531 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016)

Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 531 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
: 13 Civ. 6326 (TPG)
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - :
:
PREVEZON HOLDINGS LTD., et al.,
:
:
Defendants,
:
- and - :
:
ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE REAL :
PROPERTY AND APPURTENANCES KNOWN AS :
THE 20 PINE STREET CONDOMINIUM, 20 PINE :
STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005, UNIT 1816, :
et al., :
:
Defendants in Rem. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE GATHERED THROUGH GRAND JURY
SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Paul M. Monteleoni
Margaret S. Graham
Jaimie L. Nawaday
Cristine I. Phillips
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
f
Find authenticated court documents without watermarks at docketalarm.com.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR

THE EXTRAORDINARY SANCTIONS IT SEEKS.................................................... 1
A. This Court Has Already Rejected Defendants’ Irresponsible Accusations of

Misconduct .............................................................................................................. 1
B. The Defendants’ Claims of Abuse of the Grand Jury are Unfounded .................... 3
C. The Government Has Properly Sought Assistance from Foreign Governments .... 9
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 12
f
The Government respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in opposition to the
defendants’ motion in limine number one, to exclude evidence gathered by grand jury subpoena
or from foreign governments, Docket Items (“D.I.”) 463-65. For the reasons stated below, the
motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety.
I. DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR

THE EXTRAORDINARY SANCTIONS IT SEEKS
The defendants seek to exclude large swathes of evidence essential to the Government’s
case, not because the evidence is unreliable or otherwise inadmissible—it was gathered directly
from banks and governments pursuant to official process—but solely as a sanction for specious
accusations of misconduct by counsel for the Government. This extraordinary request, which
says nothing about the conduct of the Government and volumes about the defendants’
irresponsible litigation strategy, should be swiftly denied.
A. This Court Has Already Rejected Defendants’ Irresponsible Accusations of

Misconduct
This motion is not a constructive use of the time of the Court or the parties. It is
premised on strained accusations of professional misconduct, which have already been made and
found wanting. Lacking any basis for excluding the evidence at issue, the defendants attempt to
fill the gap by repeating previously-rejected accusations in hyperbolic language. This tactical
use of misconduct accusations should be swiftly rejected.
This motion in limine retreads arguments that have already been made and found lacking.
In moving to vacate or modify the Amended Protective Order, the defendants argued that the
Government’s use of grand jury subpoenas and treaty requests—the same conduct alleged here—
warranted exclusion of the evidence derived therefrom—the same relief requested here—as well
as dismissal of the case. See D.I. 299 at 21-23 & n.14. In an 11-page memorandum opinion, the
f
Court denied the defendant’s motions to vacate or modify the Amended Protective Order. D.I.
378 at 7. Though the Court did not explicitly address the defendants’ arguments about the grand
jury or MLATs, it denied the relief the defendants sought, thus necessarily expressing the view
that the defendants’ allegations did not warrant such steps. The same result should obtain here.
Even beyond the direct issue, the broader arguments made by the defense here have been
brought before the Court and rejected before as well. The defendants complain that the
Government conducted additional investigation subsequent to filing the complaint because some
of the information known at the time of the complaint was not admissible. See D.I. 464 at 3-4;
16-17. However, the defendants already complained of the supposed insufficiency of evidence
at the time of the filing of the complaint. 1 This Court expressly rejected this argument, holding
that “this type of scenario—an initial lack of certain admissible evidence, followed by additional
investigation—is explicitly contemplated by CAFRA and the Supplemental Rules.” D.I. 310 at
28; see also id. (“‘[T]he Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint
for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to
forfeiture.’” (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(2))). The same is true where, as here, the “additional
investigation” included a criminal investigation into a massive fraud and money laundering
network that also produced extensive evidence relevant to this forfeiture case.
More broadly, the defendants’ kitchen-sink approach to accusations of misconduct is
unserious and inappropriate. The defendants do not even facially justify their carefree
1
It should be noted that their representations on this point are exaggerated; the defendants’
inappropriate questioning at the deposition and highly selective presentation of the testimony in
their motion presents a picture that understates the amount of investigation the Government had
conducted up to that point. See, .e.g,, D.I. 88 at 26-37 (responding to defective Rule 11 sanctions
motion based on this argument).
f
accusations of “grossly improper conduct,” D.I. 464 at 1; “bad faith,” id. at 1, 16, 22, 24;
“misrepresent[ations],” id. at 2, 9, 22; “sham” investigations, id. at 7; “misconduct,” id. at 9, 26;
or “abuse,” id. at 21, 24; or its references to “sanctions pursuant to the court’s inherent powers,”
id. at 26 (internal quotation marks omitted); or “civil or criminal contempt sanctions,” id. at 24
(internal quotation marks omitted). These complaints should be seen in the context of the
defendants’ practice of making repeated unfounded accusations of professional misconduct
against counsel for the Government in this case. 2
This litigation strategy is not constructive and should not be rewarded. Tr., Dec. 11, 2015
at 6 (“We’re not going to accomplish anything with a lot of accusations. We have a trial coming
up.”); see also id. (“[D]on’t spend one minute in trying to hold somebody in contempt because
I’m not going to do that.”). Since this motion rests entirely, not on any defect with the evidence
itself, but on the defendants’ strained accusations, it should be rejected. See Tr., Dec. 11, 2015 at
5 (“The application to hold Mr. Browder in contempt and for sanctions against the government is
peremptorily denied. We’re not going to do that. What we’ve got to do is something
constructive . . . .”).
B. The Defendants’ Claims of Abuse of the Grand Jury are Unfounded
On the merits, the defendants have made no showing of any impropriety in the
Government’s conducting a grand jury investigation. The Government is plainly entitled to

