EFTA00010321.pdf
367 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain / legal correspondence
File Size:
367 KB
Summary
This document is an email chain from August and September 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Blackfords LLP, the legal team representing the Duke of York (Prince Andrew). The correspondence details a stalemate in negotiations regarding the Duke's cooperation with the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The Duke's lawyers offer a written witness statement limited primarily to the 1994-1997 period, citing concerns that the US views him as a 'subject' rather than a witness. The SDNY rejects this offer, declaring the written statement insufficient, and informs the defense they will proceed with a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request to the UK authorities (UKCA) to seek a compelled interview.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Gary Bloxsome | Partner at Blackfords LLP |
Defense attorney representing the Duke of York (Prince Andrew). Negotiating terms of cooperation with SDNY.
|
| The Duke of York (Prince Andrew) | Client / Subject of Investigation |
Refusing voluntary oral interview; offering written statement regarding Ghislaine Maxwell indictment period (1994-1997).
|
| [Redacted Name] | Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) |
Prosecutor from SDNY seeking to interview the Duke of York. Rejects written statement offer and initiates MLA request.
|
| Daniel Cundy | Partner at Blackfords LLP |
Part of the Duke's legal team; provided legal reference materials regarding compelled testimony and self-incrimination.
|
| Jennifer Richardson | Legal Team at Blackfords LLP |
Copied on correspondence.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Indicted Person |
The investigation and requested interview are related to the criminal proceedings against her.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased financier / Sex offender |
Mentioned in relation to the Duke's association and knowledge relevant to the Maxwell case.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Blackfords LLP |
Law firm representing the Duke of York, located in Croydon, UK.
|
|
| US Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York (SDNY) |
US federal prosecutors investigating Maxwell and Epstein associates.
|
|
| UKCA (United Kingdom Central Authority) |
Government body handling Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests in the UK.
|
|
| Serious Fraud Office (SFO) |
Cited in legal reference materials regarding compulsory powers.
|
|
| Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) |
Cited in legal reference materials (DEPP 7).
|
Timeline (4 events)
2020-07-27
2020-08-03
2020-08-11
2020-08-20
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address of the US Attorney's Office (SDNY).
|
|
|
Address of Blackfords LLP.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction where the Duke is located and where the MLA request is directed.
|
Relationships (3)
Bloxsome writes on behalf of 'Our client' referring to the Duke.
Investigation concerns the Duke's 'association with them [Maxwell/Epstein] and his knowledge of them'.
Investigation concerns the Duke's 'association with them [Maxwell/Epstein] and his knowledge of them'.
Key Quotes (5)
"We intend to move forward with our MLA request seeking a compelled interview of your client."Source
EFTA00010321.pdf
Quote #1
"The Duke of York will provide a witness statement... he will answer any and all relevant questions of him as a witness in writing..."Source
EFTA00010321.pdf
Quote #2
"You regard our client not as a witness but as a subject."Source
EFTA00010321.pdf
Quote #3
"Questions put/topics raised should rightfully be limited to the indictment period in the current proceedings (i.e. US v Ghislaine Maxwell), being 1994-1997."Source
EFTA00010321.pdf
Quote #4
"We plan to inform the UKCA that the parties are not able to reach agreement on a voluntary interview and that a voluntary interview will not occur."Source
EFTA00010321.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (9,945 characters)
From: [REDACTED]
To: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:37:35 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
To: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:37:35 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your email of September 16, 2020. We understand that your client has declined to sit for a voluntary interview and provide oral answers in real time to our office. Because the written statement you propose to provide will not assist our investigation, we intend to move forward with our MLA request seeking a compelled interview of your client. Accordingly, we plan to inform the UKCA that the parties are not able to reach agreement on a voluntary interview and that a voluntary interview will not occur.
Best regards,
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Thank you for your email of September 16, 2020. We understand that your client has declined to sit for a voluntary interview and provide oral answers in real time to our office. Because the written statement you propose to provide will not assist our investigation, we intend to move forward with our MLA request seeking a compelled interview of your client. Accordingly, we plan to inform the UKCA that the parties are not able to reach agreement on a voluntary interview and that a voluntary interview will not occur.
Best regards,
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Gary Bloxsome
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:52 AM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED], Daniel Cundy; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:52 AM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED], Daniel Cundy; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Dear [REDACTED]
I believe my response is clear. The Duke of York will provide a witness statement and will agree, following the provision of that witness statement, to a voluntary written interview wherein he will answer any and all relevant questions of him as a witness in writing about the full range of topics relevant to your ongoing investigation, including events not covered by the currently pending indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell. If you want to ask any questions in person or via video rather than in writing I am sure the Duke would be willing to receive your questions in that format before providing written answers.
