Freidman has managed taxi cabs for Cohen for years. At one point, Friedman was one of the largest operators of taxi medallions in completely new York City.
CNN reported last month of which prosecutors are interested in Cohen’s financial dealings using a husband as well as wife who own a large tax business in Chicago.
Freidman was arrested last June on charges of which he as well as another business partner stole more than $5 million in state surcharges of which are imposed on taxi rides in completely new York City.
nevertheless the amount of taxes he pleaded guilty to evading was much less than of which, just $50,000.
Often in cases involving an agreement to cooperate with prosecutors, a defendant is usually allowed to plead guilty to a charge of which is usually much less serious than the initial one lodged.
The criminal investigation of Cohen in completely new York, which was referred by Mueller to prosecutors there, is usually focused on his business dealings, as well as on a $130,000 payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.
Daniels, whose real name is usually Stephanie Clifford, has said the money was in exchange for her agreeing not to speak to reporters about an affair she claims to have had with Trump in 2006.
The White House has denied Trump had an affair with Daniels. nevertheless Trump did reimburse Cohen for the payment to her, according to a recent financial disclosure filing.
Cohen has not been charged by prosecutors. However, his office, home as well as a hotel room where he had been staying were raided last month by FBI agents.
After of which raid, he as well as lawyers for Trump as well as the Trump organization have raised concerns in federal court in Manhattan of which material seized from the raids of which might be subject to attorney-client privilege protections might be improperly seen by the prosecutors investigating him.
Judge Kimba Wood has appointed a so-called special master to review of which material to avoid privileged documents by being seen by prosecutors.
On Tuesday, Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, in a letter to Wood said he suspects of which audio recordings relating to Daniels are being leaked to media outlets by Cohen or Cohen’s own legal team.
Avenatti also requested of which she ask Cohen’s lawyers about these leaks at a hearing scheduled for Thursday.
the item is usually not clear what audio recordings or media outlets Avenatti was talking about.
Lawyers for Cohen did not immediately return requests for comment by CNBC.
Avenatti’s letter comes as Cohen’s lawyers are opposing his request to be admitted to Manhattan federal court for the purpose of representing Daniels there. Because Avenatti is usually not currently admitted to federal court in completely new York, he needs a special “pro hac vice” admission for Cohen’s case
In his letter to Wood, Avenatti wrote:
“We write to bring an important matter to the Court’s attention. We have reason to believe of which plaintiff Michael Cohen, or members of his team, have begun to leak select audio recordings to the media of which were seized from the FBI raids. We further have reason to believe of which these recordings may relate to our client, Ms. Stephanie Clifford. We think of which these select leaks are meant to paint a false narrative relating to Mr. Cohen as well as his business
dealings at the same time he is usually not disclosing numerous some other recordings of him speaking with individuals such as Mr. Trump.
We respectfully request of which the Court make inquiry of Mr. Cohen’s attorneys of these leaks at Thursday’s hearing, including, among some other things, whether Mr. Cohen’s team is usually thesource of the leaks, what was disclosed, as well as the reasons for the disclosures. Such leaks might plainly call into question the seriousness of Mr. Cohen’s arguments opposing my pro hac vice motion. They may also directly interfere with the privilege review being conducted by the Special Master. Further, if the materials publicly disclosed relate to our client, the disclosures might also have relevance to our motion to intervene.”