Finance
The many faces of Kevin Morris, Hunter Biden’s financial patron
“Who was the real me? I can only repeat: I was a man of many faces.”
Those words by author Milan Kundera could well have been written for Kevin Morris, a critical figure in the unfolding Hunter Biden scandal.
Morris was largely unknown to most people until he emerged as the Democratic donor who reportedly paid the president’s son millions to handle his unpaid taxes and maintain his lavish lifestyle. The Hollywood lawyer and producer portrayed himself as a good Samaritan on a biblical scale — a good man who simply found a desperate stranger on the road and gave him more than $5 million.
His counsel, Bryan M. Sullivan, stated that “Hunter is not only a client of Kevin’s, he is his friend and there is no prohibition against helping a friend in need, despite the inability of these Republican chairmen and their allies to imagine such a thing.”
The statement captures the problem for Morris. It is increasingly hard to determine what Morris was at any given moment: Democratic donor, lawyer, friend. Indeed, that is precisely the problem that some of us have raised for months.
Lawyers are not supposed to personally pay the bills of their clients. Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.
Friends have described Morris as a “rule-breaker” and admit that his relationship with Hunter raises eyebrows. “Certainly it’s not careful, but he’s a gunslinger,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “This is how he rolls.”
But the legal ethics rules are designed to avoid gunslinging generally and ambiguity specifically.
Hunter calls him both his lawyer and his “brother.” Lead counsel Abbe Lowell observed, “I have never in any of my representations of any other client — other than someone who is an immediate family member of one of my clients — known anyone who is like Kevin.”
When the relationship began, Morris was playing the role of a loyal Democratic donor.
He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 political fundraiser by another producer and Democratic deep pocket, Lanette Phillips. Soon thereafter, Morris was giving Hunter copious amounts of money and legal advice. That would include reportedly paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes before criminal charges were filed. It also included covering Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.
Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “democratic donor” because these payments could be viewed as an unreported campaign donation. Morris first appeared during Joe Biden’s campaign for president. Then, on Feb. 7, 2020, shortly after the inauguration, Morris flagged how the taxes represented a “considerable risk personally and politically.” He seems to have sought to resolve that political liability by paying off the taxes. He has insisted it is being treated as a loan.
Those payments would continue, and Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank, and Hunter was routinely called his “client.”
It is also important that these millions are treated as loans because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem. Hunter would have to declare such “gifts,” and taxes would be owed on their value.
Few would view Hunter as a good risk for a loan, given his history of stiffing a wide array of businesses and associates. Indeed, he reportedly even struggled to pay for alleged high-end prostitutes. He was even accused of using a credit card connected to his father to pay off an alleged Russian call-girl. Even the art dealer who recently sold Hunter’s art reportedly testified that Hunter never reimbursed him for the costs of the shows.
Those art sales add an interesting twist to the mysterious role of Morris. Recently, art dealer Georges Bergès blew away White House claims that Hunter had been barred from knowing the names of purchasers under a comprehensive ethics system. He admitted that Hunter knew the identity of 70 percent of the purchasers.
It was not hard. Despite news reports of buyers flocking to buy the art, it now appears it was largely Morris who bought the art. Notably, however, Morris reportedly only paid Bergès’ 40 percent commission on the $875,000 purchases. It is not clear whether Morris applied the principal against the outstanding debt. That would be a clever way to treat the money as a loan, if it were used for that purpose. You simply have Hunter crank out dubious pieces of art and arrange for an ally to throw art shows in New York. You then have media allies write how buyers were “floored” by Hunter’s talent.
Finally, you pay the commission on the excessive prices for the art while writing off the value of the art as a type of in-kind payment of the loan. With some valued at close to half a million dollars, many mocked the fact that Hunter was getting more than some Pablo Picasso sales. Yet those inflated prices would be useful to count as direct or indirect payments for the loans.
We still do not know how these purchases or the loans were treated, and whether Morris was acting as a donor, friend or lawyer. Now, Morris is adding a new role to this pile of identities, reportedly supporting a new movie on Hunter Biden.
Call it “Mr. Biden Goes to Washington,” a rewrite of Frank Capra’s classic, only this time the corrupt establishment wins.
In the original movie, a young novice appointed to the U.S. Senate fights the corruption of Washington, where his senior senator has sold access and influence to James Taylor, a wealthy businessman. Taylor scoffs at the notion that the establishment can be challenged. After all, they control the media and what the public will read and hear. As Taylor assured the senior senator, “I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life…You leave public opinion to me.”
Morris is still fighting to shape public opinion, and, in Hollywood, movies make reality.
Morris “makes public opinion,” and the media can be expected, again, to assist in those efforts.
Many in Washington believe that Hunter’s stunts in holding a press conference defying his subpoena, and later crashing his own contempt hearing, were literally made-for-television moments. These scenes were captured on film and will no doubt be featured in the new film on his heroic struggle.
The question is the audience for the film. Clearly, in the Beltway, audiences are likely to be sobbing with emotion as Hunter fights against inquiries into influence peddling. They will cheer at Joe Biden’s moment channeling John Wayne, when he declared, “No one f**ks with a Biden.”
However, most audience members would not have felt the same thrill if, at the end of the original movie, the corrupt Sen. Joseph Paine and the wealthy Taylor had emerged as the victors, fighting off the do-gooders and “boy rangers” supporting Jimmy Stewart’s main character.
The question is also who would play Morris — or more accurately, how many would have to play this “man with many faces.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Access error:
the page you are trying to access is unavailable.
Please wait a moment and try again.
For help please visit help.ft.com.
The following information can help our support team to resolve this issue.
