Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CRIMINAL NUMBER:
v.
1:18-cr-00032-2-DLF
CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING LLC
Defendant.
DEFENDANT CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC’S RENEWED
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY REGARDING SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
Defendant Concord Management and Consulting LLC (“Defendant” or “Concord”), by
and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this renewed motion and memorandum of
points of law and authorities seeking discovery on the issue of selective prosecution.
I.

Introduction

On October 15, 2018, the Court denied Concord’s Motion for Discovery Regarding
Selective Prosecution. Transcript of Oct. 15, 2018 Hearing (Dkt. 67) at 71. As part of this
denial the Court stated in relevant part, “I don’t see how you can say newspaper articles are some
evidence at this point.” Id. at 68:15-16. Now there is evidence beyond newspaper articles,
specifically a declination letter dated January 15, 2019, from the United States Department of
Justice (“DOJ”) National Security Division to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
(“Skadden”), indicating that Skadden admitted that it made “false and misleading oral and
written statements” to DOJ’s Foreign Agent Registration Act Unit (“FARA Unit”) causing the
FARA Unit to conclude incorrectly that Skadden did not have to register as an agent of the
Government of Ukraine (“GoU”). Exhibit 1, Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Skadden

1

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 5

(“Declination Letter”).1 According to Skadden’s website, it is a law firm with offices in 22
locations globally, including in Moscow, and over 1,700 attorneys that “advises businesses,
financial institutions and government entities around the world on their most complex, highprofile matters, providing the guidance they need to compete in today’s businesses
environment.” https://www.skadden.com/about/overview.

At least one Skadden partner is a

former Associate General Counsel for the Federal Election Commission who counsels clients on
FARA registration matters. https://www.skadden.com/professionals/g/gross-kenneth-a.
Contrast Concord, a Russian catering company with no locations or business activity in
the United States. According to the proffered theory of liability in this case, it appears that at a
minimum Skadden violated 18 U.S.C. § 371 (by conspiring to defraud DOJ), and may also have
violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (by making material false statements to DOJ). And the difference is
that Skadden agreed to pay over $4.6 million dollars to the United States so as not to be
prosecuted (which is no penalty at all because it simply deprives the firm of its allegedly
unlawfully earned revenue), and Concord stands accused of a crime having not been offered the
purchase declination option.2
II.

Law

To obtain discovery on a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must put forth some
evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of a selective prosecution claim,
namely, that (1) the defendant was singled out for prosecution from others similarly situated, and
(2) the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. See United States v. Armstrong,
517 U.S. 456, 465, 468-470 (1996); United States v. Palfrey, 499 F. Supp. 2d 34, 39 (D.D.C.
1

Curiously, the Declination Letter does not cite to any legal provision in any law or statute
through which Skadden is paying a penalty the U.S. Treasury. FARA provides only for criminal
penalties and only upon conviction. See 22 U.S.C. § 618(e).
2
The prosecutor who signed this agreement with Skadden is the Firewall Counsel in this case.
2

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 5

2007). To make out such a claim sufficient to warrant discovery, the defendant must provide
something more than mere speculation or personal conclusions based on anecdotal evidence,
“but the standard necessarily is lower than the ‘clear evidence’ standard required for dismissal of
the indictment.” United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 33, 49 (D.D.C. 1998), reversed in part
and appeal dismissed, 176 F.3d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470).
With respect to the first prong, “[a] similarly situated offender is one outside the
protected class who has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same
circumstances but against whom the law has not been enforced.” United States v. Khanu, 664 F.
Supp. 2d 28, 32 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Armstrong, 517 U.S.
at 469. With respect to the second prong, “[d]iscriminatory purpose implies more than intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker [sic] selected or reaffirmed a
particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects
upon an identifiable group.”

Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 610 (1985) (internal

quotation marks and alterations omitted). Notably, a party seeking discovery on a selective
prosecution claim is not required to produce direct evidence of intent. See United States v.
Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494-95 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (recognizing that the district court had
ordered discovery on discriminatory intent based on indirect evidence of statistics uniquely in the
government’s possession regarding “how many passport frauds were detected since 1975, how
many detected frauds were prosecuted and how many frauds detected or prosecuted involved [a
particular group]”).
III.

