .
3. The factual presentation Bragg said supported the felony theory
Bragg told reporters and pointed to documentary and testimonial evidence showing a pattern: payments to Michael Cohen and AMI (publisher of the National Enquirer) were routed and described as legal expenses or routed through shell entities rather than disclosed as reimbursements connected to the Daniels payment, which the prosecution presented as demonstrative of intent to conceal . The prosecution argued the falsified entries were not mere bookkeeping errors but deliberate misdescriptions designed to hide the underlying payments’ true purpose and destination .
4. Legal challenges and skeptical viewpoints about the theory
Defense lawyers and some scholars argued the theory was novel and potentially vulnerable because it relied on using federal campaign‑finance violations as the concealed “other crime,” raising questions about federal preemption and whether a state statute may be bootstrapped to federal law—contentions that courts grappled with and that produced divergent takes among judges and commentators . Critics also noted that prosecutors could instead rely on state election law or tax crimes as object offenses to avoid the FECA preemption question, a path Bragg’s office identified in filings and Lawfare analysis .
5. Prosecutorial discretion, risk, and the political backdrop
Supporters framed Bragg’s decision as a proper exercise of local prosecutorial authority: falsifying business records can and has been used to punish white‑collar concealment and public‑integrity harms, and Bragg argued that Manhattan—home to global finance—has a heightened interest in accurate corporate books . Detractors framed the move as politically charged and legally risky, arguing it reflected an aggressive expansion of state law into federal political‑finance terrain and courting appellate reversal; commentary across outlets and legal forums reflected both praise for the office’s courage and concern about overreach .
6. Bottom line: Bragg’s justification and the unresolved legal fault lines
Bragg justified felony-level falsification by tying each allegedly false entry to an intent to conceal broader criminality—campaign‑finance, state election law, tax, or other falsifications—and by invoking §175.10’s text and an evidentiary record he said proved that intent; the approach forced courts to decide difficult questions about object offenses, federal‑state boundaries, and the limits of a book‑keeping statute when used to police election‑related concealment . While juries and some courts have accepted the theory in this instance, the legal scholarship and defense challenges captured in the record show that the strategy remains contested and legally consequential .