What were the charges against Donald Trump that led to his convictions?

1. The core charge: falsifying business records in New York — what prosecutors said

Manhattan prosecutors charged that Trump falsified business records to hide a payment to Stormy Daniels that they say was intended to influence the 2016 presidential election; a jury found him guilty on all 34 counts after a six‑week trial that ran April–May 2024 (34 counts; concealment of payment to Stormy Daniels) ^{[4] [1] [5]}.

2. The factual thread the prosecution emphasized: the $130,000 payment

Reporting and court filings noted the case centered on a $130,000 payment tied to Daniels’ silence about an alleged 2006 encounter; prosecutors portrayed the bookkeeping entries as altered or falsified to conceal the true purpose of that transaction during the 2016 campaign (payment to silence adult‑film actress; concealment as part of campaign‑related activity) ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Defense arguments and competing legal theories

Trump’s team argued the transactions were ordinary business dealings or editorial decisions and mounted constitutional defenses after the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity ruling, saying some evidence reflected official acts and should have been excluded — a theory they have used to seek reversal of the conviction (argument that payments were ordinary business transactions; immunity argument on appeal) ^{[1] [7]}.

4. Sentencing, relief and post‑conviction developments

Although convicted in May 2024, sentencing was repeatedly postponed; Judge Juan Merchan ultimately granted an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025 — a sentence that leaves the felony conviction on the record but imposes no fines, incarceration or further penalties — and appeals and legal briefs have continued to press challenges to the conviction (delays; unconditional discharge on Jan 10, 2025) ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Government and court reactions beyond the trial — who weighed in

The U.S. Department of Justice (through a friend‑of‑the‑court brief) later argued the conviction should be overturned on grounds including improper evidence and federal preemption, indicating the federal government has at times sided with arguments for vacating the conviction; appellate judges have ordered further review of how the Supreme Court’s immunity decision affects the state case (DOJ friend‑of‑court brief seeking reversal; appellate review ordered) ^{[8] [2]}.

6. Why the charge mattered politically and legally

Prosecutors framed the falsified records as part of a scheme to conceal conduct that could have influenced the 2016 election; defense and some federal actors have countered that the case improperly stepped into presidential conduct and was affected by higher‑court immunity rulings — creating a clash between state criminal enforcement and broader constitutional claims that has driven appeals and federal involvement (prosecutors: election‑influence theory; defense and DOJ: immunity/preemption concerns) ^{[1] [7] [8]}.

7. What available reporting does not address or leaves unresolved

Available sources provided here do not mention detailed forensic accounting evidence presented at trial beyond summary findings, do not include the full appellate records or final resolution of appeals as of the latest items cited, and do not provide the text of every judicial opinion resolving the immunity and venue questions — those specifics are not found in the current reporting set (not found in current reporting).

8. Bottom line for readers: the legal label and its real‑world outcome

Legally, the conviction was for 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree tied to efforts to conceal a hush‑money payment; practically, the conviction remained on the record but resulted, after litigation and delay, in an unconditional discharge under Judge Merchan’s January 10, 2025 sentence, and the matter remains subject to appeals and higher‑court review (34 counts; conviction remains on record; unconditional discharge Jan 10, 2025; appeals ongoing) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.