Argument

The Appendix to the Declination states that Skadden made numerous material false
statements or omissions orally and in writing to the FARA Unit, including by not limited to, (1)
failing to disclose interactions between Skadden and lobbying and public relations firms working
3

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 4 of 5

for the GoU (Ex. 3, ¶ 51); falsely stating that Skadden would be paid $12,000 for its work (as
opposed to the actual figure in excess of $4 million) (id. ¶¶ 52, 60); falsely stating when and for
what purpose Skadden disclosed its work product to the media (id. ¶¶ 56, 67); and falsely stating
when Skadden stopped working for the GoU (id. ¶ 69). DOJ explicitly relied on these and other
false statements and omissions to determine that Skadden did not have to register under FARA.
See id. ¶¶ 56, 67-68. According to the Declination, Skadden was aware of the requirements of
FARA. See id. ¶ 16. Skadden’s work in fact influenced global media reporting on an issue that
was of primary importance to GoU. See id. ¶ 45. Though the underlying activity occurred in the
2012 to 2014 time period, even if DOJ had not obtained a tolling agreement there would have
been no statute of limitations bar to prosecution because FARA explicitly provides that failure to
register is a continuing violation. See 22 U.S.C. § 618(e).
Concord is criminally accused, in part, of defrauding the same DOJ FARA Unit by
allegedly paying for Russian nationals to pretend to be Americans on social media who then
made statements on social media about U.S. social and political issues. See Indictment (Dkt. 1)
at ¶¶ 4, 7, 26, 28, 48. The government says that this play-acting potentially interfered with the
ability of the DOJ FARA to determine whether some unknown person or entity should have
registered under FARA. See Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
56) at 11-12. Unlike Skadden, Concord is not accused of (1) making material false statements to
the FARA Unit, or (2) making material omissions in communications with the FARA Unit. Nor
does the Indictment contain with any specificity an allegation that Concord was aware of the
existence of FARA or the FARA Unit. As such, Skadden’s admitted conduct is far more direct,
obvious, and egregious than the allegations against Concord—yet Skadden was not prosecuted.

4

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 5 of 5

IV.

Conclusion

The disparate treatment by the government of these two matters should compel the Court
to require the government to provide information as to why in two cases—neither of which
involved a voluntary disclosure—one case was indicted and one case was declined, including but
not limited to: (1) whether DOJ considered indicting Skadden; (2) whether Skadden’s status as a
U.S. based legal entity as opposed to a Russian legal entity influenced the decision to decline to
prosecute Skadden; and (3) why Skadden was permitted to purchase a declination.
Dated: January 22, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING LLC
By Counsel
/s/Eric A. Dubelier
Eric A. Dubelier
Katherine Seikaly
Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 – East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-414-9200 (phone)
202-414-9299 (fax)
edubelier@reedsmith.com
kseikaly@reedsmith.com

5

 Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 44

EXHIBIT 1

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 44

US. Department of Justice

 

National Security Division

 

Counte?ntelligrnce and Etpm'l Control Section Washington. 2053!]

January 15, 2019

Bv FedEx and Electronic Mail

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher lom LLP
4 Times Square

New York, New York 10036

Re: Ukraine Matter
To: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher 85 Flom LLP

The United States Department of ustice, National Security Division and
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP (the ?Law inn?) enter into this Settlement
Agreement. The Law Firm agrees to certain terms and obligations ofthe agreement set forth
herein.

The Attorney General of the United States of America, including the Department of
Justice and all agencies thereof; (collectively, the ?Attorney General?) has determined
that the Law inn, through certain of its current and former partners, acted as an agent of the
Government of Ukraine or ?Ukraine?) within the meaning of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act or the 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq, by contributing to a 
public relations campaign directed at U.S. media without registering with D01 as required by the
Act.

The Law Firm agrees on certain facts, which are set forth in the Appendix to this
Settlement Agreement (the ?Appendix?). The Law Firm agrees that it had an obligation to
register with as required by FARA.

The Law Firm also agrees that, as described in the Appendix, from in or about December
2012 through in or about February 2014, the Law Firm received a series of inquiries from 
PARA Registration Unit Unit?) about the Law Firms work on behalf of the In
concluding that the Law Firm was not obligated to register under PARA, the FARA Unit relied
to its detriment on false and misleading oral and written statements made by a former Partner of
the Law Firm on the Law Firm?s behalf regarding the nature of its activities on behalf of the
(Roll.

