Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3512 Request from Saint Lucia for Assistance in a Criminal Matter: In Re: Antonio Assenza ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AUG2 9 2017 SfEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FLA. FT. LAUD. MISC. NO. 17mc61725 WPD Filed Under Seal APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3512 The United States of America, moving by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits under seal this ex parte application for an Order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3512, appointing the undersigned attorney, Jodi Anton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney (or a substitute or successor subsequently designated by the Office of the United States Attorney), as a commissioner to collect evidence from witnesses and to take such other action as is necessary to execute a request for assistance in a criminal matter from the Government of Saint Lucia (hereinafter, "Saint Lucia"). In support of this application, the United States asserts: RELEVANT FACTS 1. On December 15, 2015, the Saint Lucian Attorney General's Chambers submitted a request for assistance (hereinafter, the "Request") to the United States, pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Government of Saint Lucia on the Application of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Government of four countries comprising the organization of Eastern Caribbean States on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between Antigua and Barbuda, signed at St. Johns on October 31, 1996; Dominica, signed at Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 2 of 9 Roseau on October 10, 1996; Grenada, signed at St. George's on May 30, 1996; St. Lucia, signed at Castries on April 18, 1996 S. TREATY DOC. NO. 105-24 (hereinafter, the "Treaty"). As stated in the Request, Saint Lucia Attorney General's Chambers is investigating a crime, specifically, aiding and abetting a crime, aiding and abetting crime within, from outside jurisdiction, and breach of trust by public officer offenses, in violation of Number 9 of 2004, Criminal Code of Saint Lucia. Under the Treaty, the United States is obligated to render assistance in response to the Request. 2. According to Saint Lucian authorities, in 2009, the Saint Lucian Port Authority requested proposals for the development of a new airport, which was an estimated $157 million project. After evaluating the submitted proposals, the Port Authority was to present their recommendation to the St. Lucian Cabinet, who would make the final determination. With input from Sean Matthews ("Matthews"), the head of the Port Authority, and others, Assenza/ Asphalt & Mining submitted a proposal for the project. Prior to and during the request for proposal process, Assenza, Edgar, Joseph, and Matthews were in regular communication with one another via phone. The volume of calls increased at key points in the bidding period, including before and after Assenza's pitch meeting with the Port Authority. In August 2009, the Port Authority recommended that a competitor of Assenza's be awarded the bid, with Assenza's bid ranked last out of the three proposals received. In September 2009, Matthews met with the St. Lucian Cabinet to present the development plans. A high volume of calls between Assenza, Edgar, Joseph, and Matthews occurred around Matthew's presentation to the Cabinet. A few days after the meeting, Joseph provided the Port Authority with additional details about Asphalt & Mining's proposal. In October 2009, Matthews and the Port Authority recommended further negotiation with Asphalt & Mining. The Port Authority then wrote to all three bidders notifying them that their bids were unsuccessful and, under instructions from the Cabinet, issued a new request for proposals. Asphalt & Mining submitted a new proposal. In January 2010, the Port Authority recommended Asphalt & Mining Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 3 of 9 as the winning bidder. In February 2010, the Cabinet approved the award to Asphalt & Mining. As part of their winning bid, Asphalt & Mining agreed to provide US$23,550,000 interest-free counterpart financing for the project. St. Lucia planned to obtain the rest of the financing for the project from Deutsche Bank. In July 2012, Deutsche Bank notified the Port Authority that they could not move forward with their portion of the financing, in part because Assenza failed the bank's due diligence requirements. The project did not proceed at that time due to lack of funding. The Saint Lucian authorities believe that the facts are indicative of a criminal agreement between Assenza and public officials in the government of Saint Lucia regarding this public works project. 3. To further the investigation, authorities in Saint Lucia are seeking subscriber information, billing invoices, and call details for the following AT&T phone number: 954-2146929. LEGAL BACKGROUND The Treaty 4. A treaty constitutes the law of the land. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl.2. The provisions of a treaty have equal footing with acts of Congress and are binding on the courts. See Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924); United States v. The Peggy, 5 U.S. 103 (1801 ); United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 389 (6th Cir. 2001). The provisions of a treaty should be construed liberally "to give effect to the purpose which animates it." United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353 (368) (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent that the provisions of a treaty are inconsistent with a preexisting statutory provision, the treaty supersedes the statute. Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 440-41 (1968). 5. The United States and Saint Lucia entered into the Treaty desiring to improve the effectiveness of the law enforcement authorities of both countries in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crime through cooperation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. See Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 4 of 9 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Government of Saint Lucia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The Treaty obligates each party, upon request, to provide assistance to the other in criminal investigations, prosecutions, and related proceedings, including assistance in serving documents, obtaining testimony, statements, and records, and executing searches and seizures. Treaty, Article 1(2). In addition, the Treaty, like 18 U.S.C. § 3512, authorizes federal courts to use compulsory measures to further the execution of such requests. Treaty, Article 5( 1) ("The judicial or other competent authorities of the Requested State shall issue subpoenas, search warrants, or other orders necessary to execute [a] request"). Finally, the Treaty requires each party, upon request, to use its best efforts to keep a request and its contents confidential. Treaty, Article 5(5). 18 U.S.C. § 3512 6. When executing a treaty or non-treaty request for assistance from a foreign authority, an attorney for the government may file an application to obtain any requisite court orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3512. This section authorizes a federal court to issue such orders and provides in pertinent part: Upon application, duly authorized by an appropriate official of the Department of Justice, of an Attorney for the Government, a Federal judge may issue such orders as may be necessary to execute a request from a foreign authority for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses, or in proceedings related to the prosecution of criminal offenses, including proceedings regarding forfeiture, sentencing, and restitution. * * * [A ]n application for execution of a request from a foreign authority under this section may be filed ... in the district in which a person who may be required to appear resides or is located or in which the documents or things to be produced are located. * * * The term "foreign authority" means a foreign judicial authority, a foreign authority responsible for the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses or for Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 5 of 9 proceedings related to the prosecution of criminal offenses, or an authority designated as a competent authority or central authority for the purpose of making requests for assistance pursuant to an agreement or treaty with the United States regarding assistance in criminal matters. 18 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(l), (c)(3), (h)(2). 7. Congress enacted this section to make it "easier for the United States to respond to [foreign] requests by allowing them to be centralized and by putting the process for handling them within a clear statutory scheme." 155 Cong. Rec. 6,810 (2009) (statement of Sen. Whitehouse); Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-79, 123 Stat. 2086. 1 This section provides clear authority for the federal courts, upon application duly authorized by an appropriate official of the Department of Justice, to issue orders which are necessary to execute a foreign request. 8. An application is duly authorized by an appropriate official of the Department of Justice when the Office of International Affairs, which serves as the "Central Authority" for the United States, has reviewed and authorized the request, and executes the request itself or delegates execution to another attorney for the government. 2 Upon such a duly authorized application, Section 3512 authorizes a federaljudge 3 to issue "such orders as maybe necessary to execute [the] 1 Prior to the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3512, the United States routinely utilized the procedures authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the "commissioner" process) to execute requests from foreign authorities. See In re Request from the United Kingdom, 685 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2012) (18 U.S.C. § 3512 provides a more streamlined process than 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the statute under which foreign requests were previously executed); see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247-49 (2004) (describing history of Section 1782). When enacting Section 3512, Congress anticipated that improved U.S. handling of foreign requests would ensure reciprocity in response to U.S. requests for assistance in its criminal investigations. See, e.g., 155 Cong. Rec. 10,093 (2009) (statement of Rep. Schiff). 2 The Attorney General, through regulations and Department of Justice directives, delegated to the Office of International Affairs the authority to serve as the "Central Authority" under treaties and executive agreements between the United States and other countries pertaining to mutual assistance in criminal matters. See 28 C.F.R. 0.64-1, 0.64-4, and Appendix to Subpart K, Directive Nos. 81A and 81B. 3 The term "federal judge" includes a magistrate judge. See 18 U.S.C. § 3512(h)(l) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(3)(B) (including a magistrate judge in the definition of federal judge). Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 6 of 9 request," including: (1) search warrants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41; (2) orders for electronic records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703; (3) orders for pen registers or trap and trace devices under 18 U.S.C. § 3123; and (4) orders appointing a person to direct the taking of testimony or statements and/or the production of documents or other things. See 18 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(l)-(b)(l). In addition, a federal judge may prescribe any necessary procedures to facilitate the execution of the request, including any procedures requested by the foreign authority to facilitate its use of the evidence. See In re Letter of Request from the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom, 870 F.2d 686, 693 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (court has discretion in prescribing procedures to be followed in executing foreign request under 28 U.S.C. § 1782); cf. White v. National Football League, 41 F.3d 402,409 (8th Cir. 1994) (court may issue process necessary to facilitate disposition of matter before it); Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b). 9. Section 3512 also authorizes any person appointed to direct the taking of testimony or statements and/or the production of documents or other things to: (1) issue an order requiring a person to appear and/or produce documents or other things; (2) administer any necessary oaths; (3) take testimony or statements; and (4) take receipt of documents or other things. 18 U.S.C. § 3512(b)(2). In ordering a person to appear and/or produce documents or other things, the person appointed, commonly referred to as the "commissioner," typically uses a subpoena entitled "Commissioner Subpoena." Any such subpoena or any other order, subject to subsection (d), may be served or executed anywhere in the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3512(f). REQUEST FOR ORDER 10. As evidenced by a letter dated June 29, 2017, from the Office of International affairs to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, the Office of International Affairs has reviewed and authorized the Request and has delegated execution to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Consequently, this application for Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 7 of 9 an Order appointing the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney as a commissioner to collect evidence from witnesses and to take such other action as is necessary to execute the Request has been "duly authorized" within the meaning of Section 3512. In addition, the Request was submitted by an appropriate "foreign authority," i.e., the Saint Lucian Attorney General's Chambers, the designated Central Authority in Saint Lucia for requests made pursuant to the Treaty, and seeks assistance in the investigation of money laundering- a criminal offense in Saint Lucia. Furthermore, the requested Order is necessary to execute the Request, and the assistance requested, i.e., the production of business records and a witness interview, falls squarely within that contemplated by both the Treaty and Section 3512. Finally, the person required to appear and the documents or things to be produced reside or are located in Southern District of Florida. Accordingly, this application was properly filed in this district. 11. This application is being made ex parte, consistent with the practice of the United States in its domestic criminal matters. The Treaty itself contemplates the need for confidentiality with respect to all aspects of the execution of a request. Specifically, Article 5(5) of the Treaty provides that: "the Requested State shall use its best efforts to keep confidential a request and its contents if such confidentiality is requested by the Central Authority of the Requesting State." In this matter, Saint Lucia has asked the Government to keep the Request confidential. 12. Both Section 3512 and the Treaty authorize the use of compulsory process in the execution of treaty requests comparable or similar to that used in domestic criminal investigations or prosecutions. Because subpoenas utilized in U.S. criminal proceedings (i.e., grand jury and criminal trial subpoenas) are issued without notice to any person other than the recipient (i.e., no notice to targets or defendants), orders and commissioner subpoenas issued in execution of a treaty request pursuant to Section 3512 and the applicable treaty likewise should require no notice other than to the recipients. Accordingly, this Court should authorize a commissioner to collect the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 8 of 9 evidence requested without notice to any person other than the recipient(s) of the commissioner subpoena(s). 13. Similarly, because Saint Lucia seeks assistance during a criminal investigation and has specifically asked the Government to keep the Request confidential, this Court should authorize the commissioner to order AT&T not to notify any person of the commissioner subpoena and its contents, and issue an order sealing the Government's application and the Court's Order for two years from the date of the Court's Order. The confidentiality provision of the Treaty and Saint Lucia's request that this matter remain confidential, as well as Section 3512(a), which authorizes the court to issue "such orders as may be necessary to execute a [foreign] request," provide the legal and factual grounds for the issuance of such orders. See generally In re Letter of Request from the Government of France, 139 F.R.D. 588, 592 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (secrecy in executing foreign request is "essential to protect the French Court's criminal investigation"). In this case, such orders would be appropriate because the Request relates to an ongoing criminal investigation in Saint Lucia. Disclosure of the investigation could provide the subject of the investigation with an opportunity to destroy records or other physical evidence in his or her possession and could seriously jeopardize the investigation. It could also give the subject an opportunity to flee, change patterns of behavior, or notify confederates. 14. Further, the two-year time period as to both notice and sealing is reasonable. As explained above, this Request concerns an ongoing criminal investigation pursuant to foreign law in the requesting country. Foreign investigations are often lengthy and the Government does not have ready access to the status of such investigations. In addition, during the two-year time period, the Government will need to serve the commissioner subpoena(s) on AT&T obtain the responsive documents, resolve any issues or questions regarding the production, and send the documents to the Central Authority for mutual legal assistance requests in Saint Lucia. Saint Lucian Attorney Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 9 of 9 General's Chambers will then have to provide the documents, which may have to be translated, to the prosecutor and/or investigator assigned to the particular matter, who will need time to review the information provided and pursue any investigative leads, prior to disclosure of the specific assistance sought by Saint Lucian authorities. 15. Therefore, the United States respectfully requests that this Court issue the attached Order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3512, appointing the undersigned attorney, Jodi Anton, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney (or a substitute or successor subsequently designated by the Office of the U.S. Attorney) as a commissioner, authorizing the undersigned to take the actions necessary, including the issuance of a commissioner subpoena(s), to obtain the evidence requested in a form consistent with the intended use thereof, authorizing the undersigned to order AT&T not to notify any person of the commissioner subpoena and its contents, and sealing this application and the Court's Order for two years from the date of the Court's Order. Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN G. GREENBERG ACTING UNITED STA TES ATTORNEY By: Jodi Anton Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 184098 500 E. Broward Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 660-5692 Email: Jodi.anton@usdoj.gov Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 1 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division V AA:WHG:KJH:AK:cm Office of International Affairs Washington, D.C. 20530 June 29, 2017 Via E-Mail Luis Perez Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office 99 N.E. Fourth Street Miami, Florida 33132-2111 Re: Request for Assistance from Saint Lucia to the United States in the Matter of Antonio Assenza; OJA Reference Number: 182-53910 Dear Mr. Perez, Please find enclosed the above-referenced request from Saint Lucia for legal assistance in a foreign criminal matter. The United States is obligated to assist in such matters pursuant to the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Saint Lucia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. This request should be executed pursuant to the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. § 3512. Consistent with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3512, your office is hereby authorized to file an application in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking all necessary orders and to take other steps necessary to execute the above-referenced request. This matter has been assigned to your office for execution because the evidence requested appears to be located in your District. Please note that this matter should be kept confidential and that all court filings should be under seal. Offenses: The facts of the case are set forth in detail in the enclosed request. In summary, the Government of St. Lucia is investigating Antontio Assenza ("Assenza") and others for aiding and abetting a crime, aiding and abetting crime within, from outside jurisdiction, and breach of trust by public officer offenses, in violation of Number 9 of 2004, Criminal Code of Saint Lucia. Facts: This request involves an individual named Antonio Assenza ("Assenza"), an American citizen who resides in Parkland, Florida. In May 2008, Assenza incorporated an entity called Asphalt & Mining Company· ("Asphalt & Mining") in St. Lucia. Assenza is president of Asphalt & Mining and owns 75% of the common shares. Assenza also incorporated Papaya Holdings Limited ("Papaya Holdings") in St. Lucia. He is president of Papaya Holdings and owns 80% of the common shares. Papaya Holdings also owns 5% of the common shares of Asphalt & Mining. Andre Edgar ("Edgar"), a St. Lucian businessman with close personal ties to the then-Minister of Works Guy E. Joseph ("Joseph"), is Vice President of Asphalt & Mining, indirect owner of 1% of Asphalt & Mining, and owner of20% of Papaya Holdings. Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 2 of 3 2 In 2009, the St. Lucian Port Authority requested proposals for the development of a new airport, which was an estimated $157 million project. After evaluating the submitted proposals, the Port Authority was to present their recommendation to the St. Lucian Cabinet, who would make the final determination. With input from Sean Matthews ("Matthews"), the head of the Port Authority, and others, Assenza/ Asphalt & Mining submitted a proposal for the project. Prior to and during the request for proposal process, Assenza, Edgar, Joseph, and Matthews were in regular communication with one another via phone. The volume of calls increased at key points in the bidding period, including before and after Assenza's pitch meeting with the Port Authority. In August 2009, the Port Authority recommended that a competitor of Assenza's be awarded the bid, with Assenza's bid ranked last out of the three proposals received. In September 2009, Matthews met with the St. Lucian Cabinet to present the development plans. A high volume of calls between Assenza, Edgar, Joseph, and Matthews occurred around Matthew's presentation to the Cabinet. A few days after the meeting, Joseph provided the Port Authority with additional details about Asphalt & Mining's proposal. In October 2009, Matthews and the Port Authority recommended further negotiation with Asphalt & Mining. The Port Authority then wrote to all three bidders notifying them that their bids were unsuccessful and, under instructions from the Cabinet, issued a new request (or proposals. Asphalt & Mining submitted a new proposal. In January 2010, the Port Authority recommended Asphalt & Mining as the winning bidder. In February 2010, the Cabinet approved the award to Asphalt & Mining. As part of their winning bid, Asphalt & Mining agreed to provide US$23,550,000 interest-free counterpart financing for the project. St. Lucia planned to obtain the rest of the financing for the project from Deutsche Bank. In July 2012, Deutsche Bank notified the Port Authority that they could not move forward with their portion of the financing, in part because Assenza failed the bank's due diligence requirements. The project did not proceed at that time due to lack of funding. The St. Lucian authorities believe that the facts are indicative of a criminal agreement between Assenza and public officials in the government of St. Lucia regarding this public works project. Assistance Requested and Date Range: 1 To further its investigation, St. Lucia is seeking subscriber information, billing invoices, and call details for the following AT&T 2 phone number: 954-214-6929. 1 The original request for assistance, dated November 12, 2014, listed fourteen (14) individual and separate requests for assistance. Pursuant to a request from OIA from more information, the St. Lucian Central Authority sent an amended request, dated December 16, 2015, in which St. Lucia stated "we wish to place on hold Requests #1-7, 9, and 14." See Request for Mutual Legal Assistance in the Matter of Antonio Assenza (December 16, 2015). Requests #12 and #13 have been denied on statutory grounds. Therefore, remaining are Requests #8, # 10, and # 11. 2 Please note that the original request from St. Lucia indicated that the phone number belonged to Sprint Communications. A referral was made to the District of Kansas on October 31, 2016, seeking records from Sprint. Pursuant to an order issued by the Honorable Daniel D. Crabtree on November 2, 2016, Sprint notified AUSA Jared Maag, in a letter dated November 26, 2016, that phone number 954-214-6929 was serviced by Cingular Wireless during the time period requested. Accordingly, this referral letter is being submitted to obtain the requested records from Cingular Wireless. Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 3 of 3 3 Justification is based on the fact that this phone number was associated with Antonio Assenza, who was President of both Asphalt and Mining Company, and Papaya Holdings, the two primary entities under investigation by St. Lucia in this ongoing investigation. The date range associated with the billing invoice and call details portion of this request is from November 2008 to April 2012. Justification is based on telephone invoices obtained by St. Lucia from Cable and Wireless and Digicel for the Government of St. Lucia Ministers that have been obtained either through emails found on government servers or documents located in government ministries. Records indicate calls pertaining to the scheme for the time period November 2008 to April 2012. Coordination with OIA: I will serve as the main point of contact for both your office and St. Lucia. Please contact me by e-mail at alexander.kalim@usdoj.gov or by telephone at (202) 307-1909, if you have any questions regarding the execution of the request or need further information from St. Lucian authorities. You may also contact Carlos Moreira, International Affairs Specialist, by telephone at (202) 616-1617 or email at Carlos.Moreira@usdoj.gov. Please keep this office informed of the status of this request. Both OIA and the government of St. Lucia appreciate your assistance in this international criminal matter. Sincerely, Vaughn A. Ary Director By: Enclosures .. . Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 1 of 29 - I - GOVERNMENT OFSAINTWCIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS 2.=Floor,FnmcisOnnpto,IBawling ffe Watajiont,Castries SaintLt.tda WesHmlies TEL:(758)468-3200 .FAX:(758) 458-1.1.31. EMAIL: ~@gosLgao.lc 16th Decem~ 2015 Andrew D. Finkelman Trial Attomey U.S. Department of Justice Oiminal Division Office of TntemationalAffair.; 1301 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite800 Washington, DC 20005 Re: R.eqpest for Mutual Legal .Assistance in the Matter of Antonio Assenza Dear Mr. Fmkelman: We welcome your offer of a telephone call and after reading yom letter of October 21, 2015 we believe a conversation would be more benefici~ togefuer with tbis response. Wrth thf'!benefit of your letter dated October 21, 2015 we wish to place on hold.Requests #1-7,.9 and 14. We wish to -focusin particular on Requests #8., 10 and 11 that relate to the two key persons of interest, 6uy Joseph and .AntonioAssenza. With. iespect to Requests #1- 7 and 9 while we have emails to support their existence, we have no evidence of same being -used in this case. fn regard to Request #14, we cannot show that these records are in 1he U.S. Further, we have no agreement with Spain. We address Requests #8 and 10 in Section 9.1 in om effort to show "why there .isprobable cause to believe that 1he email :recordswill contain evidence of the crime~. We also identify the requestedbeginningand end dates for the emailsas July 1, 2007 to July 31, 2010. Requests #12 (the arrival into1he United States from Saint Lucia of Assenza) and #13 (am.val into the United Stares from Saint Lucia of Edgar) reflect our effort to identify when Assenza (a 1 -.~-~- .,. Case Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 2 of 29 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 3 of 29 further request?), Edgar and Joseph first met (Florida or Saint Lucia) and when the alleged corrupt agreement could' have been made. We believe the events occurred between mid-2007 and March 2008, as noted on page 19 of the Letter of Request. Appendix. IO presents other events that are supportive of a start date from June to September 2007. ProbableCause We have attempted to bring :further clarity on the subject of "probable cause" not only. for Requests #8, IO~ 12 and 13 but also for the entire case. We focus one subject, "material omissions" in one example where GOSL issued a press release in May 2010. In Section 1.1 we set the backgromd that is then followed by six examples of alleged "material omissions" summarized in Sections 2.1 through.8.1 and further supported by the respective Appendices. on Overview The Saint Lucian person of interest is Guy Joseph who during the entire relevant time period was Minister for Communications, Works, Transport and Public Utilities. He was also a Member of Parliament for Castries South East on behalf of the United Workers Party. He occupieda position of "Public Officer" and we allege that he is subject to and in breach of the following law: SECTION 484 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 3.01 OF THE REVISED LAWS OF SAINT LUCIA- BREACH OF TRUST BY PUBLIC OFFICER A public officer, who in the discharge of the duties of his or her office,, commits any fraud or breach of trust affecting the public, whether such :fraudor breach of trust would have been crim.inaJ or not if committed against a private person, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 10 ~ or. on summaryconviction to imprisonment for 2 years. The other person of interest is Antonio Assenza who during the entire relevant time period was a U.S. resident living in Parkland, Florida. He had been President of GlobeTec Construction, LLC since its incorporation in September 2003 and had incorporated two companies in Saint Lucia that were recipient of various contracts from the Govermnent of St. Lucia We allege that Assenza is subject to and in breach of the following law: SECTION 63 OF THE CRJMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 3.01 OF THE REVISED LAWS OF SAINT LUCIA - AIDING AND ABETfING CRIME WITBIN, FROM OUTSIDE JlJRISDICTION Any person who~·wi1hinthe jurisdiction of the Courts, aids and abets the doing outside the Courts~ jurisdiction of an act whi~ if done within the Courts~ jurisdiction would be a crime, is liable as an accomplice. To briefly summarizethe "material omissions", Assenm on behalf of A&MSL had direct and indirect communication with Joseph, Chast.anet (another GOSL Minister) and Matthews both before February 12, 2009 (date SLASPA issued the Request for Proposals) and between that date 2 --· ---~ --· ---------- --~-- ----------·-··-···--- Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 4 of 29 ·----- and April 6, 2009 (date of Response submission) and thereafter. The investigation has determined that none of these communications was made to the other bidders. After yom review of this letter, we look forward to a telephone call. I would request tbat Mr. Lindquist, the investigator be allowed to participate in the telephone call given his forensic investigations and intimate knowledge of case. Further, I have asked Mr. Lindquist to send by Fed-Ex a copy of the exln1>i1s that are referredto and numberedin the letter and appendices. We thank you in advance for your valuable co-operation in this matter. Yours faith:fu.lly A'ITORNEY GENERAL & CENTRAL AUTHORITY 3 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 5 of 29 REQUESTFOR MUTUALLEGALASSISTANCEIN THE MATTEROF ANTONIOASSENZA INDEX Page 1.1 GOSL and SLASP A Issue Public Statements with Material Omissions: An Example 1.1.1 May 20, 2010 press release from the GOSL 1.1.2 June 4, 2010 press release from SLASPA 4 2.1 Telephone Records of Joseph, Chastanet and Matthews 6 3.1 Involvement of Wayne Auguste with Joseph on behalf of A&MSL 6 4.1 Assenza Seeks Matthew's Review of Proposed HIA Bid 6 5.1 IMTC in First Place, A&MSL in Third Place with Interview Notes 7 6.1 Interviews with Matthews and Emmanuel at SLASP A 6.1.1 Need to Interject These Comments in regard to Matthews 7 8 7.1 Email Requests #8 and 10 7.1.1 Request #10 Email Address of Assenza: tonyassenza@aol.com 7.1.2 Request #8 Email Address of Joseph: guysparts@hotmail.com 11 The Beginning and End Dates for Email Requests #8 and 10 11 8.1 10 Appendix 1 GOSL and SLASPA Issue Public Statements in May and June 2010 12 Appendix 2 Telephone Records of Joseph, Chastanet and Matthews 19 Appendix 3 Involvement of Wayne Auguste acting on behalf of A&MSL 23 Appendix 4 Assenza Seeks Matthew's Review of Proposed HIA Bid 26 Appendix 5 IMTC in First Place, A&MSL in Third Place 28 Appendix 6 Antonio Assenza and the use of tonyassenza@aol.com email address 31 Appendix 7 Antonio Assenza and use of guysparts@hotmail.com email address 33 Appendix 8 The Beginning and End Dates for Email Requests #8 and 10 36 4 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 6 of 29 1.1 GOSL and SLASPA Issue Public Statementswith Material Omissions:An Example We now present further information to show "probable cause" for the entire case and "why there is probable cause to believe that the email records for Requests #8 and 1O will contain evidence of the crime". The following information is summarized from Appendix 1. In January 2010, SLASPA awarded a 'letter of undertaking' to A&MSL for the HIA project. However, ongoing media pressure caused a May 2010 press release from GOSL and a subsequent early June 2010 press release from SLASPA that was also placed onto its website. Examples of the media pressure appear in Appendix 1 and are fully disclosed for the entire time period in the "HIA Chronology" that was prepared as part of the investigation. If you wish to have an electronic copy of the 935 page "HIA Chronology'' please advise. To be clear, this is one example but all GOSL press releases contained not only these but other material omissions. 1.1.1 May 20, 2010 Press Release from the GOSL GOSL issued the following press release without first reviewing it with SLASP A. (Extract) "Government Proud of its Integrity and the Efficiency and Transparency of SLASP A's Management re: HIA Redevelopment The Government of Saint Lucia notes the latest statement issued by the Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority in relation to the Hewanorra International Airport Redevelopment Project. Government is encouraged by the fact that the statements issued by SLASP A to date and those issued by the Prime Minister (King); Minister (Joseph) of Communication, Works and Public Utilities and the Government's Press Office have been consistent in stating the facts as relates to the current status of the Hewanorra International Airport Redevelopment Project ... " We find that the GOSL public statement contained several material onnss1ons. We believe that the material omissions presented in Sections 2.1 through 6.1 listed below are consistent with an alleged conspiracy among Assenza, Joseph and others to ensure the ultimate success of the A&SML HIA bid. We refer to the following Sections and the respective supporting Appendices to address each material omission: Section Telephone Records of Joseph, Chastanet and Matthews 2.1 Involvement of Wayne Auguste with Joseph acting on behalf of A&MSL 3.1 Assenza Seeks Matthews' Review of Proposed HIA Bid 4.1 IMTC in First Place, A&MSL in Third Place with Interview Notes 5.1 Interviews with Matthews and Emmanuel at SLASP A 6.1 5 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 7 of 29 1.1.2 June 4, 2010 Press Release from SLASPA The SLASP A Website Paper is entitled "Hewanorra International Airport Proposed Redevelopment Project" with the sub-heading "Getting Started on the Procurement Process". We find that the SLASP A public statement also contained these material omissions; however we have added the answers from both Matthews and Emmanuel when questioned. The press release and website paper states: (Extract) "In February 2009, SLASPA developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) document outlining the framework and guidelines ... The RFP had a specific closing date ... there was full compliance from all Proposers ... SLASPA opted for a selective procurement process. Based on its knowledge and experience ... SLASPA identified a short list of ... companies ... A total of three RFP bids were received ... Port Council approved the RFP bid evaluation procedure ... SLASPA ... remains committed to maintaining the integrity of SLASPA's procurement process". Matthews and Emmanuel were asked in regard to one material omission: 'This third place finish by A&MSL was never reported in the SLASPA Website Paper entitled "Proposed Redevelopment Project" with the sub-heading 'Getting Started On The Procurement Process' nor ever released in any of the many Government Press Releases'. Matthews states "The omission of the IMTC win was not a deliberate decision. We as management recommended the IMTC win to the Board who is to either endorse or otherwise address our recommendation. On such matters the Board would write to GOSL first before Board makes a final decision. They did not want to make a decision that GOSL would not allow. Hence there was no decision by the Board on the IMTC recommendation". Emmanuel states "I find fault with the omission; we were never instructed to omit it. But there are times when you cannot disclose the information. To do so would result in conflict between GOSL and SLASP A. It may have been a potentially material omission but first we would not report on a matter that is not an official position of SLASP A. For significant items, the SLASP A Board wants the GOSL endorsement". Nonetheless, Matthews was aware of the existence of communications with A&MSL representatives detailed in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 but his immediate resignation from SLASP A after presentation of his phone records prevented further questioning. Refer to Section 6.1.1 entitled ''Need to Interject ... " 6 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 8 of 29 2.1 Telephone Records of Joseph, Chastanet and Matthews The GOSL and SLASP A press releases omit to mention that Ministers Joseph, Chastanet and SLASP A CEO Matthews telephoned the shareholders of A&MSL, Assenza and Edgar on 130 occasions between November 1, 2008 and February 12, 2009 the date of the issuance of the HIA Request for Proposals by SLASP A. It further omits that after the Request for Proposal was issued the same three persons telephoned the same two shareholders between February 13, 2009 and April 5, 2009, the day prior to the receipt of the Bidders' Proposals on 79 occasions. Details are presented in Appendix 2. No calls were found to be made to either of the other two bidders, Ashtrom and IMTC who responded to the HIA Request for Proposals on April 6, 2009. 