I Answer Probing Questions About $1 Million Bronfman Wired to Me

Clare and Sara Bronfman

Bangkok asked me some reasonable questions in a recent comment.

I think they should be answered.

His comments and questions are in bold

Bangkok wrote: 

Frank, Your response in the post, I’m Proud of What I Did for Nxivm was a pretty good one.  You made it clear that Clare was no stranger to you.

You had been working with Clare & Keith for several months before the $1 million dollar payment was made. Plus you had already uncovered the fraud for her (i.e., you had already provided valuable services for her). That would have built up some trust. That’s a logical explanation for her wiring you the money. Thank you.

I’m assuming you want us to play devil’s advocate and ask what a curious jury member might wanna know.

Here goes…

Joe O’Hara made it clear that all of your bank accounts and companies were registered in your own name and SSN, thereby making it clear that you weren’t trying to hide any money from the IRS or any private persons that the government is ‘alleging’ you were trying to defraud using the Fedwire system (wire fraud).

Three questions though:

1) According to your previous posts, the final bank account which held the money was an interest bearing ‘escrow’ account, which presumably is not an account that has your name and SSN as the owner. Thus, I’d like you to elaborate on the details of this escrow account, including who owns it and who has the authority to decide when this money gets to be released to either you or Clare?


These two young ladies, Clare Bronfman [left] with sister Sara Bronfman-Igtet, did whatever Keith Alan Raniere told them to do.
Frank Parlato answers:

The bank accounts that held the $1 million that was wired to me by Clare and Sara Bronfman in January 2007, most certainly had my name and social security number attached.

Since August 2015, when the $1 million was seized by the DOJ, the money has been held by the US Marshals Office.  I understand the money is held in an interest-bearing account. When I am acquitted in my criminal case, the $1 million, plus interest, will be returned to me.

I will, of course, still have to win the civil lawsuit [Bronfman v Parlato] to have clear title to the $1 million.

The civil lawsuit, if it proceeds, will not take place until after my criminal trial. By that time, Clare Bronfman will likely be in federal prison. Sara Bronfman has consistently refused to return to the US which has prevented me from deposing her.

I doubt she will show up for the trial.

This suggests that the plaintiffs’ case may be dismissed with a judgment in my favor.  But even if it were fully tried, I am confident of victory.

2) Because you said it was an interest bearing escrow account, were 1099-INT forms issued in 2008, 2009, 2010 and beyond? Again, I just want more details on who reported that interest income on their tax returns for 2008, 2009, 2010 and beyond.

Frank Parlato Answer:

Any interest earned on the bank accounts that held the $1 million was reported on my personal income tax in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Since mid-2010 and until August 2015, [when the money was seized], I donated 100 percent of the interest earned on the $1 million to legal aid for low-income and underserved residents.

3) With regard to the dozens of bank accounts that you allegedly routed this money thru… Since they all had your name and SSN registered as the sole owner, what made you think that you’d gain ANY benefit by ‘obfuscating’ the flow of money thru these accounts?

The only real benefit (from obfuscating money thru dozens of accounts) is to ‘slow down’ the time in which civil litigants might find out where the money really went —– by creating the need for dozens of subpoenas for more and more bank account records, thus dragging this process out for as long as possible.

While certainly not illegal, a jury will want to know WHY you’d want to ‘slow down’ and ‘obfuscate’ any civil lawsuits from Clare or anybody else —– especially since your main ‘defense’ is that you were expecting a civil court to decide this matter and you were 100% willing to abide by its decisions.

Frank Parlato Answer:

The use of various bank accounts had nothing to do with the Bronfman litigation.

The purpose of using various bank accounts was to protect company and personal assets from a vexatious, dishonest, perjurious litigator named Shmuel Shmueli who was attempting a hostile takeover of a company I was the managing member of, called One Niagara LLC.

All accounts had my name and social security number attached – which means that there was no attempt, as the government falsely alleges, to impede the IRS. All taxable results of the use of the accounts were considered by my accountant and overseen by my lawyer so that the use of the bank accounts was incorporated on business and personal tax returns.

The government was misled by former AUSA Anthony Bruce on the merits of this case, as I soon will demonstrate to the world at trial.

It will expose how a corrupt prosecutor can get away with indicting an innocent person. In most cases, and I think it happens more than the public realizes – since there are truly no checks on prosecutors – that innocent person simply caves and takes a plea deal and lies to the judge in their allocution that they did something that they did not.

Why should we expect prosecutors, who are promoted by the number of convictions they achieve, to be more honest than say a senator, or a president, whether of a corporation or a country?

When did power not corrupt?  However, in fairness, I think Bruce’s successors are, unlike him, fundamentally honest. I think they’ll have a rather big and unpleasant surprise when they dive into this case and see the incredible injustice of it and how impossible their evidence is.

But it’s not for me to say what they will do about that.

I can only speak for myself.

My sole goal in opening various bank accounts had nothing to do with the Bronfmans [or impeding the IRS]. It was to prevent a dishonest litigator with no legitimate claim to the money, a man named Shmuel Shmueli, from Israel, from successfully making an application of attachment and getting the money and thereby cratering a Niagara Falls company that employed about 60 people.

By the way, I was successful. I ultimately won all 10 lawsuits Shmueli brought against the various companies I managed and against myself.

Shmuel Shmueli

Shmueli was a relentless, unprincipled, unpredictable litigator.

From 2007-2015, I was in constant litigation with him. He was billed, I estimated, more than $2 million in billable hours by various lawyers who represented him in suing me.

He stiffed most of his lawyers he retained to wage his litigation war that lasted over eight years.

He used different lawyers for different lawsuits conducted at the same time. At one time, he had five different lawsuits against me at the same time, in three different courts.

His affidavits were so suspect that his lawyers refused to sign the standard attorney verification forms.

He finally lost his last lawsuit in 2015.  My plan was successful. Shmueli never seized company assets or my money throughout the long years of his dishonest litigation.

Here is a list of lawyers who represented him on his lawsuits against me – all of whom later withdrew from representation and/or sued him [He also sued some of them as well.]

  1. Damon & Morey
  2. Anderson & Anderson
  3. Kloss, Stenger & Lotempio
  4. Zdarski, Sawicki & Agostinelli
  5. Steven Cohen
  6. Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel
  7. Andrew Lavoot Bluestone
  8. Kazlow & Kazlow
  9. Michael Paskowitz
  10. Newhouse & Yacoob
  11. Robert Coryl

I believe Shmueli earned his money to sustain himself over the years through litigation financing. He would get foreign investors to fund his litigation. The money he raised was supposed to go to lawyers.  But he made money by skimming off the top and stiffing his lawyers.

Even when he lost a lawsuit, he made money.


On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that you were simply holding the money in plain sight via an escrow account, thereby abiding by any future court’s decision on who that money belongs to. Okay, that’s logical.

But on the other hand, your lawyer (back in 2008) seems to have advised you to open up dozens of bank accounts to obfuscate the flow of this same money, thereby making it harder for civil litigants to find out where that money was located. ….Problem is, that kinda contradicts your first claim a little bit, unless you can explain it better for us.

You’re confusing the Bronfman litigation with the Shmueli litigation. The bank accounts were used to safeguard company money and my own personal money from the extremely dishonest Shmueli.

His lawsuits were separate from the Bronfman matter. Compared to Shmueli, the Bronfman-Raniere litigation techniques were pleasant and straightforward.

Although, curiously for a time, the Bronfmans and Shmueli had the same lawyer, William Savino, who happened to be a friend of the AUSA who indicted me, Anthony Bruce.

Savino finally had to ditch Shmueli when he did not pay his bills.

But during that interval before Shmueli stiffed Savino, things turned really nasty. It was Savino who, I believe, went to corrupt AUSA Anthony Bruce and got him to agree to indict me, regardless of the evidence.

I suspect Savino was bonused for this dishonest endeavor by the Bronfmans. I do not know if Bruce accepted a bribe.  I cannot say he did. He might have just wanted to indict an innocent man and do a favor for a friend who was certainly going to be enriched by it.

I believe, based on Bruce’s track record, that he did not care if someone was innocent. Ruining a person is ruining a person, why spoil it by ethics?

Besides, like another psychopath, Keith Raniere, I think Bruce preferred to indict the innocent.  It is much more thrilling than indicting the guilty.

All this will come out in the trial and the film that comes afterward. Believe me, Bruce will be one of the leading characters in it.

Like I did for Keith Raniere, I hope to bring former Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce the kind of fame he so richly deserves.

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • https://www.axios.com/trump-jessie-liu-treasury-us-attorney-838d1a3b-1d4d-414c-ac7d-77a7ba6d4edb.html

    Scoop: Trump pulls nomination for former U.S. attorney for D.C. to Treasury post
    Jonathan Swan, Zachary Basu
    Jessie Liu
    Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    President Trump is withdrawing his nomination for former U.S. attorney for D.C. Jessie Liu to serve as the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, a top position overseeing economic sanctions, according to two sources with direct knowledge.

