DOJ pushing for September 2019 Mark Scott OneCoin trial date
The case against the first of OneCoin insider to fall, Mark Scott, is slowly progressing towards trial.
At present there’s a bit of a standoff regarding an agreed trial date.
The DOJ want a trial on or around September 2019. Mark Scott’s attorneys want July.
The court has previously ordered the parties to convene and sort it out.
As per a filed March 8th letter by the DOJ however, the issue remains unresolved.
In favor of a September’ish trial, the DOJ argue they have to go through “a voluminous amount of digital data”.
At present the seven terabytes of data is being sifted through to exclude privileged information, meaning the DOJ hasn’t even started on it yet.
Furthermore what data has been sorted is already causing disagreements between Scott’s legal team and the DOJ.
One point of contention is a “clients and attorneys list”, which Scott doesn’t want shared with the prosecution team.
The DOJ have taken the position the information is non-privileged and should be turned over.
The team sorting through the data meanwhile has informed the DOJ that the list itself ‘is far too broad to effectively segregate nonprivileged materials‘.
As a result, the Privilege Team is attempting to engage the defense in a dialogue about narrowing the Client List.
Indeed, the defense’s position means that the Privilege Team could not even provide a privilege log to the prosecution team
because such logs routinely identify the names of the clients involved in the communications being withheld.
Given there’s a guaranteed probability that names on that list are going to be OneCoin related, you can appreciate why the DOJ wants it turned over.
Without the list, the DOJ argue they won’t be able to file ‘certain appropriate pre-trial motions.‘
Specifically, the Government intends to submit a crime fraud motion regarding certain communications between the defendant and his co-conspirators.
However, the Government will be unable to file that motion until the prosecution team gains access to non-privileged materials, a privilege log of materials withheld, and the client list.
The DOJ raises a second argument against a July trial date, pertaining to the coordination of international witnesses.
The Government currently anticipates calling several international witnesses, including potential witnesses from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Cayman Islands.
These individuals are critical witnesses for the Government’s case-in-chief at trial.
The Government expects the evidence at trial to show that Scott set up a series of hedge funds registered abroad with accounts at banks located in the Cayman Islands in order to launder OneCoin proceeds.
Furthermore, Scott transferred a significant portion of the funds to related accounts at banks in the Republic of Ireland.
The Government will very likely call witnesses from these financial institutions, as well as other witnesses who reside overseas.
The appearance of these witnesses for testimony at trial will require coordination with the Central Authorities of the countries in which these witnesses are located, and the foreign entities for which they work.
For these reasons a trial date beginning as early as July will present significant challenges to the Government in ensuring that all of the Government’s witnesses are available to testify at trial.
Considering a September trial date would only be an additional two months (give or take based on scheduling), the DOJ argues Scott’s right to a speedy trial is a non-issue.
a September trial date would ensure that the complex privilege issues described above are appropriately addressed prior to trial, and that essential international and domestic witnesses are available to testify, while also protecting the public’s and the defendant’s interest in a speedy trial.
Sounds good to me, especially considering Scott himself is partially responsible for the delay.
Scott is of course within his rights to assert privilege. But if the DOJ disagrees then the matter(s) need to be litigated, which takes time.
One other interesting tidbit from the DOJ filing is mention of a possible superseding indictment;
the Government charged and arrested one of the leaders of the OnceCoin fraud scheme—Konstantin Ignatov— by complaint earlier this week and may bring a superseding indictment which charges Mark Scott and Ignatov in the same indictment.
If that happens, it could potentially impact the trial schedule for Scott’s case.
A superseding indictment would see the DOJ bring additional charges against Scott. Right now he’s only facing one count of money laundering.
Update 13th March 2019 – Following additional letters to the court (from both Scott’s attorney and the DOJ), a pre-trial conference to resolve scheduling has been scheduled for March 15th.
Update 16th March 2019 – The March 15th pre-trial conference has been adjourned to Monday, March 18th.
Somebody going by “Elliot Zness” has contacted me twice now via the contact form regarding OneCoin.