3.1 Involvement of Wayne Auguste with Joseph acting on behalf of A&MSL SLASPA issued its RFP on February 12, 2009. Prior to that date A&MSL and its two shareholders Assenza and Edgar had retained Wayne Auguste, a Saint Lucian consultant whose involvement began at least in December 2008, prior to the issuance of the HIA Request for Proposal. Then after the issuance of the RFP, Auguste continued in email dialogue with Matthews. The emails are listed in Appendix 3. · GOSL and SLASP A press releases omit to mention the involvement of Assenza via Auguste in the process prior to the issuance of the RFP. In addition none of this information given to Auguste was shared with either of the other two bidders, Ashtrom and IMTC; nor was there any finding that either sought such information. 4.1 Assenza Seeks Matthew's Review of Proposed IDA Bid The GOSL and SLASP A press releases omit to mention that on March 31, 2009 Assenza emailed the A&MSL draft Bid to Matthews stating 'Need your thoughts asap'. A&MSL on April 6, 2009 submitted their HIA Bid Proposal to Matthews and Joseph and a comparison of both documents shows similar information. The emails are listed in Appendix 4. At no time was there a similar request by or an offer to either Ashtrom or IMTC, the other bidders. Investigator asks: Assenza Seeks the Assistance of Matthews for His Bid Preparation. Was There a Response? Matthews states "it was not uncommon for Assenza to try this. A lot of these would not get a response. I gave out no information" and again making reference to the November 13, 2008 S&G presentation where the information was given out to Cabinet. 7 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 9 of 29 5.1 IMTC in First Place, A&MSL in Third Place The GOSL and SLASPA press releases omit to mention that after the July/ August 2009 evaluation of the bids by SLASPA, IMTC won with A&MSL finishing in third place. Details are presented in Appendix 5. The SLASPA Board recommended IMTC as their first choice with A&MSL in third place. By August 19, 2009, the results were: IMTC Consortium Ashtrom A&MSL Consortium 80.2 points 75.2 points 73.8 points On August 21, 2009 Matthews made a slide presentation to Cabinet of these findings. Later on August 25, 2009 Matthews wrote to conclude "It is therefore recommended that IMTC be the preferred contractor for reflective ofSLAPSA's and GOSL's best interests". 6.1 Interviews with Matthews and Emmanuel at SLASPA (Extracts) In regard to 'Probable Cause' we have included extracts taken from interviews between the investigator and Matthews and Emmanuel. Except for one instance, they were always interviewed together. The findings reflect on the Joseph/ Assenza relationship and the constant pressure apparently imposed by Joseph on Matthews and others to promote the personal and corporate interests of Assenza for the HIA project. In May 2013 Matthews and Emmanuel were asked why is Assenza so positioned? Emmanuel says "He is asking the same question". Matthews says "I have no direct knowledge of any money, agreement or favours changing hands. We asked ourselves internally the same question ... the words are 'persistence and pressure' to describe their impact on our situation". In May 2013 Matthews and Emmanuel were asked what was Joseph reaction to the third place finish of A&MSL in late 2009? Matthews says "The results were not what he expected. In terms of general demeanor, he does not want to approve anything that did not include A&MSL. There was always the indication that unless A&MSL is a part of it, he would not approve it. There was always pressure on me (Matthews) and Isaac Anthony (SLASPA Chairman)". In May 2013 Matthews and Emmanuel were asked what about the US$24Mfrom A&MSL? Matthews says "The US$24M was never explained. SLASPA had the same questions as you. We had a clear issue, we always said that A&MSL cannot come up with the money but this did not affect the scoring in December 2009 (that resulted in A&MSL in first place). There was pressure on SLASPA to get it done in a certain way. Key is government; to say there was not the pressure is incorrect. It was clear to me from the Minister (Joseph) that ifit does not go his way, he won't approve". 8 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 10 of 29 In May 2013 Emmanuel was asked to comment on Joseph's public representations. Emmanuel says "That is not consistent with reality. His attempt to suggest he is not in touch reflects his negligence as a minister so for me it is nonsense". During an October 15, 2013 conference phone call with Matthews and Emmanuel they were asked: Q5: Did Joseph ever state that he was having telephone conversations with Assenza and/or Edgar on the subject ofHIA? Matthews says "He never indicated that to anyone ofus. I mean it was not something Joseph hid at all his acquaintance with Assenza. He was really open with his knowledge and acquaintance with Assenza and Edgar. He would not have to say anything to us. He had interactions with all those individuals and on other things anyways. We would have been a more difficult group to deal with, because we would have always gone through a process. He is our boss so always a level of respect but our process would always dictate that management has to go through a process to the Board with any interface we had, and Ben and I would say the same thing to everybody". When Investigator asked, Matthews gave the following answer on the subject of Assenza 's involvement with Joseph: "Assenza was approaching us with our own information. He had the position of GOSL when we sat down with him. Assenza would say 'the Minister says ... ' He came to Saint Lucia and would never see us first, always the Minister. Andre was a common factor, taking Assenza everywhere. The relationship among Joseph, Assenza and Edgar was not hidden. Assenza was strong in his attitude toward me due to his relationship with Joseph". During an October 15, 2013 conference phone call with Matthews and Emmanuel they were asked: QI 5: The word 'negotiation' what does it mean between SLASPA and the bidders? Matthews says "The government is there to make policy decisions, like the ADC has to be taken through parliament. They have to make the law to support an initiative we have undertaken". Investigator asks 'I understand that it is SLASPA 's responsibility to negotiate and not a cabinet minister? Matthews says "Correct". Investigator asks 'Policy and the law rest with the government? Matthew says "Correct, ministers ought not to have discussions with the bidders". Investigator asks 'SLASPA is responsible for the negotiation and government is responsible for policy and law?' Matthews says "That is right". 6.1.1 Need to Interject These Comments in regard to Matthews We must state that the only known person employed by SLASP A who made alleged improper direct contact with Assenza was Matthews and throughout all the Board meetings and written communications, he never disclosed same to the Board. 9 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 11 of 29 The investigator first met Matthews and Emmanuel at SLASPA offices in November 2012. From November 9, 2012 to October 28, 2013, our investigator obtained documents and emails from within SLASPA and both Matthews and Emmanuel were aware of our investigator's interest and success in securing the telephone records of Minister Joseph and others from other sources by May 2013. On September 2, 2013, the investigator requested Matthews' cell phone invoices for telephone number 758 484 9233 for the period from November 2008 to June 2010 given that SLASPA had paid these invoices on behalf of Matthews. On September 10, 2013 the investigator was advised by Emmanuel "File copies of corporate cell phone invoices for #4849233 have been complied and are available for examination". On October 29-30, 2013 the investigator attended at SLASPA to inspect Matthews' phone invoices and for the first time it was identified that Matthews had called Assenza in the months of January and February 2009 prior to the issuance of the HIA RFP on 8 occasions and between the issuance of the RFP and the receipt of the A&MSL Response, a further 11 occasions. Refer to Appendix 2 for a telephone summary and Appendix 4 for a specific email situation where Assenza seeks Matthews' assistance. Despite all the communications between the investigator and Matthews over the ten plus months, Matthews never volunteered that he had made phone calls to Assenza The investigator upon learning of these findings was never able to question Matthews. In the first week of November 2013, Matthews after 26 years at SLASPA resigned, and the letter made it effective November 30, 2013. On page 22 of the Letter of Request we stated "Currently, further questioning of Matthews is on hold as we wait for the advice of Counsel as to how to proceed. The issue arose from the last SLASPA document production". Earlier Matthews was asked: Could they have in essence fired you at any time? Matthew states ''they could have moved me out anytime either through the normal process of end of contract via the Council of the Authority. There was always a very distinct reminder of when your contract dates came up. The Chairman (Anthony) recommends to the Minister (Joseph). I am employed with the consent of the Minister". 10 --- ~---·"---·----- Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 12 of 29 7.1 Email Requests #8 and 10 7.1.1 Request #10 Email Address of Assenza: tonyassenza@aol.com Appendix 6 lists ten emails with the tonyassenza@aol.com email address that relate to the HIA case issued between January 18, 2009 (prior to SLASPA's preparation of the HIA Request for Proposal) and September 22, 2011. The first email is also included in Appendix 3 on the subject of Wayne Auguste and the Republic Bank in regard to the HIA project. We understand that Mariagabriela Mazzei was retained by Assenza to work on the RIA proposal and here she is communicating with Assenza at his 'tonyassenza@aol.com' email address. The only reason this email is in our possession is because Assenza then forwarded it to Matthews at SLASPA. Here is the extract: January 18, 2009 From: (Gaby) mariagabriela mazzei gania2402@hotmail.com at 7:54 PM To: Tony Assenza tonyassenza@aol.com Then on January 19 at 1:36 PM Assenza forwards to Sean J. Matthews The date January 18, 2009 occurs before the RIA RFP has been prepared by SLASPA. Already Assenza has hired a person, along with Wayne Auguste to work on the expected RIA Request and in this email "Gaby" is writing within Assenza's team on the subject of RIA. Gaby is Mariagabriela Mazzei who along with Ricardo Molero operated RM International Consultants Corp located at 4745 NW 115th Ave in Coral Springs, FL. Their purpose is "business development consultant". · We asked Matthews about this email. Matthews states 'Gaby was doing the financial reviews and it seemed that she would be paid on a success fee basis, she was very driven. I most probably would have ignored her request'. In the RIA Chronology there are many emails later sent from 'Gaby' to Matthews, as she was very active in attempting to answer the questions from SLASPA that arose well after A&MSL was awarded the 'letter of undertaking' in January 2010. Refer also to Appendix 6 and the date of September 21, for an email from Molero to Assenza. The second email comes from Karen Monico, an employee at GlobeTec who has a letter from BB&T addressed to Ben Emmanuel at SLASP A on the subject of financing of the HIA project. On April 7, 2010 Karen Monico emailed the BB&T letter from her email address kmonico@globetecconstruction.com to Assenza at tonyassenza@aol.com. Then on the next day, April 8, 2010 Assenza at tonyassenza@aol.com emailed the February 25, 2010 dated BB&T letter to Matthews. 11 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 13 of 29 We have documented in Appendix 3 the alleged improper contact between Joseph and Wayne Auguste on behalf of Assenza starting in December 2008, before SLASPA had prepared the HIA Request for Proposal. 1bis email address was used for the HIA case and given the known alleged improper relationship between Assenza and Joseph it is possible that this email address was also used in other communications between these two persons of interest and others prior to the February 2009 issuance of the HIA Request for Proposals by SLASPA and thereafter. 7.1.2 Request #8 Email Address of Joseph: guysparts@hotmail.com Appendix 7 includes twelve emails with the guysparts@hotmail.com email address that relate in part to the HIA case. The last email dated October 12, 2009 encloses the business card of Joseph that states: "The Hon. Guy Joseph Minister ... email: guysparts@hotmail.com and min_ com@gosl.gov.lc". Four emails were issued by Kevin Rink, an employee at GlobeTec who in April 2009 emailed the A&MSL HIA Response to SLASPA along with two other materially insignificant responses to other SLASPA proposal requests along with a Statement of Qualifications to Matthews at SLASPA, Joseph c/o guyparts@hotmail.com and Assenza We have documented in Appendix 2 the improper direct telephone involvement between Joseph and Assenza starting with the telephone calls in January 2009, before SLASPA had prepared the HIA RFP. This email address was used for the HIA case and given the known alleged improper relationship between Assenza and Joseph it is possible that this email address was also used in communications between these two persons of interest and others prior to the February 2009 issuance of the HIA RFP by SLASPA and thereafter. 8.1 The Beginning and End Dates for Email Requests #8 and 10 On page 19 of the Letter of Request we stated that MasTec, Inc. had owned 51% of GlobeTec since its incorporation in 2003. But during the quarter ended September 30, 2007 MasTec's ownership increased from 51% to 64% and in the quarter ended December 31, 2007 its ownership increased to 96%. It acquired the remaining 4% of GlobeTec in March 2008. In Appendix 8 we note that on September 9, 2007 Prime Minister Sir John Compton passed away from a series of strokes and Acting Prime Minister Stephenson King was appointed Prime Minister. King became Prime Minister and he continued as Minister of Finance, External Affairs, Home Affairs and National Security. His new Cabinet included Guy Joseph as Minister for Communications, Works, Transport and Public Utilities and Allen Chastanet, Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation. Further in September 2007, Sean Matthews was appointed as General Manager and CEO of SLASPA. And finally in Appendix 7 we note that the NDC announced a new policy in December 2007 and in May 2008 we found Assenza's involvement with NDC in May 2008 to be consistent with the new policy. Consequently we request the beginning and end dates to be July 1, 2007 to January 31, 2010. 12 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 14 of 29 Appendix 1 GOSL and SLASPA Issue Public Statements in May and June 2010 2010 January 24 Exhibit # Matthews wrote to Assenza and here is the first paragraph: I Dear Mr. Assenza PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW IBRMINAL FACILITY HEW ANORRA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT This is to inform that the Ports Council at its 192nd meeting held on Wednesday, January 20, 2010, agreed to award this letter of undertaking to the consortium of Asphalt and Mining (St Lucia) Ltd, T-Y-LIN, Sequeira & Gavarrete and Delant for the financing and Construction of the above-mentioned project, subject to further negotiations of the detailed contract terms to be agreed between the parties. April 4 From: Advocate Sevens [advocate777@ymail.com] NO COINCIDENCE It cannot be a coincidence that one man, and one man only, has been awarded every major contract or tender announced by the St. Lucia Air and Seaports Authority (SLASPA) in the last year. What is the Antonio Assenza's magic formula? Why does this United States citizen have the golden touch in St. Lucia, and how has he become such an insider? April7 Source: YouTube Guy Joseph fights back by Carmen Joseph April17 Local Newspaper Article entitled 'Here's the story on HIA' It is clear that A&M is the entity with which negotiations are currently being conducted. The VOICE have confirmed that his project was never put out to public tender. Instead, SLASP A selected 5 companies and invited them to submit design/construct proposals. Some ten weeks after the invitations were sent to the original 5 companies and with only two weeks remaining till the deadline, 2 other companies were invited. Eventually only three proposals were received, one (A&MSL) from the initial five and two from the two late bidders ... April 30 SPECIAL SLASPA PORT COUNCIL MEETING 12:07 PM to 4:40 PM 2 Chairman indicated that the media had placed the spotlight on SLASPA portraying it as not conducting business in the way that it should and noted that this was most regrettable as he had always regarded the people in management and on the Council as person of high repute and reliance. May I Local Newspaper Article by Jason Sifllet writes that one of the problems facing Joseph is that his friend Andrew Edgar is one of the shareholders of A&MSL that keeps winning government contracts. 