Mark Shaffel’s Lawsuit Amount Reduced to $1.6 Million

On Thursday, Mark Shaffel testified in court that to buy an apartment for Michael in Brazil, he withdrew $300,000 from his bank account in Budapest and transferred it to Brazil, but in return he did not receive a receipt from Michael. Shaffel claims that Michael has not yet paid him this amount.

When Michael’s attorney asked Shaffel whether he had a receipt proving payment of such an amount, Shaffel handed him a paper. But after a brief private conversation between the judge and the defense attorney, the judge decided not to show that paper to the jury members.

Outside the courtroom, Howard King, Shaffel’s attorney, told reporters that the paper was a bank slip related to a withdrawal from a bank in Brazil.

In court, Shaffel provided more details. He said that at first it was supposed to be him withdrawing some money from his personal account and, by opening credit in a bank in Brazil, buying an apartment device for Michael at that location. But then he withdrew that money again from the Brazilian bank and transferred it to Argentina.

The lack of a receipt that could prove Shaffel was owed $300,000 by Michael was used by Thomas Mandle, Michael’s attorney, as an example of the large figures Shaffel claims without having sufficient documentation.

In court, Shaffel said this happened at a time when Michael was involved in the trial of his charges from last year, and this caused him not to request a receipt from Michael in exchange for the amounts he lent. Shaffel added that he never imagined Michael would not repay his money.

Mandle pointed out that Michael did not have the slip related to opening credit at the bank and never withdrew from the bank, but Shaffel had done so.

Shaffel, who had worked for Michael on various projects for three years, had claimed that Michael owed him $3.8 million, but after this court session ended, his attorney said that the lack of necessary documentation about the receipts, along with some limitations and agreements made, caused him to reduce the claimed amount to $1.6 million.

When asked by King whether he would still have filed the case if he had known that the amount of Shaffel’s lawsuit would be reduced by more than half from $3.8 million, King answered: “We would have filed it differently.”

Mandle said Michael decided not to be the target of such accusations anymore.

Shaffel also testified in court that he did not receive receipts for the millions of dollars he lent to Michael.

On the same day, Mandle showed the accounting offices prepared by Mark Shaffel to the jury members and made them aware of the discrepancies in the recorded numbers.

Shaffel also testified that at the beginning of their collaboration, Michael gave him $2 million to handle financial matters and discussed with him producing a charity song.

Shaffel also testified about his $500,000 claim in court. He said that after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York, he lent Michael $500,000. Shaffel continued that after the attacks, Michael was trapped in New York and, looking for a way to escape that city, he rented a bus and, in a phone call with him, said he needed money to set up a shelter underground for himself.

Shaffel added that Michael went to his house by bus and kept the money with himself.

Michael’s attorney called this story a lie and added that a $500,000 figure was recorded on September 18 of that year and it related to transferring money from Mark Shaffel’s bank account to another bank account of his.

At the end of this session, another part of the recorded video tape of Michael’s testimony about this case was shown to the jury. In the video, Michael said he has poor memory about his financial accounts. He described Shaffel as a man with fresh ideas.

Michael also said in this tape that in November 2001, after seeing a video someone gave him showing Shaffel directing a gay pornographic film, he became disappointed with him:

“What shocked me was that he was involved in this kind of activity, and I wasn’t aware of it. It surprised me.”