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
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,581 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 72 of 117
A-5915
A-5915
13
CAC3PARC
1 tax returns.
2 At the end of the day, the government's brief takes
3 you at great pains through each of those three backdating
4 transactions. And I should say, quote, backdating
5 transactions. What you learn is what is undisputed is that's
6 what happened. Mistakes in the craziness of this law firm
7 where you were churning these things out every December and
8 taking a portion of the losses into income, the tax loss, in
9 the craziness of that and mistakes were made. And trades were
10 done to try to correct the mistakes. You can't dispute that.
11 The only question at the end of the day, as I say in
12 the papers, is mens rea. And the mens rea when you read the
13 government's evidence, the bottom line is he must have known.
14 And he must have known because he was an accountant.
15 And what we know on that is I think for two years, in
16 the '80s, he was a junior accountant at 20 some thousand
17 dollars a year. There is not a shred of evidence that he ever
18 took a class that taught, quote, the annual accounting rule,
19 and I think the Court knows the Second Circuit precedent that
20 says "must have known" is an argument, but it's not of great
21 weight.
22 And I'll stop with this. I have to say, I wasn't in
23 the must've known category. This wasn't something that I was
24 taught in tax law. Maybe I forgot it and maybe the answer is
25 it's so obvious you didn't have to teach it. But I said to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
1 tax returns.
2 At the end of the day, the government's brief takes
3 you at great pains through each of those three backdating
4 transactions. And I should say, quote, backdating
5 transactions. What you learn is what is undisputed is that's
6 what happened. Mistakes in the craziness of this law firm
7 where you were churning these things out every December and
8 taking a portion of the losses into income, the tax loss, in
9 the craziness of that and mistakes were made. And trades were
10 done to try to correct the mistakes. You can't dispute that.
11 The only question at the end of the day, as I say in
12 the papers, is mens rea. And the mens rea when you read the
13 government's evidence, the bottom line is he must have known.
14 And he must have known because he was an accountant.
15 And what we know on that is I think for two years, in
16 the '80s, he was a junior accountant at 20 some thousand
17 dollars a year. There is not a shred of evidence that he ever
18 took a class that taught, quote, the annual accounting rule,
19 and I think the Court knows the Second Circuit precedent that
20 says "must have known" is an argument, but it's not of great
21 weight.
22 And I'll stop with this. I have to say, I wasn't in
23 the must've known category. This wasn't something that I was
24 taught in tax law. Maybe I forgot it and maybe the answer is
25 it's so obvious you didn't have to teach it. But I said to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009491
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document