FBI looking at Manhattan district attorney's office over potential undue influence in handling of cases: sources
Shayna Jacobs
The FBI is investigating revelations that Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. dropped cases after donations were made to his campaign. (Barry Williams for New York Daily News)
FBI agents are probing the Manhattan district attorney’s office over its handling of high-profile cases that were dropped once lawyers for the well-connected subjects made donations, the Daily News has learned.
Investigators have been quietly seeking information in recent months about decision-making by DA Cy Vance Jr. and his staff, sources with knowledge of the undertaking said.
The queries are centered on how things are handled in the office and who the major players are, the sources said. The FBI interest grew out of revelations that investigations were closed once lawyers representing the bigwig suspects made hefty donations to Vance’s campaign coffers, sources said.
The team has asked about current and former high-level staff members and their relationships to private law firms and outside agencies, sources said. Investigators are considering whether undue influence was at play.
The extent of the inquiry was not immediately known and it was not clear whether criminal charges were being considered.
Manhattan’s top prosecutor came under fire last year after questions surfaced about his office’s 2015 decision not to go after ex-Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein after model Ambra Battilana accused him of groping her breasts in his Tribeca office.
A lawyer hired by Weinstein at the time had given Vance $24,000 and another attorney sent him $10,000 after the decision to spare the powerful producer an arrest.
In another case, the DA also failed to bring criminal charges against two of President Trump’s children in an alleged real estate scam.
Vance’s office cleared daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr., who were being looked at for allegedly defrauding Trump SoHo investors and would-be buyers by lying about the number of condos that had been sold.
In 2012, Vance met with an attorney for the pair, Marc Kasowitz, who had previously given him $25,000. An additional $32,000 was donated after the office declined to prosecute Ivanka and Trump Jr.
Demonstrators denounced Vance in October 2017 for having failed to bring charges against Harvey Weinstein. (Jefferson Siegel / New York Daily News)
Vance returned Kasowitz's first installment prior to the sit-down. He gave back the second sum of cash in October 2017 after he was criticized for not going forward, and for taking the lawyer’s money.
Weinstein’s heavyweight Hollywood career crumbled in October 2017, amid the onslaught of the global #MeToo movement and multiple accusations of sexual assault from over a dozen women. Weinstein released a statement admitting that he “has caused a lot of pain” — but denies all allegations of assault and harassment.
After several Weinstein accusers came forward to share their stories, Vance’s office brought him up on charges pertaining to alleged sex assaults against two women in New York.
Vance spokesman Danny Frost on Tuesday said the office hadn’t been told of any scrutiny from the FBI.
“We are not aware of any inquiry,” he told The News.
Vance's office cleared Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. over allegations they cheated investors. (Alec Tabak for New York Daily News)
A spokesman for the FBI’s New York field office declined to comment.
In October 2017, after controversy first broke out over his handling of certain cases, Vance asked the Center for Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School to evaluate his campaign donation practices.
The organization made several recommendations, which Vance announced he would adopt, including that he would be unaware of his contributors’ identities and would not accept donations over $320 from attorneys who have clients with pending matters in Manhattan state courts.
The report cited “several reasons why campaign contributions to prosecutors, especially by defendants, persons under investigation, or lawyers representing parties to criminal proceedings, can be problematic.”
Large contributions “raise the possibility of actual corruption, where the prosecutor abuses his or her position in exchange for campaign contributions through a quid pro quo that could be criminal in nature… [and] there is the more subtle (and non-criminal) possibility that prosecutors who are aware of campaign donations might be unconsciously biased in favor of their contributors, even if those prosecutors believe that their decisions are entirely unrelated to the donations,” the report said.
Vance previously noted that “it’s not enough for me to have confidence in my independence from donors. The people of New York deserve to be confident about it as well.”