13 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 15 of 29 May5 Hi Dona, (Public Relations inside SLASP A) Further to our conversation, please find a 1st draft for consideration. Please feel free to alter, change or adjust as deemed necessary to achieve our objective. I am available to discuss further. Ben Emmanuel Press Release - HIA Project In February 2009, SLASPA developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) bid document outlining the framework and guidelines under which Proposers/Bidders were to submit proposal to Finance Design and construct a New Terminal at HIA. The RFP had a specified closing date for receipt of all submissions to which there was full compliance by all bids received by SLASP A ... May20 3 Good Morning Ms Regis (SLASPA Public Relations) Attached is a Press Statement from the Office of Government Press Secretary re: HIA Redevelopment Project. Let me take this opportunity to offer sincere apologies for having prematurely circulated the last Press Statement from SLASPA. This was based on my misreading of your email of May 14th, 2010, 1:33 pm. I assure you of my commitment to preserving our relationship as a team and look forward to working along with you in that spirit. Best Regards. Darnley Leboume Government Press Secretary May 20th , 2010 PRESS RELEASE Government Proud of its Integrity and the Efficiency and Transparency of SLASPA's Management re: HIA Redevelopment The Government of Saint Lucia notes the latest statement issued by the Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority in relation to the Hewanorra International Airport Redevelopment Project. Government is encouraged by the fact that the statements issued by SLASP A to date and those issued by the Prime Minister; Minister of Communication, Works and Public Utilities and the Government's Press Office have been consistent in stating the facts as relates to the current status of the Hewanorra International Airport Redevelopment Project. We note further that the detractors to this extremely important and vital national development project have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their reckless and calculated accusations. Government is comforted in the knowledge that the people of Saint Lucia stand as witnesses to this unfolding scenario and that they will be the ultimate jurors of all interested parties. The Government of Saint Lucia expresses its firm unequivocal support and confidence in the management of the Saint Lucia Air and Sea Port Authority in their stewardship of the process to date. Government views SLASPA as a reputable entity, which has served successive Administrations. 14 - -·· ··-·--·-···-·-·--···--- ------·---~----· ------ Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 16 of 29 Government is mindful of the record of SLASP A as an experienced agency in the aviation, tourism and travel industry. The current Administration is confident that the Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority uphold the standards of integrity, prudent :financial management, operational efficiency and service excellence. Government has the highest degree of regard and respect for the management and the Board of Directors of SLASPA as professionals whose primary goal is to promote and protect the interest of our nation. Government assures all patriotic Saint Lucians that it is committed to the redevelopment of the Hewanorra International Airport. As such Government will provide the necessary policy support to SLASP A in the fulfilhnent of its mandate. Darnley Lebourne May20 Good Morning Mr. Lebourne, 4 Your apologies are noted. I'm not sure if this press release has been issued to the media; however, while we can't advise on the press releases emanating from the Prime Minister's Office, we wish to advise that in terms of the HIA project there is no more that can be said to the press at this point until the procurement process is complete therefore we are not in support of issuing this release at this point. We believe that the next step in managing the communication process is to furnish the press with information on the next phase of this project. As it relates to the integrity, efficiency and transparency of the project - this has been asked and answered anything more is "noise". We now need to educate the public as to why a redeveloped airport is needed in order to justify its cost. As discussed, we have prepared a detailed PR plan which speaks to the proposed role of Government, we are hoping to launch shortly. We believe this is SLASPA's best opportunity to meet its PR objectives. We look forward to making a formal presentation of this PR plan to Government once it is finalized. May20 Lebourne to Regis, Matthews and Emmanuel 4 Your comments are noted. The Press Release has been circulated to the media. The issuing of the Press Release satisfies a strategic Public Relations objective of Government at this time. As a representative of the Office of the Prime Minister, I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the PR plan. Best Regards. May27 5 Good Day GM, (Matthews) Copy for Advertorial As discussed, Please find the attached revised text for the advertorial. My recommendation is that we publish this in the Voice, Star and Mirror the weekend of June 4, there we would need the approval of the board by Monday, May 30, 2010, we need to send it to the Designer by Tuesday, June 1, in order to make the media deadline. Regis (SLASP A Public Relations) 15 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 17 of 29 3. To reduce the financial liability to the State, by ensuring that the project was self-financing and to confirm special treatment of the financial models with the World Bank and IMF; 4. To ensure that any additional charge required per passenger was kept to an absolute minimum; 5. To explore financing mechanism/models which are not onerous on the state in terms of additional security. Evaluation of Proposals -A Reflection of Consistency and Integrity of SLASPA 's Processes Over the years, SLASPA has established a proud record of managing large capital projects via public tender. Its procedures and systems in managing the procurement of goods and services are well established. The management of the RFP bidding process has been in full compliance with the Authority's procurement procedures and in accordance with the bid evaluation criteria approved by the Port's Council. The following provides a factual account regarding the status of the RFP process which clearly demonstrates the consistency and integrity of SLASPA's procurement procedure. It is important to note that due to the nature of the RFP, all three ,proposers put together Consortium Teams in making their formal submission. This was consistent with SLASPA's expectations of ensuring that successful bidders would be able to provide expertise in all of the subsections stipulated in the RFP. Consistent with its procurement procedures and due to legal requirements, SLASP A has opted not to disclose the names of any proposers/bidders at this time. The following is a summary of the procurement process followed by SLASPA: 1. SLASP A received three (3) fully compliant RFP bids and evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation procedures and criteria approved by the Port Council. The RFP comprised both technical and financial requirements. It is important to note that the RFP did not allow for a mortgage or a Government Guarantee; 2. All companies/entities in each consortium were subject to due diligence background checks consistent with the requirements and standards used by Saint Lucian's authorized national agency. 3. Having reviewed the submissions and evaluated them, a recommendation was made to SLASPA's Ports Council for consideration and approval. 4. The evaluation revealed that none of the three (3) submissions full satisfied all the requirements/expectations of SLASPA and therefore the RFP bid process was closed without any award being made. All three (3) proposers were accordingly notified; 17 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 18 of 29 5. SLASPA decided to engage the three (3) proposers in "without prejudice" discussions (meaning that neither SLASPA nor proposers could be bonded by matters discussed) with a view to exploring their interest in making a submission/proposal under revised parameters. These parameters kept the issues of no mortgage but the security components were worded as follows: "The need to explore all .financing mechanisms/models which are not onerous in terms of additional security. " 6. All three (3) proposers participated in the "without prejudice" discussions and re-submitted formal proposals that were based on the revised parameters; 7. Revised evaluation procedures and criteria were again approved by the Port Council and the evaluation of the revised proposals were conducted accordingly; 8. The Port Council approved the evaluation results and the associated recommendations coming out of the process; 9. The result/outcome of the evaluation process having been approved by Council was communicated to the Proposers with respect to their respective submissions; 10. SLASPA commenced negotiations with a preferred proposer towards finalization of a detailed project model within the approved bid submission parameters; 11. No contract has been awarded by SLASPA since negotiations are ongoing. Current Status of the HIA Project SLASPA is still engaged in an active procurement process and contrary to many others who choose to make unsubstantiated pronouncements, the management and Council of SLASPA will continue to be responsible in their conduct. SLASPA remains committed to maintaining its record as a reputable and responsible national agency contributing to Saint Lucia's social and economic developmenti Against that background, at the appropriate time in the ongoing process when a final decision is made, an official public announcement will be made. At this point, further details on the project will be provided including the name(s) of contractor( s). Addressing the Needs of Stakeholders and Planting seeds for a Secure Future SLASPA is an organization that prides itself on integrity, prudent financial management, operational efficiencies, employee development and service excellence and therefore fully understands and takes very seriously its mandate and responsibility to efficiently manage Saint Lucia's ports of entry while promoting and protecting the national interest of Saint Lucia. SLASPA has embrace a culture of communication and has worked closely with all stakeholders in pursuing its mandate while being sensitive to their views and concerns as it relates to the Hewanorra International Airport and other facilities. The Hewanorra International Airport redevelopment project is essential in meeting the needs of stakeholders and thus critical to the continued development 18 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 19 of 29 and growth of Saint Lucia's economy. SLASPA will therefore remain focused in fulfilling its role in the development of St. Lucia and will not be distracted by unfounded comments but will continue to provide accurate information to the public. SLASP A Website: "Hewanorra International Airport Proposed Redevelopment Project" 6 And "Getting Started on the Procurement Process" Appendix 2 Telephone Records of Joseph, Chastanet and Matthews On page 26 of the Letter of Request we enclosed this summary of telephone calls Known Telephone Calls by Public Officials to Assenza, Edgar and Each Other Joseph and Chastanet make several calls to Assenza and/or Edgar (and each other) between January 1, 2009 and the issuance of the RFP on February 12, 2009 (Section 6.1.2.1 page 106). The number of calls is noted: Joseph Calls to: Chastanet Calls to: A&MSL GOSL Assenza 12 Edgar 51 Chastanet 73 Edgar 9 Joseph 16 SLASPA Matthews 33 Matthews28 And while SLASP A was preparing the RFP, Matthews also made calls to Assenza (Section 6.1.2.2 107 page): 2009 January 6 to February 12 # of Calls 8 Events Preparation and Issuance of HIA RFP However, given the requirement to show probable cause we will be more specific. This was a tender process where all invited bidders are to be treated the same. Matthew described "it was not an open international tender process. It was a selective tender process based on our knowledge of firms and their experience from previous contact". However based upon the available phone records that started as of November 1, 2008 Ministers Joseph, Chastenet and SLASP A CEO Matthew telephoned the shareholders of A&MSL, Assenza and Edgar on 130 occasions between November 1, 2008 and February 12, 2009 the date of the issuance of the HIA RFP by SLASP A. While we do not know the contents of the telephone discussions the calls are timely with the HIA proposal. While there were two other requests for proposals, they were materially insignificant. Minister Joseph Minister Chastanet CEO Matthew Assenza 12 8 Edgar 100 9 1 19 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 20 of 29 Furthermore after the RFP was issued the same three persons telephoned the same two shareholders between February 13, 2009 and April 5, 2009, the day prior to the receipt of the Bidders' Proposals on 79 occasions. Minister Joseph Minister Chastanet CEO Matthew Edgar 38 6 15 Assenza 5 4 11 GUY JOSEPH Cell 758 721 9310 CALLS TO EDGAR 758 285 1111 and 758 716 0133 Based Upon Available C&W and Digicel Invoices Year/Month 2008 November December Number of Calls 12 35 Calls over 1 Minute 4 17 Calls Between 7pmand9am 2 10 2009 January 51 February 2 Issuance of Request for Proposal March 32 April 6 Receipt of A&MSL Proposal 16 10 14 2 12 3 GUY JOSEPH Cell 758 721 9310 CALLS TO ASSENZA AT 1954214 6929 AND GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION AT 1954 214 5299 and 954 214 7145 Based Upon Available C& W and Digicel Invoices Number of Year/Month 2008 Calls November December 2009 January 12 Issuance of Request for Proposal March 5 April Receipt of A&MSL Proposal Calls over 1 Minute Calls Between 7pmand9am 0 3 2 2 Exhibit# Example Taken from the HIA Chronology: January 12-19 Joseph phones Assenza from St. Lucia 12/01/2009 5:16 PM 19542146929 Florida Outgoing 00:02:49 Joseph phones Assenza from St. Lucia 13/01/2009 3:37 PM 19542146929 Florida Outgoing 00:01:42 Joseph phones Assenza from St. Lucia 14/01/2009 12:35 PM 19542146929 Florida Outgoing 00:06:28 6 20 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 21 of 29 Joseph phones Assenza from St. Lucia 14/01/2009 2:37 PM 19542146929 Florida Outgoing 00:00:19 Joseph phones Assenza 18/01/2009 12:36 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:14 18/01/2009 1:04 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:28 Joseph phones Assenza 18/01/2009 1:13 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:07 18/01/2009 1:21 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:04 Joseph phones Assenza 19/01/2009 12:12 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:03:15 Joseph phones Assenza 19/01/2009 7:22 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:41 19/01/2009 7:47 PM 19542146929 Florida OUT 00:00:59 CHASTANET CALLS TO ANTONIO ASSENZA AT 954 214 6929 AND GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION AT 954 214 5299 and 954 214 7145 Based Upon Available C& W and Digicel Invoices Number of Year/Month Calls 2009 January February Issuance of Request for Proposal 4 March April Receipt of A&MSL Proposal Calls over 1 Minute Calls Between 7pmand9am 2 2 CHASTENET CALLS TO ANDRE EDGAR 758 285 1111 and 758 716 0133 Based Upon Available C& W and Digicel Invoices Year/Month Number of 2009 Calls January 9 Issuance of Request for Proposal 5 February March April Receipt of A&MSL Proposal Calls over 1 Minute Calls Between 7pm and9 am 3 I 1 SEAN MATTHEW CALLS TO ANTONIO ASSENZA AT 954 214 6929 Based Upon Available C& W and Digicel Invoices Year/Month 2008 November Number of Calls Calls over 1 Minute Calls Between 7 pm and 9 am 21 ------------- Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 22 of 29 December 2009 January 3 February 5 Issuance of Request for Proposal March 10 April 1 Receipt of A&MSL Proposal 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 SEAN MATTHEW CALLS TO ANDRE EDGAR 758 285 1111 and 758 716 0133 Based Upon Available C&W and Digicel Invoices Year/Month 2008 November December Number of Calls 1 Calls over 1 Minute Calls Between 7pm and 9 am 4 5 1 2009 January Issuance of Request for Proposal February 2 March 12 April 3 Receipt of A&MSL Proposal Appendix 3 1 Involvement of Wayne Auguste acting on behalf of A&MSL Exhibit# SLASPA issued its RFP on February 12, 2009. Prior to that date A&MSL and its two shareholders Assenza and Edgar had retained Wayne Auguste, a Saint Lucian consultant whose involvement began prior to the issuance of the RFP. Then after the issuance of the RFP, he continued in dialogue that included Matthews. It is evident in these emails: 2008 December 8 Wayne Auguste emails Jackie, Secretary in the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) Re: Meeting with Republic Bank officials 7 Jackie We have been holding active talks with Minister Guy Joseph regarding the proposed expansion of the airport terminal in Vieux fort. Minister Joseph has been extremely supportive however in order to move the process to the next phase the bank has requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance. Please advise of a way forward. Wayne Auguste We asked Matthews, Knowledge of Why Auguste Emails To PMO? Here We Have Republic Bank identified With A&MSL 22 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 23 of 29 Matthews states "Wayne had no inter-face with us. We were not aware of Republic Bank involvement. At this time in December 2008 Wayne Auguste was not dealing with SLASPA. His email is addressed to Jackie in the PMO where Auguste states he has 'been holding active talks with Minister Guy Joseph'. Joseph would know all the information from the earlier S&G presentation". 2009 January 18 From: (Gaby) mariagabrielamazzei gama2402@hotmail.com at 7:54 PM 8 To: Tony Assenza tonyassenza@aol.com Then on January 19 at 1:36 PM Assenza forwards to Sean J. Matthews Good morning! As requested, below is the initial list of document required for our due diligence. Please note that this is only an initial list and is not exhaustive by any means and there may be more information required as we go forward. The list is as follows: A plan/scale of the project 3 year's historical financials for the Airport Authority Fiscal government performance in the last 3 years Quantity Surveyor estimates Cash flow model - Pro forma sources and uses of funds for the project Projections and economic evaluation - Passenger arrivals, revenue collected per passenger (tax) etc. St. Lucia's latest country rating Republic Bank Limited reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this E-mail address. Messages sent to or from this Email address may be stored on the Republic Bank E-mail system. We ask Matthews RFP Not Yet Issued But Information Is Being Requested By A Future Bidder. Matthews states "Gaby was doing the ::financialreviews and it seemed that she would be paid on a success fee basis, she was very driven. I most probably would have ignored her request". February 12 RFP is issued by SLASPA and acknowledged by Assenza February 19 9 Dear Sean 10 I have attached a summary document from Republic Bank's team regarding captioned project. They are very keen to have a conversation with you sometime next week. Please advise of a suitable time preferably next week Thursday as next week is T & T Carnival. Regards Wayne February 18 From: "Kwame Hannibal" To: Wayne Auguste wauguste@gmail.com&> 23 ---. ----- -· .. ·:. - - Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 24 of 29 Appendix 4 Assenza Seeks Matthew's Review of Proposed HIA Bid Exhibit# On March 31, 2009 Assenza emailed the A&MSL draft Bid to Matthews stating 'Need your thoughts asap'. 12 March 31, 2009 From: Antonio Assenza [aassenza@globetecconstruction;com] To: Sean J. Matthews at 3:25 PM Subject: Fwd: Hewanorra Airport - Proposed Phase 1 Terminal Building Sean, Would any of these be considered? Need your thoughts asap. Thanks Sent from my iPhone Antonio Assenza Subject: Hewanorra Airport - Proposed Phase 1 Terminal Building Hello Tony, (EXTRACT) I hope you are well. As you know we have been working with Delant to arrive at a cost for Phase I of the New Terminal Building. As part of this effort we have also conducted a preliminary evaluation of the proposed phasing. The drawings included as part of the RFP indicate that Phase 1 of the terminal building will provide ticket counters, outbound baggage, vertical circulation, and airport systems for the ultimate build out of the facility (approximately 1 Million passengers annually), as well as airline and airport office space as required at ultimate build-out. However, no inbound baggage, customs or immigration processing, or other facilities for inbound passengers are provided as part of Phase 1. These functions will remain in the existing terminal building, until such time as Phase 2 of the terminal building is operational. Assenza Seeks The Assistance Of Matthews For His Bid Preparation. Was There A Response? Matthews states "'it was not uncommon for Assenza to try this. A lot of these would not get a response. I gave out no information", and again making reference to the November 13, 2008 S&G presentation where the information was given out to Cabinet. On April 6, 2009 Assenza had Kevin Rick email their HlA Bid Proposal to Matthews and Joseph. A comparison of both documents shows similar information. 13 From: Kevin Rink [Kevin.Rink@globetecconstruction.com] To: sean.Matthews@slaspacom Cc: guysparts@hotmail.com, Antonio Assenza Proposal for Terminal Rehabilitation Please see attached letters. Under separate cover I am including additional documentation. Kevin Rink, GlobeTec Construction, LLC Design-Build Proposal- Bid Scope & Alternates 25 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 25 of 29 The following summary is a description of three scenarios which were developed in response to the SLASPA Request for Proposals (RFP) dated February 2009 for the Hewanorra International Airport, Vieux Fort Saint Lucia. The scenarios are as follows ... Appendix 5 IMTC in F.irst Place, A&MSL in Third Place Exhibit# 2009 August20 Corine forwards the draft paper on the new terminal building to Emmanuel 14 SLASPA STRATEGY TO MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS (extract) 4.0 ANALYSIS OF RFP EVALUATION Based on a comprehensive evaluation of the RFPs and taking into consideration the combined and collective strength and overall solidity of each company's submission in terms of capacity, engineering capability, overall financial proposal and the proposed project methodology, the following results are submitted: Asphalt and Mining (St Lucia) Ltd AshtromB V IMTC 73.8 points 75.2 points 80.2 points It should be noted that the maximum achievable points based on the evaluation criteria is 110.2 points. It is therefore recommended that IMTC be the preferred contractor for reflective of SLASPA's and the Government of Saint Lucia's best interests. August 21 GM (Matthews), 15 Please find the attached for your perusal and comments. Grace Herman "New RIA Terminal Slide Presentation to Cabinet August 21 DOC" above information Slide 16: Under heading of Evaluation Results for the RIA it reports: Asphalt and Mining (St Lucia) Ltd AshtromB V IMTC 73.8 points 75.2 points 80.2 points Do We Know When Joseph Was Advised That A&MSL Was In Last Place? Matthews states "the evaluation was completed by end of July and on August 21 there was a presentation to Cabinet that gave the results of the RFP. However, when I prepare and issue a report with recommendations to Council members, a copy also goes to the Minister usually a few days before the meeting. Also, Mr. Oswald Augustin was the Deputy Chairman of the UWP and information was always available to him. He has a business relationship with Mr. Allan Chastanet and his father". 26 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 26 of 29 What was Joseph reaction to the third place finish of A&MSL? Matthews states "the results were not what he expected. In terms of general demeanor, he does not want to approve anything that did not include A&MSL. There was always the indication that unless A&MSL is a part of it, he would not approve it. There was always pressure on me (Sean) and Isaac Anthony". August 26 GM (Matthews) writes to Council on analysis of RFPs for HIA noting the Finance, Investment & Development Committee has endorsed it for consideration and approval of Council. RFPs were submitted by A&MSL with TY LIN, GlobeTec, Delant; Ashtrom BV and IMTC with Roy Anderson Corp and Gresham Smith. 16 In general, the three bidders satisfied the minimum RFP criteria with a detailed evaluation was carried out on the following: Track Record and Capacity Contract Price Engineering Capability Financial Proposal Project Methodology Here are the results: Points IMTC 80.2 AshtromBV 75.2 A&MSL 73.8 It is therefore recommended that IMTC be the preferred contractor for reflective of SLAP SA' s and GOSL' s best interests. However prior to selecting the preferred contractor the following key points must be resolved: Burning issue of two airports Developers have not considered the cost to operate HIA, our analysis shows an additional US$36 will be required per passenger SLASP A will be required to make up any shortfall below the 386,000 passengers Other points follow. August 27 th Draft Minutes of the 189 PORT COUNCIL MEETING starting at 10:35 AM to 3:15 PM Chairman indicated that one of the major decisions that Council would have to make was in respect of the expansion of the terminal at HIA. He stated that this is a significant project and he hoped that proper and through consideration would be given before any decision is made. Outstanding Issues with GOSL: GM reported that he and PS Works met with the Prime Minister and were able to go through a number of the outstanding issue with him. Report from the Finance, Investment & Development Committee 27 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 27 of 29 Analysis of RFP's for Terminal Building and FBO at BIA GM presented the results of the RFP analysis. Council was also advised about alternative options which included short term remedial work at a cost of EC$7M, reduction in the size of thy new terminal building at a cost of EC$269M and redevelopment of the existing terminal building at a cost ofEC$30.5M. Council agreed that the following issues must be addressed by GOSL: Whether or not to operate two airports In addition to the cost of financing the construction, the new terminal will require an additional US$8 per passenger for its operation SLAPSA/GOSL are required to make up any shortfall should passengers fall below the base of386,000 The issue of sovereign guarantee, including GOSL's ability and willingness to provide it The size and scope of the proposed investment ofUS$157M requires careful consideration be given to all financing options and implications for both SLASP A and GOSL prior to engaging a preferred contractor. Council agreed a meeting is needed between them and GOSL to discuss the possible financing of the terminal building. Council would be represented by Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Gergasse along with relevant senior managers. Council also agreed to grant approval for the N between Asphalt and Mining (St. Lucia) and Aviation Services to develop the FBO at RIA subject to the outcome of the due diligence. August28 Matthews writes to Assenza to advise that the RPF process is underway and SLASP A will notify you of its decision on your proposal. Appendix6 Antonio Assenza and the use of tonyassenza@aol.com email address Exhibit# 2009 January 18 From: (Gaby) mariagabriela mazzei gama2402@hotmail.com at 7:54 PM 8 To: Tony Assenza tonyassenza@aol.com Then on January 19 at 1:36 PM Assenza forwards to Sean J. Matthews Good morning! As requested, below is the initial list of document required for our due diligence. Please note that this is only an initial list and is not exhaustive by any means and there may be more information required as we go forward. The list is as follows: A plan/scale of the project 28 -----~~- --··--~- Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 28 of 29 3 year's historical financials for the Airport Authority Fiscal government performance in the last 3 years Quantity Surveyor estimates Cash flow model - Pro forma sources and uses of funds for the project Projections and economic evaluation - Passenger arrivals, revenue collected per passenger (tax) etc. St. Lucia's latest country rating Republic Bank Limited reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this E-mail address. Messages sent to or from this Email address may be stored on the Republic Bank E-mail system. 2010 April 8 On April 7, 2010 Karen Monico emails the BB&T letter from her email address kmonico@globetecconstruction.com to Assenza at tonyassenza@aol.com. 17 On April 8, 2010 Assenza at "Aol Email tonyassenza@aol.com" emailed the following February 25, 2010 dated BB&T letter to Matthews: (Extract) BB&T and SPP write to Ben Emmanuel to set out the terms of their retention by SLASPA as "Advisors" in connection with its proposed issuance of US$160M of Structured Lease Backed Senior Notes in connection with HIA. It includes the offer of the financing to institutional investors. June 10 2011 January? tonyassenza@aol.com emails Anthony, Matthews at SLASPA and Emmanuel at SLASPA re IIlA Terminal Redevelopment - Financial Submittal - URGENT. Attached is a two page letter from A&ML to Isaac Anthony who is Chairman of SLASPA 18 Emmanuel emails tonyassenza@aol.com with a copy to Matthews on subject of Draft ADC Bill and comments re: term sheet and attached is St. Lucia Term Sheet about the IIlA project and critical components in regard to the draft ADC Bill that are to be kept confidential, though he can share with his BB&T /SPP team. 19 January? From: Aol Email Sent: Friday January 07, 2011 12:09 PM To: Ben Emmanuel Subject: This is my email Sent from Antonio Assenza' s phone March22 Graham a partner at SPP Capital Partners emails Matthews, Emmanuel and tonyassenza@aol.com with copies to three other persons to say "We would like to convene an update/status call tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1:30 ET. Is this a time that works for everyone? 21 May 16 Matthews emails tonyassenza@aol.com and aassenza@globeteccontruction.com with copy to Emmanuel on "information for Miami based Attorney" to say "he 20 29 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 29 of 29 company will provide everything else that is required for the satisfactory completion of the project. This is conditional upon you supplying a detailed proposal that the GOSL finds acceptable for the development of the site. Your must include details as to how your company proposes to :finance the project. 27 34 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 1 of 112 1 105TH CONGRESS } 1st Session SENATE { TREATYDoc. 105-24 MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA AND ST. LUCIA MESSAGE FROM THEPRESIDENT OFTHEUNITED STATES TRANSMITTING TREATIES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF FOUR COUNTRIES COMPRISING THE ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, SIGNED AT ST. JOHN'S ON OCTOBER 31, 1996; DOMINICA, SIGNED AT ROSEAU ON OCTOBER 10, 1996; GRENADA, SIGNED AT ST. GEORGE'S ON MAY 30, 1996; ST. LUCIA, SIGNED AT CASTRIES ON APRIL 18, 1996 SEPTEMBER3, 1997.-Treaties were read the first time and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate 39--118 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINGOFFICE WASHINGTON : 1997 Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 2 of 112 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1997. To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaties Between the Government of the United States of America and the governments of four countries comprising the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The Treaties are with: Antigua and Barbuda, signed at St. John's on October 31, 1996; Dominica, signed at Roseau on October 10, 1996; Grenada, signed at St. George's on May 30, 1996; St. Lucia, signed at Castries on April 18, 1996. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaties. The Treaties are part of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activity more effectively. They should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including "white-collar" crime and drug trafficking offenses. The Treaties are self-executing. The Treaties provide for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaties includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons or items; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to forfeiture of assets, restitution to the victims of crime, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to these Treaties and give its advice and consent to ratification. WILLIAM J. CLINTON. (III) Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 3 of 112 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL DEPARTMENTOF STATE, Washington, June 18, 1997. The PRESIDENT, The White House. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you treaties on mutual legal assistance (MLATs) between the Government of the United States of America and the Governments of four countries comprising the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). The treaties are with: Antigua and Barbuda, signed at St. John's on October 31, 1'996; Dominica, signed at Roseau on October 10, 1996; Grenada, signed at St. George's on May 30, 1996; and St. Lucia, signed at Castries on April 18, 1996. I recommend that these treaties be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The OECS MLATs, the texts of which are identical, contain all essential provisions sought by the United States. The treaty with Antigua and Barbuda is accompanied by an exchange of diplomatic notes (described below), which relates to Article 1 of the Treaty and which forms an integral part of the treaty. They represent part of a concerted effort by the Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop modern legal assistance relationships in order to enhance the United States' ability to prosecute serious offenders including, especially, narcotics traffickers. The Treaties are designed to be self-executing and will not require implementing legislation. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents; records and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution to the victims of crime and collection of fines; and rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings directly related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature. Article 1(3) states that, except as otherwise provided in the Treaty, assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State. (V) Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 4 of 112 VI The Treaty with Antigua and Barbuda includes an exchange of diplomatic notes which confirms that assistance under the Treaty includes criminal tax matters, notwithstanding that Antigua and Barbuda has no income tax legislation at this time. The United States stated in its note that it does not intend to seek assistance under the Treaty for civil and administrative income tax matters that are unrelated to any criminal matter. The exchange of notes constitutes an integral part of this treaty. Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority is the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For each of the other respective States, the Central Authority is the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty. Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal law. In addition, a request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the security or similar essential public interests of the Requested State, or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty. Further grounds for denial are that the request relates to a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis of that term's usage in extradition treaties) or that execution of the request would be contrary to the Constitution of the Requested State. This latter provision is similar to clauses in other United States mutual legal assistance treaties. e.g., Jamaica. A final ground for denial of assistance is that the request is made pursuant to provisions of the treaty governing search and seizure (Article 14) or asset forfeiture (Article 16) and relates to conduct which would not be an offense if it has occurred in the Requested State. Thus, while "dual criminality" in general is not a prerequisite for assistance under this treaty, the Requested State does retain discretion to deny a request under Articles 14 and 16. Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the Central Authority of the Requested State deems necessary. If the Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial. Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request. The article permits other forms of request in emergency situations but requires written confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise. Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 5 of 112 VII Article 5 requires the Central Authority of the Requested State to execute the request promptly or to transmit it to the authority having jurisdiction to do so. It provides that the competent authorities of the Requested State shall do everything in their power to execute a request, and that the judicial or other competent authorities of the Requested State shall have authority to issue subpoenas, search warrants or other orders necessary to execute the request. The Central Authority of the Requested State must make all arrangements for and meet the costs of representation of the Requesting State in any proceedings arising out of an assistance request. Under Article 5(3), requests are to be executed in accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the extent that the Treaty provides otherwise. However, the method of execution specified in the request is to be followed except insofar as it is prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. If the Central Authority of the Requested State determines that execution of the request would interfere with an ongoing investigation, prosecution or proceeding in that State, it may postpone execution or, after consulting with the Central Authority of the Requesting State, impose conditions on execution. If the Requesting State accepts assistance subject to conditions, it shall comply with them. Article 5(5) further requires the Requested State, if so requested, to use its best efforts to keep confidential a request and its contents, and to inform the Requesting State's Central Authority if the request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality. This provides the Requesting State an opportunity to decide whether to pursue the request or to withdraw it in order to maintain confidentiality. This article additionally requires the Requested State's Central Authority to respond to reasonable inquiries by the requesting State's Central Authority regarding the status of the execution of a request; to report promptly to the Requesting State's Central Authority the outcome of its execution; and, if the request is denied, to inform the Requesting State's Central Authority of the reasons for the denial. Article 6 apportions between the two States the costs incurred in executing a request. It provides that the Requested State shall pay all costs, except for the following items to be paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses; costs of translation, interpretation and transcription; and allowances and expenses related to travel of persons pursuant to Articles 10 and 11. Article 7 requires the Requesting State to comply with any request by the Central Authority of the Requested State that information or evidence obtained under the Treaty not be used for proceedings other than those described in the request without its prior consent. Further, if the Requested State's Central Authority asks that information or evidence furnished be kept confidential or be used in accordance with specified conditions, the Requesting State must use its best efforts to comply with the conditions. Once information is made public in the Requesting State in accordance with either of these provisions, no further limitations on use apply. Nothing in the article prevents the use or disclosure of information to the extent that there is an obligation to do so under the Con- Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 6 of 112 VIII stitution of the Requesting State in a criminal prosecution. The Requesting State is obliged to notify the Requested State in advance of any such proposed use or disclosure. Article 8 provides that a person in the Requested State from whom testimony or evidence is requested pursuant to the Treaty shall be compelled, if necessary, to appear and testify or produce items and articles of evidence. The article requires the Central Authority of the Requested State, upon request, to furnish information in advance about the date and place of the taking of testimony or evidence. Article 8(3) further requires the Requested State to permit the presence of persons specified in the request (such as the accused, counsel for the accused, or other interested persons) and to permit them to question the person giving the testimony or evidence. In the event that a person whose testimony or evidence is being taken asserts a claim of immunity, incapacity or privilege under the laws of the Requesting State, Article 8(4) provides that the testimony or evidence shall be taken and the claim made known to the Central Authority of the Requesting State for resolution by its authorities. Finally, in order to ensure admissibility in evidence in the Requesting State, Article 8(5) provides, through the use of forms appended to the Treaty, a mechanism for authenticating evidence that is produced pursuant to or that is the subject of testimony taken in the Requested State. Article 9 requires that the Requested State provide the Requesting State with copies of publicly available records in the possession of government departments and agencies in the Requested State. The Requested State may further provide copies of records or information in the possession of an executive, legislative, or judicial authority in that State but not publicly available, to the extent and under the same conditions as it would provide them to its own law enforcement or judicial authorities. The Requested State has the discretion to deny such requests pursuant to this paragraph entirely or in part. Article 9 also provides that no further authentication shall be necessary for admissibility into evidence in the Requesting State of official records where the official in charge of maintaining them authenticates the records through the use of Form B appended to this Treaty. Article 10(1) provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to invite the voluntary appearance in its territory of a person located in the Requested State. The Requesting State shall indicate the extent to which the expenses will be paid. Article 10(2) states that the Central Authority of the Requesting State has discretion to determine that a person appearing in the Requesting State shall not be subject to service of process or be detained or subjected to any restriction of personal liberty by reason of any acts or convictions that preceded his departure from the Requested State. Under Article 10(3), any safe conduct provided for by this article ceases seven days after the Central Authority of the Requesting State has notified the Central Authority of the Requested State that the person's presence is no longer required, or if the person has left the Requesting State and voluntarily returns to it. An extension of up to Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 7 of 112 IX fifteen days for good cause may be granted by the Requesting State's Central Authority in its discretion. Article 11 provides for temporary transfer of a person in custody in the Requested State to the Requesting State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty (for example, a witness incarcerated in the Requested State may be transferred to the Requesting State to have his deposition taken in the presence of the defendant), provided that the person in question and the Central Authorities of both States agree. The article also provides for voluntary transfer of a person in the custody of the Requesting State to the Requested State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty (for example, a defendant in the Requesting State may be transferred for purposes of attending a witness deposition in the Requested State), if the person consents and if the Central Authorities of both States agree. Article 11(3) further establishes both the express authority and the obligation of the receiving State to maintain the person transferred in custody unless otherwise authorized by the sending State. The return of the person transferred is subject to terms and conditions agreed to by the Central Authorities, and the sending State is not required to initiate extradition proceedings for return of the person transferred. The person transferred receives credit for service of the sentence imposed in the sending State for time served in the custody of the receiving State. Article 12 requires the Requested State to use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or items specified in a request. Article 13 obligates the Requested State to use its best efforts to effect service of any document relating to any request for assistance under the Treaty. A request for the service of a document requiring a person to appear in the Requesting State must be transmitted a reasonable time before the scheduled appearance. Proof of service is to be provided in the manner specified in the request. Article 14 obligates the Requested State to execute requests for search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the Requesting State if the request includes the information justifying such action under the laws of the Requested State. It provides that, upon request by the Central Authority of the Requesting State, every official who has custody of a seized item is required to certify, through the use of Form C appended to the Treaty, the continuity of custody, the identity of the item, and the integrity of its condition. No further certification is required. The certificate is admissible in evidence in the Requesting State. Article 14(3) further provides that the Central Authority of the Requested State may impose upon the Requesting State terms and conditions deemed necessary to protect third party interests in items to be transferred. Article 15 requires the Requesting State's Central Authority, upon request of its counterpart in the Requested State, to return items, including documents, records or articles of evidence obtained in the execution of a request as soon as possible. Article 16(1) provides that, if the Central Authority of one Contracting Party becomes aware of proceeds or instrumentalities of offenses that are located in the territory of the other Party and may be forfeitable or otherwise subject to seizure, it may so inform the Central Authority of that other Party. If the Party receiving such Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 8 of 112 X information has jurisdiction, it may present this information to its authorities for a determination whether any action is appropriate. The Central Authority of the Party receiving such information is required to inform the Central Authority of that Party that provided the information of the action taken. Article 16(2) also obligates the Contracting Parties to assist each other to the extent permitted by their respective laws in proceedings relating to forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of offenses, restitution to victims of crime, and collection of fines imposed as sentences in criminal prosecutions. Under Article 16(3), the Party having custody over proceeds or instrumentalities of offenses is required to dispose of them in accordance with its laws. Either party may share forfeited assets or the proceeds of their sale with the other Party, to the extent not prohibited by the transferring party's laws and upon such terms as it deems appropriate. To the extent permitted by law, a conviction in the Requesting State may serve as a basis for forfeiture in the Requested State. Article 17 states that assistance and procedures provided in the Treaty shall not prevent either Contracting Party from granting assistance to the other Party through the provisions of other applicable international agreements or through the provisions of its national laws. The Parties may also provide assistance pursuant to any bilateral arrangement, agreement of practice which may be applicable. Article 18 provides that the Central Authorities of the Contracting Parties shall consult, at times mutually agreed, to promote the most effective use of the Treaty, and may agree upon such practical measures as may be necessary to facilitate the Treaty's implementation. Article 19 provides that the Treaty shall be subject to ratification and the instruments shall be exchanged at Washington whereupon the Treaty shall enter into force. Article 19(4) further provides that either party may terminate the Treaty by written notice to the other party, with termination to become effective six months after the date of receipt of such notice. Technical Analyses explaining in detail the provisions of these Treaties are being prepared by the United States negotiating delegation, consisting of representatives from the Departments of Justice and State, and will be transmitted separately to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in favoring approval of these Treaties by the Senate as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted, MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 9 of 112 TREJ,TY BE'J'WE?:N THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED Sr/1.Ti,S Qi' AND THE GOVER.~MENT OF ANTIGUA AND BAR!UnJ.~ ON MU':"JhL LEGAi. ASS!STANCE (1) lN CRIMIN~.L Ml\'MERS lJ~ERICl\ Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 10 of 112 2 TABLE OF AJ:·ticle 1 Scope of Aaaiatance Article 2 Central Article 3 Limitations Article 4 Form and Contents Authorities on Assistance Execution Articles COtlTBNTS of Requests of Requests Article 6 Costs Article 7 Limitations on Use Article 8 Testimony or Evidence Article !I Records Article 10 Testimony Article 11 Transfer of Persona Article 12 Location or Identification Article 13 Service Article 14 Search and Seizure Article 1s Return of Ite- Article 16 Aaaistance Article 17 Compatibility Article 18 Consultation Article 19 Ratification, in the Requested State of Goverrunent Agencies in -the Requesting State in Custody of P~rsons or Items of Documents in Forfeiture Proceedings with Other Arrangements Entry Into Force, and Termination Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 11 of 112 3 The Government Government of Antigua Desiring enforcement of the United authorities che effectiveness of beth prosecution, and pr~vention m-.itual legal assistance as of A.~erica and the and Barbuda, to improve Have agreed States countries of crime in criminal follows: of the in the through r.1atters, law investigation, cooperation and Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 12 of 112 4 2 Article l Scope of Assistance l. assistance, connection of criminal The Contracting Parties in accordance ~ith shall provide with the provisions the investigation, offenses,·and mutual of this prosecution, in proceedings Treacy, in and prevention relat,ad to criminal matters. 2. Assistance snall (al taking (bi providing include: the testimony or statements documents, records, of persons; and articles of evidence; (c! locating (dl servl.ng ie) transferring ocher or identifying peraons, documents; persons in custody or purposes; (fl executing requests (g) assisting in proc~edings immobilization restitution; (hl for testimony any other for searches related and forfeiture collection to of assets; of fines; form of assistance the laws of the Requested and seizures; ar.d not prohibited State. by Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 13 of 112 5 3 3. Except as otherwise shall be provided without which is the subject of the assistance conduct provided or proceeding in the Requesting offense the under 4. This assistance give rise obtain, Treaty (l) is intended to a right between 2. Authority the Parties of this any evidence, an legal as set forth Treaty shall person to not or to impede the of a request. Central Authority prosecution, for mutual of any private Article 1. the State. The provisions or exclude to whether would constitute solely on the part Treaty, investigation, State matters above. suppress, execution regard laws of the Requested in criminal in paragraph in this Each Contracting For the United shall by the Attorney be Barbuda, the Central a person designated Scates the Attorney General. Authorities Party to make and receive 2 shall designate requests pursuant of America, General shall by the Attorney to this designated of Antigua be the Attorney General. Treaty. the Central or a person For the Government Authority a Central and General or Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 14 of 112 6 4 3. with The Central one another shall Autherities for the purposes of this Article Wimitations l. assist.ance Th,. Central communicate directly Treaty. 3 en Assistance Authority of the Req,ieoted St.ate may d.,ny to an offense under military be an offense under ordinary if: (a) the request relates law which wuuld not cr.iminnl (bl t.he execution securit)t (c;i law: the cf or other the Requested the request request would prejudice essential public the interests of State; is not made: in conformity with the ·rreaty; (,:1) th" request relates (e) the request is of thin offense (f) made pun:uant Tru.ty committed that the exe,cuticn the Constit.ut.1.ora of tr, Requested State State; or the ;,:-equevt of the c,ffense; ilrt.icle to car.duct. and relates in the in to a political H or 16 which w,:,uld net if be an wo'11d be contrary Requcst~d Sta'.:e. to Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 15 of 112 7 5 2. the Before denying awsistance pursuan-=. c.o thiP. Article, Central Authority of the Requested the Central Authority of t!le Requesting whether assistance: can be given to these conditions, it ohall State subject If the Recr~esting cieems necessary. oubject State shall with to consider to such State consult c-:oltd.itiona accepts as it assistanc~ comply wit.h the conditions. If the Central 3. assistance, it Requesting St.ate shall Authority inform of the Req,..est¢d the Central of the basis for that the request Central in writing, within ten Requested 2. days State of Requests assistance Authority in another is not for of the of the 4 Form and Contents A req,~est denies the denial. Article l. Authority State shall be in writing Requested State except ~ay ac~ept the request form in emergency situ.otions. If th~ request be confirmed in writing thereafter agrees t'ne request shall ,_~nless the CentraJ Aut:hOrity otherwise. shall include the following: s a~ the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 16 of 112 8 6 (a) the name of the authority investigation, which the (b) request relate the specific the matter; of a statement matter prosecution, assistance evidence, or proceeding of the subject a description other (d) to the to relates: investigation, including (c) prosecution, a description the conducting the or criminal evidence, sought; of proceeding, offenses which information, or and of the purpose information, and nature or for which the other assistance is sought. 3. also To the extent necessary and possible, a request shall include: (al information person (bl on the identity from whom evidence information person to on the be served, to the proceedings, service (c) that of any is sought:; and location.of person's and the manner a relationship in which i.s to be made; information person identity and location to on the be located; identity and whereabouts of a Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 17 of 112 9 7 (d) a precise (el description of the pl.ace be searched and of the articles a description of the manner testimony or statement is or person to to be seized; in which any to be taken and recorded; (fl a list ig) a description followed (hi in executing wiil be entitled; information atten':ion of the execution T~e Central promptly execute transmit it coaGpetent in their the authorities power to the to l'acilitat.e 5 when appropriate, having the Requesting request.. jurisdiction of the ~equested to execute State of the Requested or, to the authority tc of Requests Authority request in the which may be brought of the Execution 1. and expenses and Requested Article to be request; asked to appear any other itc the procedure as to the allowances which a person (il of a witness; of any particular information State to be asked of questions request. State State shall shall to do so. shall The do everything The competent judiciai Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 18 of 112 10 8 or other issue authorities subpoenas, execute the 2. representation in ~hat this the request Treaty procedure, the or If the that. crimir.al State, it to =onditions Central of a request power to necessary Requested to under the pr~ceedings Central determined Authority to the exten:: accordance State. c.o be necessary the in a perticular Requested execution, extent. Stat~ the Requested would the Req,..t~sted for the internal those applicable of w~th wit.h or proceeding or make exe=\.1tion Requesting If an in subject c::>nsultations State. the State interfere ci.fter in that specifies in State the to the spe~ified the prosecution, of to except in a request. investigation, may postpone assistance. laws in of of for request Authority execution costs Requesting be executed shall shall Frocedures be followed the State the s~at.e except nor the according otherwise. Treaty procedure determines the have orders and meet be executed the request investigations with shns which State. Authority no longer a in ~he Re-;uesting for by this Authority shall whether co ar.y reetrlction of any acts provided State St.ate not be subject or subjecced conduct State person's !'hall by reason seven days after the a person article cease that cf the Requeoting c,f Article shall of t~e Requesting the Requested required, State or when the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 25 of 112 17 15 person, having The competent discretion, left the Requesting authorities extend determine that of the this there period State, voluntarily Requesting State for 1. A person presence in the assistance under Requested person State consents this of the State is sought Treaty shall to the Requesting and if the they in Custody custody Requesting if l1 of Persons in the days to do so. Article Transfer may, in their up to fifteen is good cause returns. for State for whose purposes be transferred State Central Requested of from the that Authorities ~urpose of both if the States agree. 2. A person presence in the in the Requested State assistance under this.Treaty Requesting State to the person consents and if custody of the Requesting is sought purposes may be transferred Requested the for Central State for State whose of from the that Authorities purpose of both if the States agree. 3. For purposes (a) of this the receiving the obligation Article: State shall to keep the have the authority and person transferred in Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 26 of 112 18 16 (b) custody unleas sendi!l3 State; the receiving transferred to as soon agreed {c) the return the of State return the custody of Stace· the for time The the Requested location rcque~t. or identity sending State or as otherwise req:..iire shall in the sending for t.hc and receive imposed served the iJroceedings transferred; sentence credit in the custody fo~ sendin9 of the State. shall of 12 ot Persons or Identification State noc extradition Article Location the person Authorities; shall person the by the permit transferred of the receiving shall initiate person service ~tate Central re<:aiving to authorized circumstances 3.9 by both State (d) otherwise use persorts its or best items c:::: Items efforts specjfied to ascertair. in the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 27 of 112 19 17 Article·11 Service 1. The Requested effect service any request State assistance for of this relating, before an authority before the acheduled State shall State this State State for of a person a reasonable a proof return time of service in 14 shall execute the every certify, the continuity a requeat for the of any item to the Requesting includes Upon request, Treaty, any request the appearance information the laws of the Requested item shall under and Seizure and delivery if the request 2. seized The Requested under State to in the Request. Search action transmit shall Article State to appearance. The Requeated seizure, efforts in whole or in part, in the Requesting the manner specified search, best Treaty. of a document requiring the service 1. use its made by the Requesting The Requesting 3. shall of any document the provisions 2. of Documents official through justifying such State .. who has custody of a the use of Form C appended of custody, the identity of the to Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 28 of 112 20 18 item, and the integrity of certification shall admissible in evidence 3. that conditions condition. be required. The Central require its The certificate in the Requesting Authority the Requesting in the State agree to the terms third may and party 15 of Items The Central Authority of the Requested the Authority of the Central including documents, to it fur!lished State item to be transferred. Return items, be State. to protect Article that shall of the Requested deemed to be necessary interests No further Requesting records, in execution Stat~ may require State or articles of a reques-; return of any evidence urade1~ this Treaty aa soon as possibl~. Article Assistance rf the central !. becomes are aware located of Authority or otherwise that it Proceedings of one Contracting or instrumentalities territory forfeitable Party, in Forfeiture proceeQs in the 16 of of the other suQject may so inform Party to seizure the Central Party offenses whi~h and may be under Authority the lawc of of the other Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 29 of 112 21 19 Party. If in regard, this the authorities Party it for appropriate. information extent the permitted collection prosecutions. 3. fines or of such assets, Party, shall Parties decision in The Central Party shall that shall provided assist laws action in the Either other in and the criminal further over by the proceedings. of them in 1113Ytransfer sale, transferring deems appropriate. immobilize pt·o.:,eeds or dispose of their the. proceedings of crime. Party to and instrumentalities pending shall each to temporarily has custody permitted as it is information a& sentences or the proceeds and upon such terms their of the proceeds of offenses to the extent the respective may include laws. its taken. imposed its issue to the victims that jurisdiction any action countr}'. instrumentalic.ies instrumentalities with whether of the forfeiture The Party accordance to Authority action This proceeds information received restitution of this that by their to the of offenses, the Party The Contracting r-elating has laws of their Central of 2. information authorities the of the the such a determination with Authority inform may present These accordance receiving all or part to the other Party's laws Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 30 of 112 22 20 4. State, for To the extent a conviction forfeiture permitted in the in the under Requesting Requested Assistance not prevent the other either Party international national with and procedures forth Party may serve in this as a basis Treaty from granting of other the may also arrangement, Requested Arrangements or through The Parties to any bilateral Other the provisions agreements, laws.· State the 17 set Contracting through law of State. Article Compatibility the agreement, assistance to applicable provisions provide shall of its assistance or pr~ctice pursuant which may be applicable. Article 18 Consultation The Central consult, at most effective also agree technical Authorities times mutually use of this on such practical assistance, implementation of this of the Contracting agreed to Treaty. by them, to The.Central measures, as may be necessary Treaty. Parties the Authorities including to promote shall training facilitate may and the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 31 of 112 23 21 Article Ratification, This 1. instruments Entry Treaty 19 Into shall Force, be subject of ratification and Termination to ratification, shall be exchanged enter into apply to any request and the at Washington as soon as possible. This Treaty 2. of instruments the date of its omissions (. Either notice effect six shall entry occurred into prior Party force upon the exchange whether that date. may terminate this Treaty following Party. presented the relevant to or after to the other months force ratification. This Treaty 3. written of shall Termination the date of receipt acts after or by means of shall take of the notification. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the by their respective DONE at of undersigned, Governinents 1i .yAfl-:..._, in &d'i/v,. , 1996. FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA: 1~/J)/2~ being have signed duplicate, this this duly authorized Treaty. 3 I~ day q{1:=: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 32 of 112 24 Form A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITYOF BUSINESS RECORDS attest I, of criminal punishment am employed by for statement false and that [offidal is further state that [noroe of buaineee from wh~ documents are aoushtl original on penalty or attestation that each of the or a duplicate of the my official title title) I records attached hereto original record i.n the is the custody of [nameof bunincnn from which documcoraarc aouahtl I further A) that: atate such records were made, at or near the time uf the by (or fr01T, occurrence of the matters set forth, information transmitted by) a person with knowledge those Bl such records were kept in the conducted business activity; C) the buaineaa activity practice; and D) if any such record is not duplicate of the original. course ~.ade such the original, as a regular it is a Cdatel Sworn to or affir,..d officer, of a regularly records [aiqnaturcl judicial of matters; this before ___ me, day of ____ ---------· ..ulnwa~mc .....)._____ , a 19 __ Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 33 of 112 25 Form B ATTESTATIONOF AUTHENTICITYOF FOREIGN PUBLIC DOCUME.'ITS attest I, of criminal punishment my position with is to attest true er filed .,a.,g.,e.,.n ..c..,vu) ______ copies of attached of original that [country) in that law of [country) and described official below are records which are (nameof office or in , which is a government rcountrvl Description on penalty or attestation and that by the the documents and accurate recorded statement title) I am authorized that false the Government [officia) position for of Documents: [sianaturel Jdatel office or agency of Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 34 of 112 26 Form c ATTESTATION WITH RESPECT TO SEIZED ARTICLES I' ----------'-Wlllllli"'----------• of criminal punishment my position with for false the Government of [offjcial is received custody attest on penalty or attestation that statement [gouptry) titiel of the article• liated below fr0111____ JJ~o~1~roua._.g~f.__.p~oar.,.g_n_1 ________ on ------~rd~1-t.e at ~placnl them (or, if different, Description Changes in the as hoted below). of Articles, in condition while faiqoaturcl Official same condition seal in my custody: _ .... ) _____ as when I received _ Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 35 of 112 27 TRZATY B:e:TWEEN THE 00\'llNMENT OF THE l.JNTTED STATES ~F AMF.:RI.-.A »ro '1'11S GvVE!ulMENT OF C,)M!NICA _ ON :-IIJTOJ-..Lr,i,;c;,..1..iu;,ns·rANCE :m C:UMI~l!\i. l' ... ,:n;p_:; Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 36 of 112 28 TABLEOP COflTBNTS Article l Scope of A8aistance Article 2 Central Article 3 Limitations Article 4 Forta and Contents Article S Execution Article 6 Costa Article 7 Limitations Article 8 Tes,:imony or Evidence Article 9 Records of Government Agencies Article 10 Testimony Article ll Transfer of Persona in Custody Artich 12 Location or Identification .\rticle 11 Service A-.ticle u Search and Seizure l\rticle 1S Return of Itema Article 1' A8~ictance Article 17 Compatibility Article l8 Consultation Article 19 Ratification, Authorities on Assistance of Requests of Requests on Use in the Req1.1_eatedState in the Requesting State of Person• or It.ems of Documents in Forfeiture Prc-c:eedi119s with Other Arr&n9e1Mnts Bntry_ Into Force, and Termination Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 37 of 112 29 The Government of the united State• of America and the Government of Dominica, Desiring enforcement to improve the effectiveness authorities of both countries prosecution, ani:I prevention mutual legal assistance Have agreed in the inveatigation, of crime through in criainal aa follows: of the law matters, cooperation and Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 38 of 112 30 :z Article 1 Scope of AHiatuce 1. in accordance a••i•tance, coMection of criminal Partie• The Contracting provide with the provieione with the inve•tigation, offen•es, •hall mutual of thi• pro•ecution, and in proceeding• Treaty, in and prevention related to criminal -tter•. 2. A9sistance ahall (a) taking (b) providing include: the testimony or statement• documents, records, of peraons; and articles of evidence; (c) locating (di aerdng (e) transferring other or identifying persons; docull!ents; per•ons in cuatody executing requeets (g) as•isting in proceeding• innobilization restitution; any other for eearches and forfeiture collection provided to of as•eta; of fines; form of assi•tance SXcept ~· otherwise and seizures; related the laws of the Requested 3. or purpc,se1; (f) (hi. for testimony and not prohibited State. in thi• Treaty, by Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 39 of 112 31 3 shall assistance conduct be provided withol,lt regard which is the subject or proceeding offense the investigation, of in the Requesting State This Treaty assistance is intended in criminal in paragraph give rise obtain, to a right suppress, execution matters (1) above. or exclude solely of this of any private any evidence, legal au set forth Treaty shall person to not or to impede the of a request. AJ:ticle 1. Each contracting Authority For the united Authority ehall by the Attorney Authority designated be the Attorney shall with one another designate pursuant of America, General be the Attorney a Central to this Treaty. the Central or a person For the Goverrwent by the Attorney The Central shall requeste States General. 2 Authorities Party to make and receive 2. 3. for mutual between the Parties central Central ·an State. The provisions on the part the prosecution, would constitute under the laws of the Requested 4. to whether designated of Dominica, General or a person General. Authorities for the purposes shall of this coffllllUnicate directly Treaty. the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 40 of 112 32 4 Article Limitations l. The Central assistance 3 on ASsistance Authority of the Requested State may deny if: (a) the request to an offense under militat;, law which would not be an cffensc under ordinary criminal relates law; the execution (bl security of the req,Jest or other the Requested (c) the request woul~ prejudice essential public the interests of State; is not made in conformity with the Treaty; the request relates (e) the request ia made purs.uant of this Treaty connitted offense (fl in that the execution Before denying offense; to_ Article to conduct and relates in the Requested the Constitution 2. to a political (d) or 16 which if would not be an State or State; o! th~ request would be contrary of the Requested assistance 1, pursuant the Cen~ral Authority of the Requested the Central Authority of the Requesting Stace State State. to this shall to Article. consul~ to consider with Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 41 of 112 33 5 whether assistance can be given subject deems necessary. subject If the Requesting to these conditions, it to ouch cor.ditions State shall accepts as it assistance coa,ply with the conditions. 3. If the Central assistance, it Requesting State shall Authority of the Requested info:rm the Central o! the basis 4 Form and Contents that A request the Central request in another is not in writing, within 2. State of the Requested State except may accept a If the reque•t the request be confirmee in.~riting shall the Central unless Authority of the agrees otherwise. then- shall include ths of the authority investigation, a description follow1ng: conducting the p:r.)Cec::ution, or p~~eeding which the request (b) be in writing situations. The request !a) shall fo:n1 in .,_rgenc;y ten days thereafter Requested of Requests for assistance Authority of the for the denial. Article 1. Aut~ority denies State relates; of the aubject the investigation, to prosecution, matter and nature or proceeding, of Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 42 of 112 34 6 including relat• (cl the •pecific offensea which to the matter; a de•cription other criminal of the evidence, a•aictance Cd) a state11ent evidence, sought; or and of the purpose information, information, for which the or other a.ssistance is •ought. 3. alao To the extent neceaaary and possible, a requeet •h•ll include, (a) info:cmation on the identity peraon from whoa evidence (bl information on the identity p,!rson to be served, to the proceedings, information person (dl is sought; and location t,eraon'a on the identity description deacription testimony reeorded; relationship and vhereabouta o~ a to be located; a precise a of a acd the manner in which of the place be eearc:hed and of the articles (e) of any 1a to be made; service (cl that and location or person to be seized; of the ma.'lner ·1n which any or atate111ent is to be taken and to Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 43 of 112 35 7 (fl a list of questions (g) a description followed (hi to be asked of a witness; of any particular in executing information procedure the request; as to the allowances which a peraon aaked to appear State (i) will be entitled; information attention of the Requested execution prOC11Ftlyexecute transmit coa,petent it the request authorities authorities 2. make all having jurisdiction the request. of the Requested ••arch to facilitate or, when appropriate, of the Requested or other to the S of the Requested power to execute execute State Authority to the. authority subpoenas, which may be brought of Requests in their issue in the Requesting Execution The Central to of the request. Article 1. and expenses and any other its to br.'a presence person, having left The competent discretion, determine i• nc longer extend this period aesistance of which Article ahall of the Requesting of the Requested required, Stnte, State for up to !ifteen State or when the voluntarily returna. a111.y,in their day• if they 11 of Pereone in Cuatody A_peraon in the custody of the Re~e•ted in the P.equeating under this ~f is good cauae to"de eo. Transfer preaenee Sta~e State. of the Requesting Article l. to service for by this Authority a the of or convictiena Authority the Requesting authorities that .there whether in the P.equesting from the Requested The eafe conduct 3. •h•ll or eul>jected to any restriction by reason of any acts p,oreonal liberty, State not be al!bject •hall State authoritie• a pereon appearing pureuant that of the Requested Authority baa been made by the ~petent decieion State of the Reque•ti.ng State Treaty shall State is ..11ou9ht for purpoeee be transferred whose of from the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 51 of 112 43 15 Raquaated person State to the Requesting consents State and if the Central for that Authori~ies purpose if the of both states agree. 2. A presence person in the custody of the Requesting in the Requested assistance under this Requesting State per•on consents State Treaty ia sought for purposes may be transferred to the Requested State and if the Central State whose of from the tor that Authorities purpose if the of l>oth States agree. ). For purposes (a) (bl of this the receiving •!iall have the authority to keep the person custody unless otherwise sanding State; the receiving State authoriz.ad sha:i.l•ratur,1 to the custody Authorities, return to initiate shall or&$ not require extradition transferred •hall otherwise the sending proceedings of the per•on .. transfet·red, the per•on b~· the of the $ending Star.a agreed by both central State ir. ,:he peraor. permit the receiving and transferred as •oon as circwutancea State (di State the obligation 'transferred {cl Article: for the ar.d receive credit for Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 52 of 112 44 16 aervice State of the •entence for time served receiving of the 12 or Identification The ·Raquested the location in the custody State. Article Location impo•ed in the aending State shall or identity of Persons u•e its of peraona best or Items efforts or items to ascertain specified in the request. Article Service 1. effect The Requested ••rvice any reg-Jest 2. the •ervice shall use its of any document relating, Treaty. The ~questing State shall of a document requiring an authority before the scheduled effcrts to in whole or i~ part, transmit State State any request the appearance in the Requesting ~o under for of a peraon a reasonable time appearance. The Requested the manner specified best made by the Requesting of this before 3. of Documents State for assistance the provisions 13 State sha~l return in the Request ... a proof of service in Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 53 of 112 45 17 Article Search 1. The Requested search, seizure, State if action under ,. seized this certification admissible 3. through •b&ll of it• deemed.to the the idan~ity agree of the be •hall Seate. of the Requested be nece•••ry of a No ~urther The certificate State s\Jch the use of Form<: appended in the Requesting Authority ~ueti:ying who had custody condition. be required. in evidence for State. of cuatoSTATESOF AMERICA: f'~ have signed ~ J',J~.tl.t, being duly authorized this this Treaty. /0~ day by Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 58 of 112 50 Form A CERTIFICATEOF AllTIIEIITICITY OF BUSINESSRECORDS I, ---------....1..wlllilSU...---------• atteet on ianalty or attestation that X puniehoent for falee atate•ent am employed by ________ _.(MP••~ma ......ouf._.buuua~luo~e~•~a..__f~rom ......_w....,h.i~c..,h of cri•inal Md~ra ....,~m ..... outJIL...1f~r~e ....1aOw.wJ1~q~h~tJJ _________ further state original·or and that ffiYoftieial J(~p~(~(Ji~;wi~a~l,_,twJ~twl~tLJ1... ________ ia _________ ~hat each of the records a duplicate of the original attached record _ hereto title X is tr.a in the cuatody [nameof buainc11 from-wbicb dacmncncaare eousbtl I further atate that: A) such records were made, at or near the time of the occurrence of the matter• aet forth, by (or from information transmitted by) a pereon with knowledge of thoae matters; Bl such records were kept in the c~urae of a regularly ~onduc~ed bl.lain••• activity; Cl the buaineaa activity practice; and 01· if any aueh record ia not the original, duplicate of the original. lnignaturel made auch record• aa a regular it ia a (d1tel .... (uP.ul111DCur..),_ ___ ~, a Sworn to or affirmed before ;.. , ____ judicial officer, thia ___ day of ________ , 19 __ . of Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 59 of 112 51 Form B ATTBSTATTON OF AOTHBIITICITY OF FOREIGNPUBLIC DOCDMBNTS I, ---------..LIWm::.JL.... of criminal my position i• ____ position to attest true punishment I am authorized or filed ••~s~ewo~c~y~: ______ copies of original in that _,(..,qo ....u"nut.,r~y~J..__ and described official records below are which are in ------------l~Dul~roue._.p~f~p~fufui~c~e.__.g...,r , which is a government office or agency of Cc:oun"'rvl Description {sgyn~ry] and that by the law of ______ the documents attached and-accurate recorded statement with the Government of _.r..,9,.( ..(_.i.,.q.,.1.,.a,..l..___.t ..i..t..J..e..)..______ that attest on penalty or attestation that .....------- for false of Documents: r,1aa1turel 141teJ Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 60 of 112 52 Form C ATTESTATION WITHRESPECTTO SEIZED ARTICLES [name) I, of criminal my position (pffjpial is received custody of the articles £nameof per100J at them. (or, if different, listed •• noted below). while C1igo1turel Official Seal that ...J(~c~g~u~nutJry..:,u) ___ _ tith) of Articles: Changes in condition on penalty or attestation I below from ____ _ on -----..JCudunut~e~1~-----in the same condition as when I ;eceive_d [place] Description , attest punishment for false statement with the Government of ______ in my custody: Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 61 of 112 53 TP.EA't'! BETWEEN THR GOVERNMEN'f OF THE UNITED STATES Oi' l\MERICA AND 'l'HE GOVERNMENT OF ORF.NAuA ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 62 of 112 54 Article l Scope of Assistance Article 2 Central Article J Limitations Article 4 Form and Contents Article S ihecution Article 6 Co;,ts Article 7 Li~itations Article 3 Testimony Article 9 Reco~ds of Government Agencies Arti~le 10 Testimonr .>,.rticle ll •r.ransfer Article 12 Location Article 13 Service Article 14 Search and Seizu~e Article 15 Return of Article 16 Assistance Article 17 Compatibility Article 18 Consultation Artie!~ 19 R¥tificat.ion, Authorities on Assistance of Requents of Requests on ua~ or E·~ider,ce in the Requester! in the Requesting of Persona State Stat.e in Custody or Identification of Persons or Items Qf Documents Items in Forfeiture Proceedings with Other Arrangements Entry Force, Into and ·r.,rminatiOn Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 63 of 112 55 The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Grenada, Desiring enforcement to improve the effectiveness authorities of both countries prosecution, and prevention mutual assistance legal Have agreed of crime in criminal as follows: of the law in the investigation, through matters, cooperation and Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 64 of 112 56 2 Article l Scope of Assistance 1. a.ssietance, connection of criminal The Contracting Parties in accordance with the with the investigation, offens4=s, shall provide 1nutual provisions of prosecution, and in proceedings t.h.:.t:=Treaty, in and prevention related to cC'indnal matters. 2. Assistance shall (a) taking (bl providing include: or statements the testimony documents, records, of persons; and articles of evidence; (cl locating (di serving (e) transferring other or identifying pereons; documents; in custody persons executing requests (g) assisting in proceedings immobilization restitution; any othei· the or purposes; (f) (hi for testimony for searches related and forfeiture collection to ot assets; of fines; form of assistance laws of ~he Requested and seizures; and cot px·ohibited State. by Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 65 of 112 57 3 ~. Excep~ aa otherwiee assistance ehall provided be provided without t:onduict which is the subject or proceeding offense 4. in the Requeating in criminal State to a right rise suppress, execution mattera (11 above. to whether The provisions or exclude prosecution, an State. aolelr on the part the would constitute between for mutual the of this any evidence, le,;al Partie1;1 aa set of any private forth Treaty shall person to not or to impede the of a request. Article Centra~ 1. Each COr,tracting 2. For the United Authority shali by thE Attorney Authority designated be the -"l:torney ahall shall requests States General. 2 Authorities Party to make and receive Authority Central Treacy, of the ~nvestigati<>n, This Trotaty is intended in paragraph obtain, regard under the laws of the Requested assiata•1ce give in thie designate pursuant a C'entt·al to this of Ameri:::a, the Ceutral oen .. ral or a person desi!',nated For the Governm,:nt of •3renada, be the Attorney by the Attorney Treacy. General. General or II the per11an Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 66 of 112 58 4 3. The Cent.al with one another Authoritiea ahall for the purpoaea of this Article Limitat!ona 1. assistance The Central c011111unicate directly Treaty. 3 on Assistance Authority of the Requeated State may deny if : (al the requeat to an offense under military law which would not be an offenae under ordinary criminal (b) relates law; the execution aecurity of the request or other the Requeated (~) the request eaaential would prejudice public ~he interests of State; is not made in conforw.ity with the Treaty; the requeat {e) ti... :eequest is made pursuant of thia coimitt~d offenae (fl rela~e• to a political (di Treaty and relates to Article to con~uct in the Requoated State in that the execution the Constitution State; offense; 14 or 16 which 1l would not be an or of the request -.-o.il:I be contrary of the Requc5ted State. to Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 67 of 112 59 5 2. Before denying pursuant assistance the Central Authority of the Requested the Central Authority of the Requeating whether can be given assistance deems necessary. s•~bject conditions, Ar~icle, consult with to consider to such conditions State shall it shall Slate subject If the Requesting to these State to this accepts as it assistance c0111plywith the conditions. 3. If the Central assistance, it Requesting State Authority inform shall cf the Requested the Central that th~ centra~ request in another is not in wri~ing, within ten Requeaeed 2. days State of Requests for assistance Authority of thP. 4 Forni and Contents A requeHt denies for the denial. of the basis Article l. Authority State shall be in writing of the Requested State excP.pt ~ay accep~ a form in emergency situationo. If the request the request be confirmed in writing thereaf~er agrees The request shall unless the Central Authority otherwi11e. shall include the following: of the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 68 of 112 60 Ca) the name of the in,,estigation, which ib) the request relate (c) (d) matter prosecution, specific to and natur~ of or 'prcceeding. criminal offenses which to the matter; a d.escripticn ~ther or proceeding of the subject the the relates; investigation, inclading conducting prosecution, a description the authority of the sought; assistance a. stci:tel':'l~r.t ~vidcnce, of evidence, the or and purpooe information, informrtion. for which or other the assistance is 13ought. :i. al!Jo 1'a the extent necessary and possible, a 4-e,;uesr. shal:i. include: ia) information on the identity p!!rson from whom evidence (bl information person to on the be served, to the proceedings, ser.,ice (c) that :,f any is sought; and location person's and the manner of a relati~nship in which :!.s to be made; information person identity and lc ..cation on the to be located; ider.tity and whereabouts of a Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 69 of 112 61 7 (d) a precise description be searched {e) and of the articles a description testimony of t~e place or person to to be seized; of the manner in which any or statement to be taken is and recordedi {fl a list (g) a description of questions followed in executing ir.foramtion (t.) (i) will asked ~o appear be entitied; and expenses to in the Requeatin3 and information attention of the Requested execution ~o be the request; ant other its of a witness; procedure as to the allc.wances which a person State to be asked of any particular which may be brought State to the to facilitate of the request. Articles Execution l. The Central promptly execute tranamlt it competent in their Authority the request to the authority authorities of Requests of the Requested or, when appropriate, having jurisdiction of the Requested pte shall and meet be executed be followed appropriate that orders for of the Requested the request ongoing have power to of the Requested out of a request shall procedure, 4. or other provides·otherwise. shall procedures Requested arising laws and procedures that Authority arrangements in any proceedings 3. shall request. The Central make all warrants, State in subject consultations State. an If the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 71 of 112 63 9 Reque~ting State conditions, it s. accepts shall the assistance The Requeatad State confidential a request. is requ.,sted by the Central If the request cannot confidentiality, shall uhic:h shall to the contents, Authority be executed the Central uae it.a best 1( efforts to keep auch confidentiality of t:he Requesting without Authority Authority then d'!ter111ine whether nevertheless 6. shal! and ita the Central so inform subject comply with the conditions. breaching St.at'!. such of the Req,:eoted State of the Requesting the request State, shr.•uld be executed. The Central rf!spond to reasonable Reques~ing State Authority of the Requested inquirif!s by the Central ccncerr.ing progrees State shall Authority toward execution cf the of the reques~. ,. promptly The Cl!ntra:i. Authority inform the Central the outcome of the execution denied, inform basis the Central the Centra~ AuLhorit)· Authcrity f.or the d~nial. of the Requested Authority shall of thf! Requesting of the request. of State !f State the request the- Requeeted Stat'9 shall of the Requesting Stat~ of che of is Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 72 of 112 64 10 Article 6 coat• State The Requested execution ahall of the request, the costs witnessea, transcription, pay all except pursuant allowances, of translation, interpretation, 10 and 11, The Requesting obtained for the inve,stigation, territory stated State •inder this in the request to travel costs, tees, shall Treaty State without State. on Use not use any in!ormation for any purposes prosecution of the Requesting relllted which 7 Limitations l. and be paid by the Reques~ing Article evidence to the of expert and expenses to >.rticles and e:,:per.ses shall relating for the fes• and the allowance• of persons costs or aupprl!saic:: of those the prior thlln in the criml.nal consent or other offenses of the Requested State. 2. The Central request that be kept confidential cor.ditiona info'nll&tion Authority ir,formation it -y of the Requested er evidencs f-..rnished or be uaed only subject specify. or evidence If the Requesting subject Statft under to terms State -to such conditions, may this 'l'reat)· and accepts the the Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 73 of 112 65 11 Requeeting State ehall beet.effort• uee ite to c0111ply with the conditione. 3. Nothing in thi• Article shall preclude disclosure of information obligation to do eo under the Constitution State in a criminal notify prosecution. the Requeeted discloeure State thereafter appear State or evidence of any such proposed under which which has been made public in accordance or Evidence with paregrephs in l or 2 may i• requeeted shall furnieh State be con,pelled, or produce items, State from whom testimony if necessary, including to documents, of evidence. Upon requeet, ehAll 8 in the Requested in the Requested and article• 2. state A pereon and testify records, shall be used for any purpoee. Testi.ony evidence ia an State of the Conetitution Article 1. there of the Requesting is required. Infol'l!lation the Requesting that The Requesting in advanc, and the provieion such disclosure 4. to the extent the use or the Central information Authority of the Requested in advance about the dat.e and er Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 74 of 112 66 12 place of the taking of the teetifflOny or evidence purauant to ~hia Article, 3. The Requeated State ahall permit the prP.sence of sue~ during the execution of the persons as specified in the requeat nquest, and shall allow such pereons giving the testimcny ~- the Requesting nonetheless Authority referred incapacity, 5. or privilege the testimony be taken and the claim of that Evidence State or which this Article may be authenticated of bu.siness Requesting is records, by Form A shall State. a the laws of sh2.ll made known to the Central for resolution the subject in Form A appended auth~nticated under or evidence prOC.uced in the Requested Article inc!icated l asserts b~ the State. this in the case to in paragraph State, of the Requesting authorities the person or evidence. If the person claim of immunity, to question St.ate of testimony by an attestation, authentication to thi.s ·rreaty. be admiasible pursuant. taken to under including, in the 1-nann~r [tocurnP.11t.e. in evit;lence ir.. ::he Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 75 of 112 67 l.3 Article Records 1. Th~ RP.quested with copies or of publicly information 2. docume.nts of which are unde:-- the its 3. records. Requested may provide in a.ny form, available, to the as such copies or judicial or in part. Official records by the .::,ffic.::ial autht?nt.ication shall unrl~r this paragraph Requesting State. be necessary. shall in that and would be i\Vailable in ci1ar3e to Th~ Requg whose for p~rposes transferred State and if the Central State frOPI the for that Authorities of purpos" if the cf both States agre.'!!. 2. A person presence in the Requested aQsistance under Requesting State person in the custody consents thia State Treaty of the Requeotir.g is sought for purpooPa be transferred -y to the Requested and if the Central State St&to whose from the for that ,uthorities of purpose if the of both States agree. 3. Por purpoaes (al of this the receiving the obliiaticn Article: State shall have th" >lUthority to keep the person transferr~d &nd in Case 0:17-mc-61725-WPD Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2017 Page 78 of 112 70 16 (bl custody unless sending State; the receiving transferred otherwise State authorized shall to the euatody as soon as circumatanc~a agreed (cl service transferred requet