(Bloomberg) -- U.S. prosecutors rejected arguments that they acted for political reasons in delaying an indictment of Colony Capital Inc. founder Tom Barrack until after President Donald Trump left office.
Barrack, a longtime friend of Trump, asked a judge a month ago to dismiss charges that he illegally acted as an agent of the United Arab Emirates to influence U.S. policy before and after the 2016 election. Barrack claimed prosecutors waited until President Joe Biden took office to indict him and an aide, Matthew Grimes.
“Barrack offers nothing beyond baseless speculation in support of his claims,” prosecutors wrote Monday in federal court in Brooklyn, New York. “Any delay in bringing the indictment was the result of continued investigation and evaluation of the evidence.” Barrack, they said, “failed to show that the government acted improperly to obtain a tactical advantage.”
Barrack and Grimes were indicted last year along with a third defendant, UAE national Rashid Alshahhi, who remains at large. None notified the U.S. attorney general of their work for the UAE, prosecutors allege. Barrack and Grimes pleaded not guilty in July. Grimes had also asked to dismiss the case.
In their 95-page filing, prosecutors also rebuffed a variety of other arguments by Barrack and Grimes to dismiss the indictment.
Read More: Trump Ally Barrack Wants to Go Too Public in Court, U.S. Says
Barrack was released on a $250 million bail package, one of the largest in recent memory, while Grimes posted a $5 million bond. Alshahhi was originally charged by the U.S. in a sealed criminal complaint in 2019.
Prosecutors allege Barrack and Grimes engaged in a years-long scheme to try to shape the Trump administration's foreign policy in directions favored by the UAE, in part by developing a “back-channel line of communication” to U.S. officials. The UAE also “tasked” the men with trying to mold and influence public opinion through media appearances, prosecutors say.
The indictment accuses Barrack of lying about some of his activities in a June 2019 interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and obstructing justice. But Barrack's lawyers said the government could have charged those crimes then instead of waiting another two years.
Barrack attorney Daniel Petrocelli also argued there's no proof his client reached any agreement with UAE officials or received anything of value in return for acting on their behalf. Without such an agreement, prosecutors were criminalizing “core First Amendment activity” by his client, he said.
Prosecutors suggested Barrack may have known better than to spell out his lobbying role in a written contract.
“Most persons that engage in conduct at the direction or control of a foreign government without notifying the Attorney General try to obscure their relationship with the foreign government, and typically avoid memorializing that relationship in an agreement like a contract, because neither the agent nor the foreign government want their agreement to come to light,” the government said in Monday's filing. “This is not a new concept.”
©2022 Bloomberg L.P.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
