Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 190-1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 24 of 37 “loan” undermined his creditworthiness. As a result of the listed Peranova liability, Lender B was not willing to make the loan to MANAFORT. To circumvent this issue, MANAFORT and GATES caused MANAFORT’s tax accountant to send to Lender B back-dated documentation that falsely stated that the $1.5 million Peranova loan had been forgiven in 2015, and falsely inflated income for 2015 to mask MANAFORT’s 2015 drop in income. 36. In March 2016, Lender B approved the loan in the amount of approximately $3.4 million (the $3.4 million loan). C. The Loan From Lender C 37. In approximately February 2016, MANAFORT applied for a business loan from Lender C. MANAFORT made a series of false statements to Lender C. For example, MANAFORT submitted a false statement of assets and liabilities that failed to disclosed the Lender A loan on the Union Street property and misrepresented, among other things, the amount of the mortgage on the Howard Street property. 38. Further, in approximately March 2016, MANAFORT and GATES submitted a doctored 2015 DMI P&L that overstated DMI’s 2015 income by more than $4 million. GATES asked DMI’s bookkeeper to send him a “Word Document version of the 2015 P&L for [DMI]” because MANAFORT wanted GATES “to add the accrual revenue which we have not received in order to send to [Lender C].” The bookkeeper said she could send a .pdf version of the P&L. GATES then asked the bookkeeper to increase the DMI revenue, falsely claiming that: “[w]e have $2.4m in accrued revenue that [MANAFORT] wants added to the [DMI] 2015 income. Can you make adjustments on your end and then just send me a new scanned version[?]” The bookkeeper refused since the accounting method DMI used did not permit recording income before it was actually received. 24