who gates new lawyers are. we will talk about that in a minute. a couple other specifics to know. in the first indictment, the one back in october, there were no charges of tax fraud against manafort and gates. that was interesting, especially those who are lay observers of these things, in that indictment in october, there was a ton of description of tax fraud, but no charges. so that led a lot of people to ask in november, if mueller has evidence about tax fraud, tax evasion, where are the tax evasion charges? they re here. they didn t charge him in october. but those tax charges are here now. they re in this one. and there s one more big question that this new indictment raises. the foreshadowing we got from the court about what was going to come in this indictment, sort of came in two stages the first was friday night. on friday night, manafort s team said they, excuse me, mueller s team, sorry, on friday night,
mueller s investigator said they have new evidence of new criminal conduct by paul manafort. they said in a filing about paul manafort s bail package, that there was bank fraud associated with some of the properties manafort had offered up to the court as his guarantee he wouldn t leave the country to avoid trial. that s why he s not in jail, he s out on bond, essentially became, saying, don t worry, i won t flee the country. part of how you know that is i m putting up $10 million of the property the court can see if i take off. so in a filing about manafort s bond package, on friday night, mueller s team was like we see big bank fraud problems here. those allegations appear to be what s in this indictment to you. so there is a little foreshadowing on friday night this morning then the judge formally requested, excuse me, formally rejected a request by paul manafort related to his
bail package, now, there are dozens of criminal charges related to the properties manafort put up as a part of his bail. that s what s in this indictment. because mueller s team is raising all these questions about these properties, about them being basically obtained by fraudulent means, that does not mean paul manafort is at risk of having his bail package, bond package revoke. the reason you put up a bond pack annual is to say you don t need to put me in jail. you can have all of this property, that s very valuable, all of these assets, if i take off, those property and these assets are so valuable, obviously, i would never take off. you can be assured. if there is no problem, there a chance palm manafort will have his bail revoked? it is a possibility now we got this new indictment the court will put him in jail awaiting trial stay with us.
but it s kind of a failing scramble. now, there are legal questions to get through here. we ll get some help with those. but the plot line question to get through is for me it s been a sticky question from the very beginning. why was paul manafort offering to work full time for free? at all? especially why was he doing that? given what we now know was going on in his finances at the time? this indictment describes a two-part scheme the first will be the first indictment, the first wrath of charges against him. the first part of the scheme, according to this diernlths takes place between approximately 2006 and 2015. during that time quote manafort and gates generated tens of millions in income as a result of their ukraine work. now the special counsel alleges, most of this was in the first indictment. mueller s office alleges that the money that they made in
military veteran, nor does he have anything to do with:. the $16 million they gave him in loans, that was huge chunk, like a quarter of the total loanable assets of that bank. nbc reported yesterday that people that work at that bank questioned the propriety of those loans at the time. nbc also reports that mueller is investigating those loans and that quote, at least one of the bank employees who felt pressured into approving the deals is cooperating with mueller s investigators. the wall street tourn u journal reports what mueller is investigating specifically is the question of whether those loans were a quid pro quo. did that bank give that money to manafort because by doing so, the head of that little bank came to believe that he would be appointed secretary of the united states army by donald trump. quote, steve calk, the chief