What charges led to Donald Trump's felony conviction in New York?

1. What prosecutors charged — a tightly framed criminal count that mattered in courtroom strategy

The indictment that led to the conviction centered on 34 separate counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony under New York law when done to conceal another crime. Prosecutors alleged that those records were altered or created to mask reimbursements and expenses tied to the $130,000 payment intended to secure silence before the 2016 election, and that the falsifications were committed with the intent to conceal an underlying unlawful act or to obstruct the detection of that act. These are not fraud counts like wire fraud or campaign‑finance statutes in name; they are focused on the integrity of business records and the knowing intent to conceal ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The factual core — money, a nondisclosure and a paper trail prosecutors say was altered

The prosecution’s factual narrative emphasized a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels and subsequent reimbursements to then‑lawyer Michael Cohen, which were recorded in company books and legal invoices in ways prosecutors say were false. The case presented entries and reimbursement sequences that the Manhattan District Attorney described as designed to hide the true purpose of payments — namely, to influence the 2016 presidential race by preventing damaging stories from surfacing. The indictment and trial documents framed this as a coordinated effort involving false entries to conceal both the payments and their political purpose ^{[4] [5]}.

3. The legal theory — why falsifying records became a felony in this instance

Under New York law, falsifying business records becomes first‑degree falsification — a felony — when done with intent to commit or conceal another felony. Prosecutors argued that the false records were created to conceal campaign‑related misconduct or other unlawful activity, elevating what might otherwise be a misdemeanor to 34 counts of felony falsification. The jury’s conviction indicates they found sufficient proof that the entries were not mere bookkeeping errors but were knowingly falsified with the requisite criminal intent to hide more serious wrongdoing ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Timeline and prosecutorial posture — how investigators tied records to an election context

The case unfolded around documentary evidence, testimony about reimbursements, and the paper trail connecting Trump, his lawyer Michael Cohen, and payments to Daniels. The Manhattan district attorney’s office characterized the scheme as aimed at suppressing potentially damaging information during the 2016 campaign cycle. Charging decisions and the indictment’s structure reflected a choice to pursue falsified‑records counts as the most direct statutory vehicle available to prosecutors given the documents and reimbursements they could prove in court ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Sentencing exposure and broader legal significance — what the counts carried and why the conviction is notable

Each falsifying‑business‑records count carried potential prison exposure under state sentencing guidelines, and the combined 34 counts underscored the scale prosecutors ascribed to the conduct. Beyond individual penalties, the conviction is legally notable because it marks a high‑profile application of business‑records law to campaign‑era payments, setting a precedent for how recordkeeping statutes can be used to address election‑related concealment in state courts. The prosecution framed this as accountability for the paper trail rather than a new federal election‑law theory ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Competing narratives and critical omissions — defense framing and what the record doesn’t resolve

Defense arguments at trial emphasized alternative explanations for bookkeeping practices and disputed prosecutors’ characterization of intent and electoral motive. Observers note that the trial focused narrowly on record entries and intent rather than broader federal campaign‑finance violations, leaving unsettled questions about how such state charges interact with federal campaign statutes and whether similar facts would produce different charges elsewhere. The record available in the materials cited shows a prosecutorial strategy built on documentary proof and intent findings, while the defense highlighted ordinary business practices and contested the inference of criminal concealment ^{[7] [6]}.