You’ve used a non-existent email address both times so I can’t reply.
If you see this, try again with an actual email address.
Article updated with news of pre-trial conference.
Article updated with adjourned pre-trial conference date.
Source: financefeeds.com/onecoin-leader-konstantin-ignatov-pleads-not-guilty-conspiracy-commit-wire-fraud/
On 5 April 2016, FENERO TRADENEXT HOLDING LIMITED was founded in Dublin. As directors are called:
1. Mark Scott
2. Irina Andreeva Dilkinska (since June 22, 2016)
share-your-photo.com/6f245910f7
Mark Scott is charged with money laundering. Does this charge also apply to Irina Andreeva Dilkinska?
Irina Andreeva Dilkinska is a traitor and has sabotaged Ruja’s criminal “visions”? I quote the notorious liar and cheater who calls himself “detroyer”:
share-your-photo.com/567b3850dc
Okay, I understand it this way: only Irina Andreeva Dilkinska is responsible for the fact that OneCoin still does not have an existing exchange. Right? 😀
If that’s true, Ruja should quickly sue the traitor. And claim for damages!
An interesting request from the lawyers of Mark Scott:
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.96.0.pdf
The taint team is an independent team who’s sole job is to go through the documents and filter out privileged information.
I don’t get what the problem is. The taint team approached Scott for a list of of clients and filtered out anything mentioning “attorney” and “lawyer”.
Those documents have been filtered out and the rest are available for review.
You can’t claim privilege if you’re not willing to disclose specifics to the taint team.
They’re just wasting time. Trying to suppress evidence because the government didn’t manually sift through 100,000+ pages of seized evidence.
I imagine the court will rule the keyword filtering was sufficient (standard procedure I imagine with plenty of precedent), and the case will move on.
With all the shell company nonsense OneCoin hides behind this is a terrible idea. Prosecutors are likely to have plenty of leads to follow up on via the seized evidence.
Information and leads they won’t about or be able to follow up on without going through the non-privileged information.
This is precisely why so much data was seized in the first place.
I’m going to wait for an order on this one before reporting.
Perhaps wasting time is part of Scott’s legal strategy? The trial is in October and less time the government has to look into the seized material, the better for the defendant.
I mean, I don’t know what’s going on here:
Scott’s team must know perfectly well why documents from Nicole Huesmann are included. Government alleges she was a pawn in Scott’s money laundering activity:
(page 30 ; scribd.com/document/412839388/S-D-N-Y-1-17-Cr-00630-ER-71-1-SearchWarrant-MarkScott)
It almost seems that they are playing dumb. I’m not sure that even make a case here that the documents from Huesmann are indeed privileged, they just throw “see, a Scott’s lawyer!” out there omitting the relevant context.
Perhaps they try to do it later because the want to waste time. In a recently publicized transript (courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.62.0.pdf) government states “The law is very clear that it is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate privilege.”, and I’m sure they will be able to compel Scott to do just this.
Overall it seems to me that Scott has been trying to be as little co-operative with the taint team as possible.
Another strange thing: The list of keywords they suggest contain numerous typos(bolded):
A cunning tactic or just pure carelesness? [A cry for help (complex financial crime case taking toll on Scott’s lawyer who I understand has been primarily a tax lawyer)?]
Scott is a poor guy who doesn’t have the resources to do what’s necessary for his defense — yet they somehow found resources to inspect the documents to assert that as much 90% of the documents are irrelevant? Without explicating methods etc.
Government has now responded:
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.97.0.pdf
It’s a tour de force. I get the sense from the document that Scott’s defense don’t know what the hell they are doing, or even worse, they are acting in bad faith. In line with what we speculated about wasting time:
Hilarious part is when the government diputes Scott’s absurd claim that he doesn’t have resources by pointing his credit payment records showing some really expensive purchases he made in late 2018 and early 2019.
I had Scott’s case up for an update on Monday. If the govt’s responded I’ll get into it early.
Time to get the coffee going…