    The big picture: Liu was confirmed in September 2017 to lead the largest U.S. attorney’s office in the country, overseeing a number of politically charged prosecutions that included the case against Trump associates Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and other spinoffs from the Mueller investigation.

    Liu stepped down from the U.S. attorney’s office last month after Trump announced his intention to nominate her to the Treasury position in December 2019.
    Liu was expected to stay in her position through her confirmation — with a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee scheduled for this Thursday — but was unexpectedly informed last month that Attorney General Bill Barr was replacing her with his close adviser Timothy Shea.
    She was informed that Trump was pulling her nomination Tuesday afternoon.
    Behind the scenes: This was “the president’s call,” according to a former administration official familiar with the situation. The decision, which was made today, has administration officials questioning the circumstances that led to Trump changing his mind — with the developments in the Roger Stone case today being the only new information they are aware of.

    Four career prosecutors from the D.C. attorney’s office withdrew from the Stone case after the Justice Department overruled them on a sentencing recommendation.

    President Trump continuing to drain and outsmart the filthy leftist swamp.

  • Hey leftists

    Prosecutor in Roger Stone case resigns after Justice Dept. backs away from sentencing recommendation

    prosecutors that resign like this ignored exculpatory evidence and engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Follow the money trail and connections of that prosecutor.


    Former “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett has been indicted by a special prosecutor in Chicago investigating allegations he bogusly reported being the victim of a January 2019 hate-crime attack, a source close to Smollett told
    ABC news

    This slimy fuck is going down.

    • Three of the corrupt shitstain prosecutors in the Stone sham and hoax have now resigned.


      Whole article worth the read, but here’s the paydirt:

      UPDATE: Aaron Zelinsky, the former Mueller operative behind the “grossly disproportionate” sentencing recommendation against Stone, filed notice in federal court on Tuesday afternoon that he was withdrawing from the Stone case and resigning from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office effective immediately. Aaron Zed, another disgruntled former Mueller operative, also resigned on Tuesday, as did Jonathan Kravis, an assistant prosecutor in the D.C. office.

    • Micheal Marando is the 4th to resign. House of Cards.

      Ya all member that the Black ledger was a fraud? Well that was based on the prosecution of Stone, well now the lie is out of the bag, many things will change in the DOJ, and hopefully jail time for the evil bassards who caused so much pain!

    • Yes Shmueli always started out with a decent retainer but with his aggressive litigation they soon used up the retainer and then began to bill him. That is when he started stiffing them. He was sued by one lawyer for more than $150,000. He paid one lawyer with a $50,000 check that bounced.
      He told lawyers he was a Rabbi and he represented a Hong Kong billionaire and that money was no problem. But when the lawyer lost – as they always did – he did not pay them.

        • Shmueli was a master con artist. He dangled representation of a billionaire – of which he was only his most humble Rabbi and servant. These lawyers all fell for it and, Scott, I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I have the retaining liens and the documents from the lawsuits. It’s not like this did not become public.

          • Legal bills pile up fast. It happens all the time. The lawyers are busy with other cases. Things spiral. A few weeks at 400hr. Not to mention many lawyers pad their bills.

            Shmueli is a pro, Scott. Why do you think he is not in prison after all these years? He is pro.

          • He was last heard of in Israel where he had [I’m not joking] commenced a lawsuit against his mother. He was suing her because she wanted to leave half of her estate to his brother and half to him. He wanted it all for himself. Again I am not kidding. There was a fight over changing the will – by Shmueli – at his senile mother’s bedside.

  • Not to complicate matters further but I think some of your more astute readers may be interested to know, factually, when, where and how NXIVM plays into this timeline.

    Jeffrey Peterson mentioned, for example, that Burke approached him with Emiliano Salinas to join NX and then, when Peterson declined, Salinas not only refused to do any business with Peterson but Peterson came under attack through slander, etc.

    Do you think your history of being a whistle-blower, political activist and propagandist (jk, lol) had anything to do with NX’s attempt to recruit and, ultimately, destroy you? Or do you believe it was all sheer coincidence?

  • The real wrongdoers in this case are in a legal system that allows hucksters to manipulate the courts and persecute the innocent.
    Since when does a just legal system allow itself to be used to persecute people who have committed no crimes?

  • You will lose your lawsuit to Clare and she is not going to prison. She will be vindicated. I can tell you this -the bullshit victim impact statements will be discredited by Mark and the sentence will be suspended.

