“Mazars’ decision to stand down was clearly the result of the AG and DA’s vicious bullying tactics being used – also on other members of the Trump Organization,” Mr. Trump said in his statement. “Mazars, who was scared beyond belief, in conversations with us, made it clear he was willing to do or say anything to stop the constant threat that had plagued them for years.”

He pointed out that in his letter advising the Trump Organization that its 2011-2020 financial statements “should no longer be relied upon,” Mazars also said he had not concluded that the statements, as a whole, contained “significant differences”. The company said, however, that “the totality of the circumstances”, including its own investigation of the financial statements, led it to conclude that they were unreliable.

Mazars did not respond to a request for comment.

The somewhat muddled nature of Mazars’ explanation makes it difficult to assess the motivation and potential legal implications behind his decision to part ways with Mr. Trump. Lynn Turner, the former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said new information Mazars has become aware of may require revision of its previous financial statements. Although these original statements contained numerous disclaimers, the taking of material new facts could leave the company vulnerable to a lawsuit.

“They won’t publish this letter otherwise,” he said.

In addition to signing Mr. Trump’s financial disclosure statements, which were used primarily when seeking bank loans or other credit, Mazars also prepared his tax returns, although the company did not raised doubts about them in his letter.

Intentionally filing false tax returns with the government is a criminal offense, and there is no evidence that prosecutors are pursuing it. As such, Mr. Trump’s tax returns have long been considered the most accurate representation of his financial situation.

The New York Times in 2020 obtained decades of information on the tax returns of Mr. Trump and his companies, which revealed that despite all his claims of business acumen and high net worth, he had in fact lost money for many years, had huge bank loans coming. and faced a long-running IRS audit that could cost him $100 million. He often paid little or no federal income tax.