Legal News
Page: 85
RuPaul’s Drag Race and We’re Here star Shangela has denied allegations in a civil suit filed by a former production assistant on the latter series claiming that the drag star (born Darius Jeremy “DJ” Pierce) drugged and raped him after a 2020 wrap party.
“I can’t begin to explain how hurt and disgusted I am by these totally untrue allegations. They are personally offensive and perpetuate damaging stereotypes that are harmful not only to me, but also to my entire community,” Pierce said in a statement to Billboard on Friday (May 5).
The statement came in reaction to a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday in which Daniel McGarrigle, a We’re Here production assistant, claimed that Pierce sexually assaulted him in February 2020 after a wrap party for the fifth episode of the HBO reality series featuring several Drag Race contestants, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“An external investigation into this embittered individual’s claims previously concluded that they were completely without merit,” Pierce continued in the statement. The performer added of the new filing, “No one should be fooled: It has no basis in fact or in law, and it will not succeed.”
Pierce added, “As a hardworking and outspoken drag entertainer for more than a decade, I know that I am far from alone in battling ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, all of which played a role in the filing of this complaint. That is why I will fight this entirely meritless lawsuit and not allow it to destroy me and those I love, or harm the causes we all stand for.”
According to THR, McGarrigle alleges in the suit that during party at a Ruston, La., restaurant/bar, Pierce was “heavily flirtatious” with him and bought him several drinks before allegedly suggesting that McGarrigle accompany him to his hotel to help get ready for an early flight. The suit then claims that McGarrigle vomited in the toilet after arriving in Pierce’s room, at which point the performer reportedly offered to get him water and let him lie down until he felt better.
The production assistant claims in the lawsuit he woke up later that evening to a cold liquid that “burned his eyes and nose” being poured on him that was described as a kind of “poppers” (aka amyl nitrite) before Pierce allegedly pulled down his pants and “overpowered” him.
In a separate statement shared with Billboard from producers Buckingham Television and HBO, the representatives for the series said, “Buckingham Television, the production company for We’re Here, received a complaint late summer 2021 regarding an incident that was alleged to have occurred in early 2020. Buckingham and HBO take the safety and well-being of personnel on our shows very seriously, and Buckingham immediately launched an investigation. The investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support these allegations.”
The suit claims that the alleged rape was an act of gender violence, and that McGarrigle suffered damages as a result, including “past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings and earning capacity, pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and embarrassment.” The legal action is seeking unspecified damages from Pierce and Buckingham.
A Manhattan federal jury on Thursday (May 4) cleared Ed Sheeran of allegations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” allowing the star to avoid millions in potential damages.
After a closely-watched trial before a packed courtroom, the seven-person jury issued a verdict that determined Sheeran had proved he didn’t infringe upon the copyright of the soul classic. Following the verdict, he briefly put his hands over his face in relief and hugged his lawyer, according to the Associated Press. As jurors left the courtroom, Sheeran quietly mouthed the words “thank you” in their direction. He then spoke for about 10 minutes with the plaintiffs, including the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye. They hugged and smiled with each other.
If he’d been found liable, Sheeran would have been facing millions in potential damages and could have been forced to change the credits on his song. After a jury verdict in 2015 that found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams‘ megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” the two stars were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
The verdict came nearly seven years after Sheeran was first sued by the heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year. (Gaye’s actual heirs, who won the verdict over “Blurred Lines” are not involved in the case.)
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other heirs of Ed Townsend said Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Tuesday with opening statements from both sides. Benjamin Crump, representing Griffin, told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song. But Sheeran’s attorney, Ilene Farkas, said Griffin had not right to monopolize the “exceedingly common musical building blocks” featured in both songs. “Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Later that same day, jurors then heard testimony from Sheeran himself, who strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he be allowed — over complaints from opposing attorneys — to offer additional context to defend his actions: “I feel like you don’t want me to answer because what I’m going to say is going to make quite a lot of sense,” Sheeran said.
One key piece of evidence during the trial was a video clip from a 2014 concert, in which Sheeran seamlessly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd. Crump called it a “smoking gun” against the star: “That concert video is a confession.”
