Epstein Secrets

he "tinned Kingdom-United Stater Agreement Concerning Obtaining Evidence From Cayman Islands With Regard to Narcotics Activities." The gravamen of Harvey's argu- ment is that the United States may obtain evi. had granted Harvey both transactional im- munity and use immunity for any informa- tion he had

89) 7201,' and one count of filing a false income tax return in April of 1981, a viola- tion of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).1 The govern- ment alleges that Harvey kept millions of dollars derived from his lucrative drug dealings in a bank account in the Cayman Islands. In his individual income tax re- turn f

alto Shapiro United States, 335 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 6, 1385, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) (following rule of construction of Mike). More recently, in Kastigar, the Court up- held the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 6002 on the ground that use immunity "is coextensive with the scope of the privi- lege again

certain charges pending in Alabama. Be cause it disputed the very existence of a grant of immunity, the government object- ed to the holding of a Kastigar hearing as unwarranted. Faced with this disputed claim of an un- written grant of immunity, the magistrate did not hold a traditional Kastigar hea

rney, and Assistant U.S. Attorney." I said, "I would stake my life on their honor and veracity." Mr. Sands asked Mr. Kimbrough: Q. In return for Harvey's furnishing information, what was he to receive? A. I was to dismiss the Indictment against him. Q. Do you know whether or not any— A. And I would

ld not satisfy heavy burden of proving defendant under- stood government reserved right to seek property forfeiture): United States v. (Mi• chat!) Harvey, 791 F.2d at 301 (imprecision in terms of written agreement construed against the government). 11 In this case, Harvey was not granted formal st

itness' invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the immu- nity granted must be as broad as the privi- lege. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1859. Due to the cumbersome requirements of obtaining properly authorized statutory im- munity, U.S. Attorneys often

unication to Epstein's counsel, the Office continued towards indictment. On February 27 and 28, 2008, FAUSA , Criminal Chief = Civil Rights Chief Weinstein, and I communicated about the USAM requirement that DOJ's Civil Rights Section be consulted when violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 are included in an i

nusz Banasiak and Mucinska. Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, Mr. Banasiak was satisfied with I standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi

/2008 Email chain between Marie Villatana, David Weinstein, and Bob Senior re email to the Civil Rights Chi

in employees — Janusz Banasiak Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, r. anasi was satisfied with a standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi