Which companies or LLCs were used to make the 2018 payment to Stormy Daniels and who controlled them?

1. How the payment was structured — a private LLC as a privacy vehicle

The payment to Daniels was executed through Essential Consultants LLC, incorporated by Michael Cohen on October 17, 2016, and used to effect a $130,000 transfer to Daniels’ attorney shortly before the 2016 election; reporting and later Cohen’s admissions place him as the company’s principal and the authorized signatory ^{[1] [2]}. The firm’s Delaware formation and use of aliases in transactional paperwork signaled an effort to obscure the parties involved, a detail emphasized by contemporaneous press accounts and legal filings ^{[1] [5]}. Essential Consultants functioned as the centralized vehicle for multiple post‑election transactions credited to Cohen, making it the legal and operational hub for the Daniels payment and for subsequent receipts from corporate clients who sought access or insights into the new administration ^{[2] [3]}. This structure allowed Cohen to receive and disburse funds under his company’s banner rather than as direct personal transactions, a fact that later fueled legal scrutiny over whether reimbursements were disguised campaign expenditures or legitimate consulting fees ^[2].

2. Who controlled the LLC — Cohen’s ownership and role

Michael Cohen controlled Essential Consultants LLC as its founder and authorized representative; federal court filings and Cohen’s guilty plea establish his central role in forming the company and executing the Daniels payment at the direction of a then‑candidate ^[2]. Cohen admitted to making the $130,000 payment and later acknowledged receiving reimbursements from the Trump Organization in monthly installments that totaled roughly $420,000 when counting a reported bonus and expenses, all of which were processed through accounting entries and retainer arrangements that the Organization later characterized differently ^[2]. The control question is straightforward in corporate terms: Cohen formed, managed, and used the LLC to initiate the transaction, while reimbursement flows came from entities tied to the Trump camp, creating a factual bridge between personal counsel activity and campaign‑adjacent payment streams ^[2].

3. Who else paid the LLC — corporate clients and disputed Russian ties

After the election, Essential Consultants received payments from multiple corporate clients, including AT&T and Novartis, which the companies say were for consulting and access‑related work; these receipts raised concerns because they coincided with the Daniels payment and because some payments came from entities with disputed ties to Russian interests ^{[3] [4]}. Michael Avenatti, representing Daniels at the time, produced a document alleging Columbus Nova paid roughly $500,000 to Cohen’s firm — an assertion that prompted immediate denials from Columbus Nova and questions about whether Viktor Vekselberg or foreign funding was involved ^{[3] [4]}. The existence of a $4.4 million tally of payments to Essential Consultants reported in contemporaneous documents intensified scrutiny, but corporate denials and conflicting explanations left open whether those funds reimbursed the Daniels payout or were independent consulting retainers ^[3].

4. Conflicting narratives and denials — companies, Coulomb Nova, and motives

Companies that paid Essential Consultants uniformly defended their contracts as legitimate consulting engagements, with AT&T saying it sought insights into policy and Columbus Nova denying that Vekselberg or foreign owners funded Cohen’s work; these denials underline a clash between allegations of covert reimbursement and corporate explanations of legal consulting ^{[3] [4]}. The alternative narrative — advanced by Avenatti and some press accounts — proposed that at least some corporate payments functionally reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels payment, potentially converting a hush‑money transaction into an incorrectly reported campaign or personal expense; prosecutors and special counsel investigators treated the pattern as a factually relevant lead warranting scrutiny ^{[6] [4]}. Evaluations of motive matter here: media and lawyers pushing the Russia‑link story may have had incentives to dramatize connections, while corporations had reputational motives to downplay any appearance of impropriety, creating a landscape of competing agendas around the identical payment records ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Legal outcomes and remaining factual contours

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign‑finance related charges tied to the Daniels payment and to other offenses, establishing criminal accountability for the payment process and Cohen’s role at Essential Consultants, while questions about who ultimately funded the payment and whether reimbursements were lawful remain contested in civil and criminal follow‑ups ^[2]. Investigations and reporting revealed reimbursements from Trump‑related entities and a complex ledger of payments to Cohen’s firm from corporate clients; prosecutors used those records to probe whether reporting or accounting violations occurred, but public corporate denials and the absence of conclusive public proof linking Columbus Nova or Vekselberg to the Daniels payout left parts of the chain contested ^{[2] [3]}. The factual core — Cohen’s control of Essential Consultants and his execution of the $130,000 payment — is established, while the attribution of funding sources beyond acknowledged reimbursements remains disputed and the subject of legal and journalistic inquiry ^{[1] [4]}.