DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg
459 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
459 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a defense attorney's argument. The speaker challenges the government's assertion that an individual 'must have known' about illegal backdated financial transactions simply because he had worked as a junior accountant in the 1980s. The attorney argues this claim of 'mens rea' (guilty knowledge) is not supported by evidence and is not a strong argument according to Second Circuit precedent.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unnamed individual ('he') | Accountant / Junior Accountant |
The subject of the legal argument, who the government claims 'must have known' about wrongdoing because he was an acc...
|
| Unnamed speaker ('I') | Likely Defense Attorney |
The person making the argument in the transcript, refuting the government's claims about the unnamed individual's kno...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that produced the document.
|
| U.S. Government | Government agency |
Referred to as 'the government', presenting a brief and evidence against an individual regarding backdated transactions.
|
| Unnamed law firm | Company |
Described as a place of 'craziness' where transactions were being churned out every December.
|
| The Court | Government agency |
The judicial body being addressed by the speaker.
|
| Second Circuit | Government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose precedent is cited regarding the weight of a 'must have known' argument.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Three transactions were backdated.
Every December
An unnamed law firm was 'churning these things out', including taking losses into income.
Unnamed law firm
the '80s
An unnamed individual worked as a junior accountant for two years.
Relationships (1)
The document details the government's legal argument against the individual, alleging he had 'mens rea' regarding backdated transactions, and the speaker's rebuttal of that argument.
Key Quotes (2)
"backdating transactions"Source
— Unnamed speaker ('I')
(The speaker quotes this term when describing the three transactions at the center of the government's brief.)
DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg
Quote #1
"must have known"Source
— U.S. Government (as quoted by speaker)
(The core of the government's argument regarding the individual's 'mens rea' (guilty mind), which the speaker is refuting.)
DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document