But Sheeran and his lawyers said the video simply underscored the fact that he had done nothing wrong by using a basic set of chords that appear in many songs: “Quite frankly, if I’d done what you’re accusing me of, I’d be an idiot to stand up in front of 20,000 people and do that,” the singer said from the witness stand.
Later in the week, jurors heard testimony from Amy Wadge, who co-wrote “Thinking” with Sheeran (but isn’t named as a defendant), and Jake Gosling, who produced the song (also not named as a defendant). And both sides called their own musicologists — Lawrence Ferrara for Sheeran and Alexander Stewart for the Townsends — who offered dueling expert testimony about whether the similarities between the two tracks met the legal requirements for copyright infringement.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.
A federal judge in Georgia ordered the hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and its founder Jeffery Copeland to pay Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others $50 million for copyright infringement related to the streaming and downloading of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more, according to a settlement agreement filed Wednesday.
As part of the agreement, Copeland is also permanently forbidden from operating Spinrilla or any other website, platform or similar projects anywhere in the world.
The settlement this week stems from a six-year-old lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Recording Corporation and LaFace Records, alleging that Spinrilla and Copeland allowed users to stream and download unlicensed content.
Copeland founded Spinrilla in early 2013 as an app for approved users to listen to and discover “independent and emerging hip-hop artists.” When the music industry filed its lawsuit, Spinrilla had 19 million users, including 14,000 who could upload content to the platform, and around 1.4 million songs available on the platform.
Over the course of the case, the RIAA said it identified more than 4,000 songs by Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Kanye West and others that were infringed, and in late 2020, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg found Spinrilla liable for copyright infringement.
UMG, WMG, Sony Music Entertainment and Spinrilla did not respond to requests for comment.
As part of the agreement, Spinrilla will transfer the domain name for its service to the music industry companies, which they have agreed not to use.
A group of investors has filed a class action lawsuit against Adidas, alleging the sportswear giant knew about Kanye West‘s problematic “personal behavior” years prior to ending its partnership with the rapper but failed to warn them about it.
The complaint — representing people who acquired Adidas securities between May 3, 2018, and February 21, 2023 — also names Adidas’ former CEO, Kasper Rorsted, and CFO, Harm Ohlmeyer, as defendants, alleging the executives “employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud” investors and that the company “failed to take meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative financial exposure” in the event the partnership was terminated as a result of West’s behavior.
West is not named as a defendant in the suit.
Filed Friday (April 28) in U.S. District Court in Oregon, the lawsuit’s “substantive allegations” cite comments made by West (now known as Ye) dating back to 2018, including a notorious TMZ interview in which the rapper called slavery “a choice.” The complaint goes on to point out that Adidas “stuck by” West following his comments and includes excerpts from Rorsted’s 2018 interview with Bloomberg in which he said, “We neither comment nor speculate on every single comment that our external creators are making.” It also includes various offensive comments West directed at the Jewish community as well as his quote, “I can say anti-Semitic things and Adidas can’t drop me,” made during the rapper’s October 2022 appearance on the podcast Drink Champs.
On October 25, 2022, just days after the Drink Champs episode aired, Adidas ended the partnership.
The suit also alleges that Adidas failed to make investors aware that the rapper made “offensive remarks at Company premises” and that the company’s publicly released reports between 2018 and 2021 did not acknowledge “serious issues affecting the partnership” in their “Business Partner Risk” sections. The sections did, however, acknowledge that “improper behavior” from entertainers and athletes representing the brand could have a “negative spill-over effect on the company’s reputation.”
Pushing back on the allegations, Adidas said in a statement to The Associated Press on Monday: “We outright reject these unfounded claims and will take all necessary measures to vigorously defend ourselves against them.”
The suit makes mention of the initial “positive impact” of West’s partnership with Adidas, and the $1 billion worth of sales Yeezy shoes hit by 2019. The Yeezy brand — owned by West and licensed to Adidas — became a streetwear pillar and ushered in a new era of popular style. However, West’s insensitive comments and actions eventually overshadowed his artistic talent.
After the partnership ended, Adidas reported a $540 million loss in the fourth quarter of 2022, partially due to unsold Yeezy clothing and shoes. The company has also projected a total loss of $1.3 billion in “full-year revenue” for 2023 resulting from the unsold products.
Nearly nine years after Johnny Winter‘s death, a battle for control of the legendary blues guitarist’s music is being fought in court with allegations of theft and greed flying back and forth.