Kind regards
Gary
I believe my response is clear. The Duke of York will provide a witness statement and will agree, following the provision of that witness statement, to a voluntary written interview wherein he will answer any and all relevant questions of him as a witness in writing about the full range of topics relevant to your ongoing investigation, including events not covered by the currently pending indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell. If you want to ask any questions in person or via video rather than in writing I am sure the Duke would be willing to receive your questions in that format before providing written answers.
Kind regards
Gary
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
RANKED IN Chambers UK 2020 Leading Firm
LEGAL 500 UNITED KINGDOM TOP TIER 2020
RANKED IN Chambers UK 2020 Leading Firm
LEGAL 500 UNITED KINGDOM TOP TIER 2020
COVID-19 – Please see our website here for our updated position in relation to Coronavirus.
In the meantime if you need to speak to one of our lawyers, please leave a voicemail by dialling 020 8686 6232 where we will respond to the messages in the order they are received or by emailing your enquiry to covid@blackfords.com
Blackfords LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales with registered number OC325398 at Hill House, 1 Mint Walk, Croydon, CR0 1EA. A list of members' names is available at this address.
GDPR: details of how we handle personal data can be found in our Privacy Statement
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 462078.
GDPR: details of how we handle personal data can be found in our Privacy Statement
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 462078.
On 14 Sep 2020, at 16:56 [REDACTED] wrote:
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your email, and I hope you are well, too.
Your response does not address two outstanding questions. First, will your client participate in a voluntary interview, either in person or via video, with our office? Second, will your client answer questions — in writing or otherwise -- about the full range of topics relevant to our ongoing investigation, including events not covered by the currently pending indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell?
Please note that we will interpret a repeat of your client’s offer to answer written questions relevant to the Maxwell indictment as an answer in the negative as to both questions.
Best,
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Thank you for your email, and I hope you are well, too.
Your response does not address two outstanding questions. First, will your client participate in a voluntary interview, either in person or via video, with our office? Second, will your client answer questions — in writing or otherwise -- about the full range of topics relevant to our ongoing investigation, including events not covered by the currently pending indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell?
Please note that we will interpret a repeat of your client’s offer to answer written questions relevant to the Maxwell indictment as an answer in the negative as to both questions.
Best,
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:39 AM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 5:39 AM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Dear [REDACTED]
Hope you are well.
Thank you for your email of September 10, 2020. We cannot confirm your understanding in the summary form that you present it.
Our client has offered voluntarily to provide a written witness statement in relation to the criminal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell and has also offered to answer questions in writing in relation to events relevant to that indictment even if they fall outside of the period of the indictment (1994 to 1997).
We look forward to hearing from you further.
Kind regards
Gary
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
Hope you are well.
Thank you for your email of September 10, 2020. We cannot confirm your understanding in the summary form that you present it.
Our client has offered voluntarily to provide a written witness statement in relation to the criminal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell and has also offered to answer questions in writing in relation to events relevant to that indictment even if they fall outside of the period of the indictment (1994 to 1997).
We look forward to hearing from you further.
Kind regards
Gary
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
On 10 Sep 2020, at 21:00, [REDACTED] wrote:
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Gary,
Thank you for your email of September 1, 2020. We would like to confirm our understanding of that correspondence, as informed by all of our communications over the past few months, as conveying that (1) your client will not participate in a voluntary interview—either in person or via videoconference—with our office, and (2) that your client will not voluntarily answer questions, even as part of a written statement, regarding events that took place outside of the period 1994 to 1997. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect.
Thank you.
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Thank you for your email of September 1, 2020. We would like to confirm our understanding of that correspondence, as informed by all of our communications over the past few months, as conveying that (1) your client will not participate in a voluntary interview—either in person or via videoconference—with our office, and (2) that your client will not voluntarily answer questions, even as part of a written statement, regarding events that took place outside of the period 1994 to 1997. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect.
Thank you.
[REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:35 PM
To: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:35 PM
To: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Gary,
We have received the below communication, and we will revert back as appropriate.
thank you,
[REDACTED]
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
We have received the below communication, and we will revert back as appropriate.
thank you,
[REDACTED]
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Gary Bloxsome
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 13:04
To: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 13:04
To: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Dear [REDACTED],
We have found our recent conferences with you and your team (on 27 July, 3, 11 and 20 August 2020) helpful and informative and again I extend my thanks for your taking the time to discuss these matters at length.
In the UK the provision of a signed witness statement - bearing a statement attesting as to its truth - is a commonly used approach when a witness provides evidence. Whilst we appreciate that such an approach differs from what is standard in the US, we do not consider such an approach would be unhelpful, or of no utility, to your case. Our client is willing to provide you with a witness statement, addressing any issues that he may be able to, in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, his association with them and his knowledge of them such as may be relevant to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition - should you make written requests for clarification arising from that witness statement - our client could provide written answers by way of a supplementary/addendum statement. Such an interaction could take place more than once if necessary. Providing written answers to either written questions or to questions previously put, is again a common practice in the UK.