    • A psychopath can write a bio on himself that is far from revealing or even honest. [think Raniere’s bio]

      But Bruce is not on trial. I am on trial. His evidence is false and dishonest. A jury will see that. It is not necessary that they conclude he is a psychopath to realize that the evidence he fabricated is nonsensical.

      Afterward, once I am acquitted, then there may be an investigation by law enforcement as to how so many fabrications were recklessly used to indict an innocent man. That’s not up to me.

      • Frank, the last few lines of the above article gave me the impression that Bruce’s character and his alleged psychopathic behavior would be referred to in some way as part of your defence.

        Obviously, that is not your plan, but it’s interesting to hear that you have plans to make a movie on this case. I don’t remember hearing about this before; was it mentioned previously on FR?

        • Flowers,

          When Bangkok trolls Frank, Bangkok does it in a outlandish over the top insult ridden monologue; clearly meant in jest. When you troll Frank, you are just being a mean spirited and spiteful cunt.

        • “Nice”🤔 guy
          Funny how you think asking questions (no insults in any of my post, is there?) is acting like a CUNT, but yet you can’t recognize your own behaviour.
          Is that projection?

          • Flowers-

            I am genuinely ashamed for calling you the “C” word.

            I don’t expect you will accept my apology, I am sorry all the same.

            I sincerely apologize.

      • An investigation by law enforcement as to how so many fabrications were recklessly used to indict an innocent man

        Get in line. General Flynn, Roger Stone, Carter Page…etc

      • Frank,

        “A psychopath can write a bio on himself [or herself] that is far from revealing or even honest.”

        Flowers should be able to understand better than anyone.

    • Flowers is, once again, displaying her ignorance in knowing how things work. Frank doesn’t have to discredit anyone. The government has to prove he is guilty of the charges laid against him. Judging from what has presented here by Joe and the answers Frank has given to Bangkok’s questions that isn’t going to be easy. It appears they’ve tried to use their strong-arm tactics of stacking the charges hoping for the a plea bargain acceptance against the wrong person. I’m so glad Frank is standing up for himself and not admitting guilt to something when he isn’t guilty. They’ve tried wearing him down and he’s held strong.

      • Anonymous is once again displaying their inability to read. I never said he needed to discredit Bruce. …I said his article (with claims that Bruce is a psychopath) gives the impression that could be the intention.

        Obviously, the case will judge on the evidence presented by both sides, and not by biased assumptions about someone’s character.

        • Pretending you are so balanced and logical still? That you are open-minded, open-hearted, interested in truth for its own sake?

          You must think everyone on this board has the brains of a rocking horse. Your intention, which is always sly, vindictive and negative, gives your game away every time, Flowers.

          • I’m curious now, Anonymous.
            What do you think is my intention, or my “game”, as you call it?
            So, you can post your opinions, but when someone posts a differing opinion, they must be playing a game?

  • Good article, Frank.

    The answers are very reasonable sounding.

    I think the WDNY has bitten off more than it can chew here.

    I’m just hoping that the judge allows you to present UNFETTERED evidence of:

    1) The WDNY relying on a person who offered perjured testimony about you on the record — even though Clare’s charges were eventually dropped.

    2) How the WDNY conveniently (and quietly) dropped all charges related to Clare when getting dozens of new, highly redundant charges ‘cooked up’ (to throw the kitchen sink at you) —— which conveniently happened as Clare was about to be indicted for being part of a racketeering enterprise.

    3) How the WDNY had a close relationship with Savino. …And to put in context — for the jury — the WDNY’s own ‘tacit’ motives for bringing this case (i.e., personal friendships & office politics can clearly be ‘inferred’ here).

    What I mean is, I hope that the judge allows you the ‘unfettered’ ability to present ALL of this evidence —- and to put this evidence in ‘context’ for the jury.

    I hope it’s all ruled to be relevant evidence.

    If I were on the jury and heard all of that evidence, I’d have an extremely suspicious view of the WDNY and their motives. …Especially since the other evidence in this case is all based on government ‘speculation’ about what your motives were.

    I hope the judge doesn’t exclude any of this stuff as evidence. I hope the judge is a fair guy.

      • You’re conflating two different outcomes regarding those who are charged with federal crimes. 97% of them take plea deals. Of the remaining 3% that go to trial, 80% are convicted.

        • I’m just repeating what I’ve seen here, that puts the guilty result from indictment to guilty at well over 99%. Lawyers don’t discuss with their clients what evidence will probably or probably not be admissible?

  • Frank-

    At first I thought Bangkok’s questions were kind of annoying; I have changed my mind completely. Bangkok’s questions will be the same questions the jury will have.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com