Timestamp: 2025-11-08T08:05:10Z
Request ID: 133g-78ebbeb028b77b3333992c19855ddd / 63f21b37a7794bc19c34000000000001
Status code: 406
Twenty-six million dollars. That’s how much investing platform Robinhood paid out earlier this year after it was found to have breached a range of financial regulations. Amongst them? Failure to properly manage the social media influencers promoting their products. With these so-called “finfluencers” becoming an ubiquitous part of fintech marketing strategies, this eye-watering penalty should serve as a cautionary tale to brands putting content and reach above compliance and risk.
The world of the finfluencers has expanded dramatically in recent years. These young, passionate and social media savvy voices amass legions of fans and millions of views as they dole out advice on everything from stock tips to savings techniques. The main audience? Gen Z. Facing the dual pressures of a tough job market and the spiralling cost of living, Gen Zs are turning to social media for new routes to financial stability — hungry for insights and advice that will help them get ahead. With a huge 34% of Gen Zs saying they learn about personal finance from TikTok and YouTube, finfluencers have exploded in number, reach and power.
Acquiring Gen Z customers is a huge priority for marketing teams. In the world of financial products, customers are sticky. Get them young and you might have a customer for life. That’s why the rise of finfluencers represents a huge opportunity for companies operating across the finance, investment and savings space. And it’s one they’ve been tapping into.
On the surface, engaging finfluencers for paid partnership is a marketing slam duck for fintech and finance brands. Unlocking a route into Gen Z audiences via trusted, engaging voices. But, as Robinhood’s experience shows, the stakes are high when you get it wrong. Any company selling financial products or services is subject to a litany of regulation. And these high standards of compliance aren’t necessarily compatible with the fast-paced, algorithm-chasing game of social media content creation. It’s a conundrum that’s starting to trip brands up.
Alongside Robinhood, this year has also seen Public Investing fined $350k by the US regulator FINRA after influencers made misleading claims. And a recent crackdown from the UK’s financial regulator, the FCA, saw three individual finfluencers end up in court charged with encouraging high-risk strategies without the correct authorisation. Brands and the influencers they rely on are sailing far too close to the wind.
And this risk-reward matrix is only set to become more intense. The use of AI tooling in marketing is speeding up content creation and enabling thousands of iterations of adverts to run simultaneously. And brands are increasingly upping the percentage of marketing budget allocated to social media. Collectively, this is encouraging faster, more dynamic social strategies, with influencers forming a critical part. It’s putting marketers on a potential collision course with regulators cracking down on violations.
Companies leveraging social media partnership with a view to reaching Gen Z customers cannot afford to overlook this reality. From eye-watering fines to a tarnished brand, the implications of getting your social marketing wrong are severe.
But that doesn’t mean brands can’t play in this space. They just need to be smart about it.
Businesses swimming in this pool need to ensure they aren’t sidelining the compliance and risk management strategies that will keep them on the right side of regulation. This cannot be an afterthought. Marketing teams must invest in tooling, work closely with legal teams, and run stress tests on campaigns to ensure they are watertight.
Regulators are coming for finfluencers and the businesses that work with them. Companies should heed the warning and not let their quest for young, digitally-savvy customers rush them into an approach which could see them break the law and sink their finances. Instead, the same level of zeal applied to the creative should be applied to the compliance. They are two sides of the same coin. Combined, they’ll allow companies to cash in.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
The United States sanctioned financial operatives funneling tens of millions of dollars from Iran to Hizballah. These individuals collaborate with businessmen and exchanges to enable significant financial transfers from Iran and conduct covert business dealings that fund Hizballah’s terrorist activities.
This action supports President Trump’s whole of government policy of maximum pressure against Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hizballah, as detailed in National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 issued on February 4.
The United States is committed to supporting Lebanon by exposing and disrupting Iran’s covert financing of Hizballah. By enabling Hizballah, Iran holds Lebanon back and undermines its sovereignty. Iran and Hizballah cannot be allowed to keep Lebanon captive any longer. The United States will continue using every tool at its disposal to ensure this terrorist group no longer poses a threat to the Lebanese people or the broader region.
Today’s action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended, which targets terrorists and their supporters. The Department of State designated Hizballah as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to E.O. 13224 on October 31, 2001, and as a Foreign Terrorist Organization on October 8, 1997. For more information, today’s designation can be found on the Press Release.
Obstacles to open: Nevada cannabis consumption lounges face hurdles despite legalization
Since 1717, State Library has preserved New Hampshire history
Inside New Jersey’s secret world of cannabis dinner parties
Friday Night Football 2025 – Week 12
FIRST DOWN FRIDAY: Teams across the region earn trips indoors
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Supreme Court blocks lower court order forcing Trump administration to fully fund SNAP program
Full SNAP benefits start to go out even as the Trump administration appeals
Video: The Decline of America’s Largest Environmental Organization
Hegseth warns traffickers after deadly drug boat strike: ‘We will kill you’
ICC confirms war crimes charges against Uganda’s rebel leader Joseph Kony
-
Culture1 week agoVideo: Dissecting Three Stephen King Adaptations
-
Austin, TX2 days agoHalf-naked woman was allegedly tortured and chained in Texas backyard for months by five ‘friends’ who didn’t ‘like her anymore’
-
Education1 week agoOpinion | New York City Mayoral Candidates: Who Would Be Best?
-
Seattle, WA6 days agoESPN scoop adds another intriguing name to Seahawks chatter before NFL trade deadline
-
San Diego, CA1 week agoAdd Nick Hundley, Ruben Niebla to list of Padres’ managerial finalists
-
Business1 week agoCommentary: Meme stocks are still with us, offering new temptations for novice and unwary investors
-
Business1 week ago
Disneyland Resort lays off 100 people in Anaheim
-
Politics1 week agoVirginia school district slapped with complaint alleging new claims in viral trans locker room fight