The legal fight pits Winter’s former personal manager and bandmate, Paul Nelson, against the family of the bluesman’s late wife, Susan, who died in 2019.
Winter’s in-laws say Nelson and his wife improperly took more than $1.5 million from Winter’s music business, including auctioning off some of the late musician’s guitars.
Nelson and his wife have countersued, saying Susan Winter’s siblings swooped in when she was medicated and dying of cancer and tricked her into giving them control of Winter’s music, stripping away Nelson’s rights as the beneficiary of Susan Winter’s estate.
The case was scheduled to go to trial in a Connecticut court in April, but was rescheduled for September.
At stake is ownership of Winter’s music catalogue, proceeds from record and merchandise sales and authority to approve any commercial use of his songs, the value of which is uncertain.
“The case is about preserving Johnny Winter’s legacy and vindicating and making sure the Nelsons haven’t improperly taken the moneys rightfully owed to the plaintiffs,” said Timothy Diemand, a lawyer for the Susan Winter’s siblings, Bonnie and Christopher Warford.
Nelson wants to be reinstalled as the beneficiary of Susan Winter’s estate.
“The Plaintiffs orchestrated the wrongful termination of Paul Nelson during a difficult time in Susan Winter’s last year of life,” the Nelsons said in a statement released by their lawyer, Matthew Mason. They said it was clear that both Johnny and Susan Winter wanted Nelson to be responsible for Johnny Winter’s music and legacy.
John Dawson Winter III was born and raised in Beaumont, Texas. He burst onto the world blues scene in the 1960s, dazzling crowds with his fast licks while his trademark long, white hair flew about from under his cowboy hat. He and his brother Edgar — both born with albinism — were both reknowned musicians.
Winter played at Woodstock in 1969 and went on to produce albums for Blues icon Muddy Waters in addition to his own music. In 1988 he was inducted into the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame.
Rolling Stone magazine listed him as the No. 63 best guitar player of all time in 2015. He released more than two dozen albums and was nominated for several Grammy awards, winning his first one posthumously in 2015 for Best Blues Album for “Step Back.” Nelson produced the album and also took home a Grammy for it.
Winter, who spent two decades living in Easton, Connecticut, before his death, battled heroin addiction for years and credited Nelson, whom he met in 1999, with helping him get off methadone, according to the 2014 documentary “Johnny Winter: Down & Dirty.”
Before he got clean, bandmates and friends said they were concerned because of his frail appearance and trouble talking. Nelson also credits himself with reviving Winter’s music career.
The Winters and Nelsons became good friends. Paul Nelson played guitar in Johnny Winter’s band and started running his music company beginning in 2005. Nelson’s wife, Marion Nelson, did bookkeeping for the Winters and the music business, according to legal filings in the lawsuit.
Winter died at the age of 70 on July 16, 2014, in a hotel room just outside Zurich, Switzerland, while on tour. Susan Winter and Paul Nelson have said the cause of death was likely emphysema.
Susan Winter was the sole beneficiary of her husband’s estate, which she put in a trust in late 2016. She named herself as the trust’s sole trustee and Nelson as the successor trustee, meaning he would inherit the rights to Johnny Winter’s music after she died.
But in June 2019, four months before her death from lung cancer, Susan Winter removed Nelson as the successor and replaced him with her sister and brother.
The Nelsons allege in their lawsuit that Bonnie and Christopher Warford got control by lying to their sister, wrongly telling her the Nelsons were mismanaging the music business and her affairs.
The Warfords’ lawsuit accuses the Nelsons of improperly taking more than $1.5 million out of Winter’s business “under the guise of royalty income, commissions, reimbursements, fees, social media expenses and other mechanisms, while obfuscating and misrepresenting these dealings to Susan Winter.”
They have also accused the Nelsons of taking three of Winter’s guitars, worth about $300,000 total, and selling them at auction without permission. The Nelsons deny the allegation.
“In short, this is the classic case of a manager taking advantage of an artist-client, and worse here, an artist’s surviving family,” Diemand wrote in a legal filing.
It’s not clear why Edgar Winter, a noted musician in his own right, was not involved in his brother’s estate after his death. Edgar Winter and his representatives did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.
