What specific business records and bank documents were introduced at Trump’s Manhattan trial related to the $130,000 payment?

1. Bank statements showing Cohen’s payment to Daniels’ lawyer

In court, prosecutors displayed a bank statement that recorded Michael Cohen’s wire transfer of $130,000 to Keith Davidson, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, creating a direct financial record of the October 2016 payment that started the chain of reimbursements ^{[1] [2]}. That same bank-document evidence was used to show timing and flow: the October 2016 wire preceded the monthly reimbursement invoices Cohen later submitted to the Trump Organization and the checks processed in 2017 ^{[2] [6]}.

2. Michael Cohen’s invoices and the “retainer” paper trail

Prosecutors introduced a sequence of invoices Cohen sent seeking reimbursement—described in reporting as roughly 11 monthly invoices—that the Trump Organization recorded as payments for legal services under a purported retainer agreement ^{[6] [3]}. The invoices and associated internal records were central to the DA’s presentation that the payments were logged as legitimate corporate legal expenses rather than reimbursements for an election-related hush payment ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Trump Organization checks and accounting entries

Court materials and the DA’s statements highlighted checks processed through the Trump Organization that reimbursed Cohen and were entered into the company’s books as legal fees; prosecutors argued these entries were false business records created to conceal the true nature of the $130,000 payment ^{[3] [4]}. The Manhattan DA’s post-conviction announcement summarized that 34 false entries were made in New York business records to hide the initial covert $130,000 payment, and that each check was processed and disguised as payment for legal services ^[4].

4. Supplementary bank-document chains and related entries

Reporting also notes additional bank-document exhibits used to map reimbursements and related payments—coverage includes a presented bank statement showing more complex reimbursement calculations (for example, a filing that referenced a doubling of reimbursements that combined $130,000 and other amounts) and Cohen’s provision of bank records to Trump Organization executives while seeking repayment ^{[8] [2]}. These auxiliary financial records were marshaled to demonstrate not only the wire but also how reimbursements were structured and recorded afterward ^{[2] [8]}.

5. How prosecutors linked documents to criminal counts, and the defense response

Prosecutors tied the bank statements, invoices, checks and internal accounting entries to the statutory elements of falsified business records and to intent to influence the election, arguing the documentary trail showed concealment of a politically damaging payment ^{[5] [4]}. The defense contested the characterization: public reporting records Trump’s denials and framing of the reimbursements as legitimate retainer payments and common celebrity practice, and emphasized alternative explanations for the bookkeeping entries ^{[2] [7]}. The sources available here document what exhibits were shown and how prosecutors used them, but do not contain a verbatim, court-stamped index of every exhibit entered into evidence.

6. Limits of publicly available reporting and concluding assessment

Contemporary news accounts and the Manhattan DA’s summaries make clear the core documentary exhibits: Cohen’s bank statement showing the $130,000 wire, Cohen’s invoices seeking reimbursement, and Trump Organization checks and accounting entries logged as legal fees—materials prosecutors said together proved falsified business records to hide the payment ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Reported discrepancies and defense rebuttals are also on record, and reporters note that while these documents were central, public reporting does not always reproduce the complete court exhibit list or every accounting line relied upon at trial ^{[2] [3]}.