EFTA00031512.pdf

From: (USANYS)" > To: ' (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:40:48 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png I think we have to stick with the treaty language. As to whatever we file in the USVI, I'd have to see what it is to opine on whether it is directly related to a US criminal matter. As you note, the answer may be no. From: (USANYS)) Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:20 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA On the subject never ends, the State Department would like us to modify our proposed confidentiality language as follows: Absent a court order directing otherwise, U.S. authorities will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with U.S. authorities in any matter other than a U.S. criminal investigation or proceeding, and any non-criminal judicial or administrative proceeding directly related to a U.S. criminal investigation or proceeding, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty. Do you have thoughts on whether that would be broad enough to include any potential civil action we might pursue in connection with the Epstein estate in USVI? Not sure we would ever plan to do so, but was trying to preserve the option. That said, if this is the language of the treaty, not sure how hard we can push back. From: USANYS) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:27 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA I think that's OK. Note that Touhy is not entirely discretionary—it applies after a subpoena issues, and our denial can be reviewed in court. But we can easily insist on a court order. At the beginning of the 302 (and any notes) the following should be stated: Note that for purposes of any FOIA request, subpoena/Touhy request, Privacy Act routine use disclosure, or any other disclosure this document is subject restrictions on disclosure pursuant to the MLAT pursuant to which the interview took place. Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY or FBI will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with law enforcement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related civil action or asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government. The FBI should really understand that any leak of any of this would be pretty terrible. From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:58 PM To: USANYS) Subject: FW: Following up Witness PA EFTA00031512 See below for the language of the treaty. In light of that, =has signed off on the following language, but let me know if you have any concerns: Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY or FBI will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with law enforcement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related civil action or asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government. From: CRM) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 8:11 AM Cc Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA The UK could impose conditions on any evidence provided under the MLA treaty. Once the evidence is provided they typically send a letter to us saying that the evidence is to be used only for the purposes specified in the MLA request. Our MLA requests track the language of the Treaty, which gives us use in criminal cases and related forfeiture and administrative actions. It doesn't deal with FOIA or Touhy. (Since Touhy is discretionary, I assume we would just reject any requests for agent testimony on this topic.) Here is the link to the treaty on OIA's intranet page: http://crmln05.crm.doj.gov:7778/Wportalidocs./PAGE/OIA/TAB TREATY LIBRARY/MLAT/DATA/USEU.MLA.UK.PDF Here are the relevant sections: I ha Ntatua:ep awstance dun also be affeeded to a national aelerneutrata tabonty. =scants:v.4 cceduct wals a sac* to a enrnmal prosecution of the undu.t. or referral of the conduct to cnmetal ins evatioce or prosectenon =allot:res. m--surit as specific admuunause or regultory authority to undertake such instal:mon Mutual legal asszcar= ray a:so bc acfceded to other admanistrause authonnes under such ctrcumstances Ass:gime *Ai not be "s=table foe manm ;nub= the aolignitab‘er.thalty atn.:5,Xel ;AY oo emsccimon or referral. as applicabk. will take vice Requests for ass:stare< under this pragraph shall be transmitted hemecn the Central A.:than:us deupliced p‘rsuant a Ancic 2 of thus Treaty.)). beta= such other at-is:num as may to greed by the Central Auhontics ARTICLE 7 Confidentiality and Larnmeions on Use I. The Requested Party shall. upon tame* keep confidential any information which might indicate that a request hat been made or responded to. If the request cannot be executed u 'thew.% breaching confidentiality. the Requested Party shall so inform the Requesting Party. which shall den determine the must to which at "tubes the request to be executed. 2. The Requesting Pany may use any cinder= mforraseco obtained from the Requested Party (a) for the purpose of its minimal iMallg.IDOrt$1,:lprOCCtimp. (b) for preventing an immediate and serious threat to its public security. EFTA00031513 C I I, its rucurrnte41;4)[{1, cceulshp frcsC. of to rust sauces 7 roceedrp Iss I sec frthn 4...siusursch sat ot for •Iscf 7.1.411e{i Sta,VC • st rrshere4 {nate sr.ctc I: ell. ',VC), id I Ice r, 7257 pscpow. if the curers ce rfor--asson has bren rusk tuts:.;' ssulso the frusu{ort. of {ecesaiscp for •114.sh Uch .re tramsruth r. arcs of the srcsrusu eaCVSed vsinsuarcits r.. rtsr sinf ich sr4 ler fr. Ass ccrer P, .e, cuts •17 the ;cur ;cruets of the Itescoevesi Par, 3 is) ills Arc k •1111n7 7sculue thc {bitch of she Rh Par, r auxedne • :VA Ass Tres. , tre:St {14.horsi essulara.ses usa Pray hue Mee the ryrte.cle, res.nt unwce cu:tf. rut he ecerp:sed suds utY abse-se of stsr condrces NIL"( *jet CI.: “Cdfal'Il hi% =;Oltd use' slat tc •hs su•Tv. swig+. ec Res7.7zol Pants mrs rcfure the it•c-crun{ Pan, to r • e IfliCCJ:1011 CV' the rat. of rse usrenct 7 information tss Omni: rracwsuu .41 frwect so the iμ us/434Y of the Res-am:au P{-1, for '<occur{ mutt: Cau scas NY be crposes1h5 the Kw-n:0f Pan, as <7477. -rtsfer 5.•S;, .. Ca I a, to coo, Ur{ co{e7e <e inkcnercs 4 Wi{ers. fhlksrlf Cue :rum so ru Iturcestag Pal). M Request.: Parr &tallest. re @I urcuras taxa 74 mu sade si so seri an •Shtceul confrun 7{-{c•lar case. the Rusussul Pars a, eocs41: sut, a ItNurrai Pam to dcrernrse the fiord to • hach the en:es:4e or 4.4.5x can te;tote<tal .4.1iTIcht 15 Rec.--• of Documents r4 Atc es The ecru,: A.y ry cftheaecac.•g Pan, Yuan-tun rh sishrasurts araCts !ashes, bit it the rucau cf 4 recns -"her Cat Treau as sox As a pncocable r274 the Central Aulsocht. of 2e RNucuul Pry • sues the set= of the document. or artstk-s From: (USANYS) c Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:48 PM To: )'c > Cc (CRM) • Subject: Re: Following up Thanks, And I'm sorry, my email was not clear - do you have a copy of the actual treaty? Curious as to whether the treaty itself contemplates limitations on use of information. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2020, at 6:45 PM, wrote: The MLAT is attached for reference, thanks. From: (USANYS) Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:28 PM To: McNeil, John (CRM) Cc: Chadwick, Amanda.' (London) <C'nadwickAJPstate.gov> Subject: RE: Following up C Thanks, John. I appreciate the concern and am open to working to address it, to the extent possible. We, of course, would never simply turn this material over to a civil litigant, as you suggest. The problem is, irrespective of our intent, this is not Rule 6 material (unless, of course, he testifies before a grand jury), and we are trying to be mindful of not simply our criminal case, but obligations we may have under other aspects of U.S. law, F