The Warfords’ lawsuit is similar to one the Winters filed against Johnny Winter’s former manager Teddy Slatus for alleged financial wrongdoing around 2005. Slatus died in late 2005. It’s not clear what happened with the lawsuit.
“Johnny and Susan have been battling lawsuits all their lives, and still can’t rest in peace,” said Mary Lou Sullivan, who wrote a biography titled “Raisin’ Cane: The Wild and Raucous Story of Johnny Winter” published in 2010.
Both the Warfords, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Nelsons, of Weston, Connecticut, declined interview requests by The Associated Press.
Representatives from the Black Music Coalition (BMAC), the Recording Academy and SAG-AFTRA came together with Congressmen Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) on Capitol Hill Thursday (April 27) to reintroduce the Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act, a bill that would limit the use of song lyrics in court — a practice that disproportionately affects Black artists working in rap and hip-hop.
“Since the 1990s, there are hundreds literally hundreds of documented cases where prosecutors use lyrics as criminal evidence in court and this practice disproportionately affects rap artists,” said Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason jr. during a press conference announcing the bill’s reintroduction. “But this act is absolutely not just about hip-hop artists. Silencing creative expression is a violation against all artists and all forms of creative expression. The Restoring Artistic Protection Act affirms that every single artist, no matter the discipline, should be able to express themselves without fear of prosecution.”
SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher, who was also in attendance, advocated for the First Amendment rights of musicians. “Rap music actually is folk music, because folk music is the voice of the people,” she said. “I urge Congress to pass the RAP act to ensure fair and equitable treatment in the justice system.”
First introduced in July 2022, if passed, the RAP Act would be the first federal law to limit the use of lyrics in criminal cases.
Also participating in the press conference was 300 Elektra Entertainment CEO Kevin Liles, who urged bipartisan support for the bill: “For the first time in a long time, I have hope…in groups on the right and the left both saying that this is against the values of Americans.”
The revived interest in the issue of rap lyrics being used in court came about due to the May 2022 indictment against rappers Young Thug and Gunna along with dozens of others on RICO charges, with prosecutors claiming their group YSL was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta street gang called “Young Slime Life.” The 88-page indictment cited lyrics and music videos as evidence, including quotes from Young Thug songs including, “I never killed anybody but got something to do with that body” and “I killed his man in front of his momma.”
Though Young Thug remains in custody ahead of trial, Gunna was released in December after pleading guilty to a gang-related charge.
On the state level, a similar bill in California known as the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September. In New York, another bill known as “Rap Music on Trial” passed the state’s Senate in May but failed to secure a vote in the New York Assembly before the end of last year’s legislative session. Comparable bills are making their way through the sate legislatures in both Louisiana and Missouri.
“As a music creator myself, I know how important it is that we safeguard artists’ freedom to create at all costs, and to work to eradicate the biases that come with the unconstitutional practice of using lyrics as evidence, which disproportionately affects artists of color, and penalizes the creativity of Black and brown fields,” added songwriter-producer-artist Rico Love, who serves as chair of the Recording Academy’s Black Music Collective.
Love added, “Music makers are storytellers who have provided important insight into our country throughout history. We have the responsibility to protect them and their works of creative expression, which helped define American culture.”
The announcement of the RAP Act’s reintroduction followed the Recording Academy’s annual GRAMMYs on the Hill, a two-day event that honored Pharrell Williams, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bill Cassidy and connected music creators with members of Congress to advocate for the RAP Act, the HITS Act, the American Music Fairness Act and reform in the live event ticketing space.
Soulja Boy has been ordered to pay his ex-girlfriend $235,900 stemming from an assault and kidnapping lawsuit she filed against the rapper in 2020.
In court documents obtained by Billboard, the rapper, born DeAndre Way, must pay Kayla Myers $1,800 for “mental health expenses,” while the remaining $234,100 is for “physical and mental pain and suffering.”
According to Myers’ original complaint, the alleged assault and kidnapping occurred at the rapper’s Malibu home after a party in February 2019 and reportedly lasted six hours. Myers claimed she tried to leave but that one of Soulja Boy’s assistants prevented her from her doing so. She also alleged that Soulja held a gun to her head, issued numerous threats against her and at one point struck her with the firearm.
