Manafort trial: Jury to deliberate after prosecutor accuses former Trump campaign manager of lying - as it happened

Prosecutor Greg Andres finished his closing argument by explaining to jurors how Paul Manafort had allegedly defrauded Federal Savings Bank to acquire $16 million in loans, largely thanks to the “guiding hand” of the bank’s chief executive officer, Steve Calk, who prosecutors say wanted a Trump administration post.

Mr also Andres showed jurors emails demonstrating what appeared to be Mr Manafort’s direct involvement in one of the doctored statements, as he looked to undermine any forthcoming defence argument about Rick Gates

Judge TS Ellis has previously raised questions with the legal teams about how Stephen Calk's bank couldn't have been defrauded because he wanted to give the loans and was the founder and a significant shareholder.

Mr Calk did not testify during the trial, and instead other Federal Savings Bank employees described to the jury how they suspected inaccuracies in Mr Manafort's loan applications.

A defence mention to dismiss the charges against Mr Manafort - which the judge ruled against on Tuesday - had focused on the four charges relating to Federal savings Bank, making the argument that Mr Manafort could not have defrauded the bank.

The defence is set to set to start its closing statement any minute - they are due to begin at 1.30pm ET.

Paul Manafort's attorney Richard Westling has begun his closing arguments for the defense.

Mr Westling and the defence have taken the stance the prosecution has a high burden of proof they have not met through several witness testimonies and exhibits of financial records. 

He painted a picture for jurors once again of Mr Manafort's “talent as a political consultant" and how he "endeavoured to serve" on the campaigns of several presidents from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump. 

Mr Westling then pointed to Mr Manafort's penchant for working in teams, following the line of the defence's opening statement which attacked his client's deputy on the campaign and longtime business partner Rick Gates. 

“He turned to other people to work together as a team, and had to rely on those people,” Mr Westling said. 

Mr Manafort's attorney said because of working in teams, he relied on Mr Gates for much of his work. 

He argued that posture was "not consistent" with a man intending to commit fraud and tax evasion, as the prosecution's charges allege. 

He also showed a bank credit document, estimating Mr Manafort's net worth as $21.6m (£17m) as a way of discrediting the prosecution's argument the former campaign chairman committed bank fraud in order to maintain his extravagant lifestyle.

Mr Westling claimed prosecutors had showed his client obtained the loans from Federal Savings Bank, but not that he specifically spent that money to fund, among other things, clothing purchases of more than $800,000 at various exclusive boutiques. 

“Given this evidence, how can we say he didn’t have money?” Mr Westling asked the jury. 

“Nobody came forward to say we’re concerned about what we’re seeing here, not until the special counsel showed up and started asking questions,” Mr Westling said to the jury. 

He pointed out the bank did not alert authorities about concerns regarding Mr Manafort's finances or loan applications. His loans of approximately $16m (£12.6m) are still outstanding and despite providing millions of dollars in real estate as collateral, the bank has not seized the property. 

Mr Westling also claimed special counsel Robert Mueller's team "cobbled together" pieces of evidence to indict his client. 

Mr Westling then criticised prosecutors for not calling more high-level witnesses like Steve Calk, president of the Federal Savings Bank, whom prosecutors alleged approved Mr Manafort's large loan in exchange for a political appointment from the incoming Trump administration. 

He did not explain why Mr Manafort's loan remained outstanding, however.

He also questioned why other members of the loan committee were not called to the stand. 

“It’s for you to determine what that means,” Westling said to the jury. He added: “It is not enough that wrong information or false information was given". 

Mr Manafort's attorney circled back to Mr Gates, who had testified he did not intend to defraud banks. 

Mr Westling said prosecutors did not prove there was any conspiracy to do so, claiming the government “failed to show an agreement to act collectively to defraud a bank.”

Mr Westling argued his client's actions only looked like a crime when looking back at the select few pieces of evidence the prosecutors chose to discuss in the courtroom. 

Prosecutors had presented a large cache of emails, but Mr Westling said examining anyone's emails without context could give the wrong impression. 

"What do those emails mean?” he asked the jury, imploring them to “rely on testimony.”