You have invited us to identify any areas or subject topics which we would consider to be inappropriate or irrelevant to be put to our client; we consider that questions put/topics raised should rightfully be limited to the indictment period in the current proceedings (i.e. US v Ghislaine Maxwell), being 1994-1997.
We are of course aware that you have requested a witness interview in your request to the UKCA and to ourselves; you have confirmed to us however (in January this year, through your liaison officer immediately prior to our recent conferences, and then during our conferences) that you regard our client not as a witness but as a subject. We have ventilated at some length our concerns regarding our client being interviewed in those circumstances and we consider a witness statement and the offer of further engagement with written questioning to be a fair compromise and one which would be acceptable in the UK.
To move forward with the above approach, we would continue to require your assurance that the content of any such witness statement and supplementary written responses be treated with the utmost confidentiality, not used for any purpose other than in relation to the criminal proceedings against Ms Maxwell, and not be shared with any parties outside of your department, including complainants and their representatives in your investigation and in civil matters outside of it.
Kind regards
Gary
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
We have found our recent conferences with you and your team (on 27 July, 3, 11 and 20 August 2020) helpful and informative and again I extend my thanks for your taking the time to discuss these matters at length.
In the UK the provision of a signed witness statement - bearing a statement attesting as to its truth - is a commonly used approach when a witness provides evidence. Whilst we appreciate that such an approach differs from what is standard in the US, we do not consider such an approach would be unhelpful, or of no utility, to your case. Our client is willing to provide you with a witness statement, addressing any issues that he may be able to, in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, his association with them and his knowledge of them such as may be relevant to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition - should you make written requests for clarification arising from that witness statement - our client could provide written answers by way of a supplementary/addendum statement. Such an interaction could take place more than once if necessary. Providing written answers to either written questions or to questions previously put, is again a common practice in the UK.
You have invited us to identify any areas or subject topics which we would consider to be inappropriate or irrelevant to be put to our client; we consider that questions put/topics raised should rightfully be limited to the indictment period in the current proceedings (i.e. US v Ghislaine Maxwell), being 1994-1997.
We are of course aware that you have requested a witness interview in your request to the UKCA and to ourselves; you have confirmed to us however (in January this year, through your liaison officer immediately prior to our recent conferences, and then during our conferences) that you regard our client not as a witness but as a subject. We have ventilated at some length our concerns regarding our client being interviewed in those circumstances and we consider a witness statement and the offer of further engagement with written questioning to be a fair compromise and one which would be acceptable in the UK.
To move forward with the above approach, we would continue to require your assurance that the content of any such witness statement and supplementary written responses be treated with the utmost confidentiality, not used for any purpose other than in relation to the criminal proceedings against Ms Maxwell, and not be shared with any parties outside of your department, including complainants and their representatives in your investigation and in civil matters outside of it.
Kind regards
Gary
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
On 19 Aug 2020, at 18:19 [REDACTED] wrote:
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Received, thank you. We'll speak with you then.
[REDACTED]
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Received, thank you. We'll speak with you then.
[REDACTED]
From: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:39
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED] Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Yes
Same dial in details as before.
Regards
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:39
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]; Daniel Cundy [REDACTED] Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call
Yes
Same dial in details as before.
Regards
Gary Bloxsome | Partner
On 19 Aug 2020, at 17:36, [REDACTED] wrote:
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Gary,
Are we still planning to speak via phone tomorrow at 2:30 London time?
Regards,
[REDACTED]
External email: is it safe to open attachments and links?
Gary,
Are we still planning to speak via phone tomorrow at 2:30 London time?
Regards,
[REDACTED]
From: Daniel Cundy [REDACTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 12:30
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Reference materials further to our call
Dear [REDACTED]
Apologies for the slight delay.
Please find attached an extract from The Decision Procedure and Penalties manual (DEPP 7) from the Financial Conduct Authority handbook – drawing attention to 7.2.14. This practice and approach resonates with the law as set out in United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d (2d Cir.2017). We also attach an extract from the publication 'Montgomery and Ormerod on Fraud: Criminal Law and Procedure' (2008) which summarises the approach taken by the Serious Fraud Office (see A7-327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty although there is no need to attach it.
Kind regards
Daniel Cundy | Partner
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 12:30
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: Gary Bloxsome [REDACTED]; Jennifer Richardson [REDACTED]
Subject: Reference materials further to our call
Dear [REDACTED]
Apologies for the slight delay.
Please find attached an extract from The Decision Procedure and Penalties manual (DEPP 7) from the Financial Conduct Authority handbook – drawing attention to 7.2.14. This practice and approach resonates with the law as set out in United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d (2d Cir.2017). We also attach an extract from the publication 'Montgomery and Ormerod on Fraud: Criminal Law and Procedure' (2008) which summarises the approach taken by the Serious Fraud Office (see A7-327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty although there is no need to attach it.
Kind regards
Daniel Cundy | Partner
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document