“Way held the gun to Ms. Myers’ head and told her she was going to die that night and she would not make it home,” the complaint read. “Way next instructed his assistant to take her in the garage and tie her up with duct tape.”
Billboard reached out to attorneys for Soulja Boy and Myers for comment but did not hear back by press time.
This isn’t the only legal hot water Soulja Boy has found himself in over the past few years. In March 2019, the rapper was arrested for violating his probation stemming from a 2014 weapons conviction. The following month, he received a sentence of 240 days behind bars and 265 hours of community service.
In March, the “Crank That” star was one of several celebrities charged by the Securities and Exchange Comission for promoting cryptocurrencies “without disclosing that they were compensated for doing so and the amount of their compensation,” according to an SEC announcement.
Fugees rapper Pras, accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies spanning two presidencies, was convicted Wednesday (April 26) after a trial that included testimony ranging from actor Leonardo DiCaprio to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply wanted to make money and got bad legal advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
Michel first met Malaysian financer Low Taek Jho in 2006, when the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. Low helped finance Hollywood films, including “The Wolf of Wall Street.” DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said Michel was donating the money on Low’s behalf, and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to investigators.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Michel also got paid to try and persuade the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there without registering as a foreign agent, prosecutors said.
On that charge, the defense pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. Sessions said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, the former attorney general said.
Attorneys for Ed Sheeran and his copyright accusers sparred before a Manhattan federal jury Tuesday morning, kicking off a closely-watched trial over whether his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s famed “Let’s Get It On.”
With Sheeran himself watching impassively, attorney Benjamin Crump repeatedly told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song.
“If you remember nothing else about this case, simply remember it is about giving credit where credit is due,” Crump said during his opening statement, occasionally speaking directly to Sheeran just feet away.
Teasing testimony that will unfold during the trial, Crump said he would show jurors “smoking gun” evidence: a much-debated video of Sheeran toggling between the two songs at a concert.
“That concert video is a confession,” Crump said.
Firing back for Sheeran was attorney Ilene Farkas, who told the jury during her own opening statements that Sheeran had “independently created” his song. And more importantly, she said, the only overlap with “Let’s” were his use of “exceedingly common musical building blocks” that cannot be “monopolized” by his accusers.
“Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Ed Sheeran arrives at Manhattan Court to testify on the copyright trial where he is accused of copying Marvin Gaye’s song, in New York, United States on April 25, 2023.
Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via GI
She said her clients had been “wrongly accursed of taking something they did not take,” and warned jurors that a verdict for Sheeran’s accusers would “change the what that songwriters are able to write.”
“We ask you not to let that happen,” Farkas told the jury.
Tuesday’s opening statements mark the start of a long-awaited trial in a copyright lawsuit filed way back in 2017 by heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year.
The case claims that Sheeran infringed copyrights by stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.” But the pop star’s lawyers say he simply used commonplace musical elements that are free for all to use.
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Monday with jury selection on Monday before actually getting under way with opening statements on Tuesday. Testimony is expected to run at least through Friday, meaning a verdict could arrive Friday or early the following week.
Testimony will continue on Tuesday afternoon, potentially with Sheeran himself taking the witness stand.
If found liable, Sheeran could be facing millions in potential damages. After a jury ruled that the 2013 megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
The case against a Fugees rapper accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies across two presidencies wound down with closing arguments Thursday (April 20) that capped off a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel is accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financer through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
“He willingly broke the law to line his pockets and generate access and influence at the highest reaches of government,” prosecutor Sean Mulryne said. “He wanted money. Lots of it. And he got it.”
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply got bad advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
“Mr. Michel is a proud American [and] entrepreneur,” said defense attorney David Kenner. “Mr. Michel was simply being himself – a connector. He saw an opportunity to make easy money for himself, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
The case is expected to go to a jury on Monday.
When Michel first met Low Taek Jho in 2006, the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. He helped finance Hollywood films, including The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said he was donating the money on Low’s behalf and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to prosecutors.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money-laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Prosecutors said Michel also tried to convince the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there.
“This case is about foreign influence, it’s about foreign money, and it’s about greed,” Mulryne said.
The defense also pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. He said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, said Sessions
“What happened in 2017 was not willful and it was not deliberate,” Kenner said.