Specifically, the superseding indictment charges Manafort with subscribing to false income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (Counts 1-5); failing to file reports of foreign bank accounts, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314, 5322(a) (Counts 11-14); and bank fraud conspiracy and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349 (Counts 24-32).

The Government intends to prove:

Manafort failed to pay taxes on millions of dollars in unreported income from payments that he received into foreign bank accounts he controlled. He used that unreported income in those foreign accounts to pay for goods and services, purchase United States real estate and make improvements to and refinance United States properties.

Further, Manafort, after his income dropped precipitously in 2014, resorted to taking out bank loans through fraud, in order to maintain his expensive lifestyle. Manafort fraudulently secured more than $20 million in loans by falsely inflating his and his company’s income and by failing to disclose existing debt in order to qualify for the loans.

The Government wants to admit photos of Manafort's excessive lifestyle, and the judge so far is not buying the Government's argument that demonstrative evidence of Manafort's wealth and lifestyle are relevant to prove Manafort's intent and motive to evade taxes.

The Government is also using testimony of vendors who sold goods to Manafort to make their case. They argue:

The evidence of the vendor payments is relevant in several ways. The manner in which the expenditures occurred is relevant to proving that Manafort acted willfully. The funds used to pay the vendors came directly from the unreported foreign bank accounts where Manafort deposited his foreign consulting income. Thus, Manafort’s practice of paying his vendors directly with his offshore funds was designed to hide the underlying income from his bookkeepers and return preparers, and ultimately the IRS.

....The vendor evidence tends to establish that Manafort knew he had overseas accounts at the time that he filed his personal tax returns in which he stated that he did not have any such accounts. The fact that the foreign accounts were being used to pay for millions of dollars in personal items plainly makes it less likely that he forgot or made a mistake when he did not report the accounts. This evidence is thus also relevant to Manafort’s failure to report his foreign bank accounts on FBARs.

Where does Gates fit in? The Government states:

Further, that Manafort was personally dealing with the vendor payments, directing what personal items would be purchased and paid for from untaxed income, tends to negate one of the defense’s central arguments – that the vendor payments were made by Gates.

The Government also says:

The government must also show that the Manafort’s personal tax returns were false by failing to report personal income ....Evidence showing that Manafort directed the money toward his own purchases establishes the status of the money as income to Manafort as opposed to business expenses or benefits to some other third party.

The Government claims Manafort hit an economic slump in 2014 when his international business income fell off, leading him to commit bank fraud:

Finally, that Manafort had an expensive lifestyle that required lots of money to maintain is important proof as to why he would commit the bank frauds. When Manafort’s income declined in 2014, he resorted to bank fraud as a means to maintain his lifestyle. Indeed, the government is entitled to refute the common argument that a wealthy person has no need to commit bank fraud, by demonstrating that Manafort had grown accustomed to his material wealth. Accordingly, evidence of Manafort’s purchases, real estate, and real estate improvements is relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401.

The Government tells the judge in its brief that ".... presenting evidence of Manafort’s transactions entirely through witness testimony could expose the government to appellate risk."

The Judge also doesn't want the prosecution using the word "oligarch." He said it's pejorative. The Government filed a 23 page amended exhibit list today listing 451 exhibits. Some of the exhibits are memos to "oligarchs" like V. Yanukovych and Oleg Deripaska and R. Akhmetov. Manafort's tax returns for one of his an dhis wife's companies a $10 million loan from a Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska is a metals magnate who is reportedly close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Shorter version from Bloomberg News:

[T]he trial will feature competing portraits of Manafort, a veteran political consultant who made more than $60 million from 2010 to 2014 advising Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Mueller intends to prove that Manafort failed to report most of that money on his tax returns and instead funneled it through foreign accounts, including in Cyprus, to disguise it as loans from offshore shell companies to fund a tax-free lifestyle. Prosecutors will try to cast Manafort as a globe-trotting, cash-hungry villain bent on skirting the law. Through documents and witnesses, they’ll aim to show that Manafort micromanaged the fraud, deciding which financial details to fudge or withhold from his bookkeepers and accountants.

...Manafort’s defense appears to be building its case around the notion that Manafort was too busy as an international rainmaker to pay attention to the financial details of his consulting business. Instead, he mistakenly trusted his bookkeepers, tax accountants, and, crucially, Gates, his right-hand man. Manafort’s lawyers have made clear their intent to portray Gates as the real mastermind, alleging that he stole millions of dollars from the company by claiming fake bonuses and expenses. And when Mueller’s net closed around him, they said, he made up stories to avoid prison time.

Manafort is also expected to attack the testimony from two of his accountants who received immunity in exchange for their cooperation.

Manafort isn't done after this trial. In September, he goes to trial in D.C.

Manafort faces a second trial on Sept. 17 in Washington that will examine how he lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of Yanukovych and his party. He’s charged in that case with money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors say he and a former aide with ties to Russian intelligence tried to tamper with witnesses who could testify about their unregistered lobbying in Washington.