2
This is not the first time the defendants have made baseless accusations of dishonesty or
misconduct against counsel for the Government. See, e.g., D.I.. 88 at 21-40 (responding to Rule
11 sanctions motion); D.I.. 276 at 6-10 (responding to claim of abuse of grand jury); D.I. 295
(responding to accusation of dishonesty); D.I. 351 (responding to accusation of violation of no-
contact rule); D.I. 481 at 2 (responding to motion for discovery sanctions). None of these litany
of unfounded complaints has been found meritorious by this Court. See, .e.g., Tr., Dec. 11, 2015
(“I have received an application to hold Mr. Browder in contempt and to sanction the
government. There is simply no merit whatsoever in such applications. They are denied.”).
f
Explore Litigation
Insights
Docket Alarm provides insights to develop a more
informed litigation strategy and the peace of mind of
knowing you’re on top of things.
Real-Time Litigation Alerts

Keep your litigation team up-to-date with real-time
API
alerts and advanced team management tools built for Docket Alarm offers a powerful API
the enterprise, all while greatly reducing PACER spend. (application programming inter-
face) to developers that want to
Our comprehensive service means we can handle Federal, integrate case filings into their apps.
State, and Administrative courts across the country.
LAW FIRMS
Advanced Docket Research Build custom dashboards for your
attorneys and clients with live data
With over 230 million records, Docket Alarm’s cloud-native
direct from the court.
docket research platform finds what other services can’t.
Coverage includes Federal, State, plus PTAB, TTAB, ITC Automate many repetitive legal
and NLRB decisions, all in one place. tasks like conflict checks, document
management, and marketing.
Identify arguments that have been successful in the past
with full text, pinpoint searching. Link to case law cited
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
within any court document via Fastcase.
Litigation and bankruptcy checks
for companies and debtors.
Analytics At Your Fingertips
Learn what happened the last time a particular judge, E-DISCOVERY AND
opposing counsel or company faced cases similar to yours. LEGAL VENDORS

Sync your system to PACER to
Advanced out-of-the-box PTAB and TTAB analytics are automate legal marketing.
always at your fingertips.
WHAT WILL YOU BUILD? | [email protected] | 1-866-77-FASTCASE

531 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

531 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

531 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 531 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I. DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR

A. This Court Has Already Rejected Defendants’ Irresponsible Accusations of

The Government respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in opposition to the

motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety.

I. DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR

irresponsible litigation strategy, should be swiftly denied.

A. This Court Has Already Rejected Defendants’ Irresponsible Accusations of

use of misconduct accusations should be swiftly rejected.

for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to

More broadly, the defendants’ kitchen-sink approach to accusations of misconduct is

“misrepresent[ations],” id. at 2, 9, 22; “sham” investigations, id. at 7; “misconduct,” id. at 9, 26;

defendants’ practice of making repeated unfounded accusations of professional misconduct

against counsel for the Government in this case. 2

B. The Defendants’ Claims of Abuse of the Grand Jury are Unfounded

Government’s conducting a grand jury investigation. The Government is plainly entitled to

Real-Time Litigation Alerts

opposing counsel or company faced cases similar to yours. LEGAL VENDORS

WHAT WILL YOU BUILD? | [email protected] | 1-866-77-FASTCASE

You might also like