The Attorney General expects that any organization, including a law ?rm or other
professional service organization, that provides information in response to a government inquiry
shall utilize formal policies and procedures to assess when independent diligence should be 7

?Ca"

 

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 44

undertaken in responding to such inquiries to ensure that the information provided is reliable,
accurate, and complete.

The Law Firm has already taken substantial steps to comply with the terms herein, and
the Attorney General agrees that so long as the Law Firm continues to comply with the terms
herein, the Attorney General will not undertake any action against the Law Firm relating to any
of the conduct described in the Statement of Pacts set forth in the Appendix hereto.

The Attorney General ?nds that the Law Firm has cooperated extensively with the
Attorney General in its investigation, including with the Special Counsel?s Of?ce and the
National Security Division of DOJ in relation to these matters; and in so doing, the Law Pirrn has
undertaken af?rmative steps to enhance its internal procedures and processes. The Attorney
General also recognizes that the Law Firm has been constructively engaged with the PARA Unit
regarding registration under PARA, has indicated its willingness to register voluntarily under
PARA, and has agreed to do so as part of this resolution. The Law Pirrn?s cooperation and other
voluntary actions have facilitated the resolution of this matter.

The Law Firm agrees to register with DOJ as required by PARA in connection with the
Law Finn?s work for make payment to the United States Treasury of 
representing all monies from all sources that the Law Firm was paid for its work and incurred
expenses for undertake continuing cooperation with Attorney General inquiries relating
to the Law Firm?s work for and continue to undertake a review of its compliance policies
and procedures to ensure that there are formal robust procedures and protocols for responding to
inquiries concerning the Law Finn?s conduct from any federal government entity and ensuring
PARA compliance as to the Law Firm?s engagements.

In connection with its voluntary cooperation with the DOJ and as a ?nal resolution of this
matter, the Attorney General and the Law Firm agree as follows:

1. The Law Firm agrees to register within ten (1 0) business days of the execution of
this Agreement with the Attorney General under PARA for the Law Pirm?s activities as set forth
in the Appendix and to comply with PARA in any other matter in which it acts as the agent of a
foreign principal and engages in conduct requiring registration under PARA.

2. The Law Firm agrees that the Appendix, hereto, accurately describes the Law
Pirm?s conduct with respect to the events described therein. The Law inn agrees to
comprehensively re?ect the events Set forth in the Appendix in its ARA ?ling consistent with
PARA registration requirements.

3. The Law Firm agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made on its
behalf any public statement denying any fact in the Appendix or creating the impression that the
Appendix is without factual basis.

4. With respect to any United Statesjudicial proceeding or investigation concerning
the subject matter of this Agreement and its Appendix, the Law Firm agrees to continue to
produce, without service of a notice or subpoena, any and all non?privileged documents and

fr Qt

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 4 of 44'

other information reasonably requested by (ii) to accept service by mail or facsimile
transmission of notices or subpoenas issued by for documents or testimony at depositions,
hearings, or trials, or in connection with any related investigation by to appoint the
undersigned as agent to receive service of such notices and subpoenas; (iv) with respect to such
notices and subpoenas, to waive the territorial limits on service contained in Rule 45 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local rules, provided that DOJ reimburses
the Law Pirm?s travel, lodging, and subsistence expenses at the then-prevailing Federal
Government per diem rates; and to consent to personaljurisdiction over the Law Firm in any
United States District Court for purposes of en forcing any such subpoena.

5. The Law Firm agrees to continue to use its best efforts to make available for
interviews or testimony, as requested by the Attorney General, present or former partners,
employees, agents, and consultants, in any and all matters concerning any act within the scope of
or related to the conduct described in this Agreement and its Appendix. This obligation includes,
but is not limited to, sworn testimony before federal grand juries or federal trials, as well as
interviews with domestic law enforcement and regulatory authorities.

6. The Law Firm agrees to continue to undertake a review of its policies and
procedures for responding to information requests from the federal government that concern the
conduct of the Law Firm and the Law Finn?s agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons in
active concert or participation with them. Within 180 days of the entry of this Agreement, the
Law Firm shall submit a written report to that sets forth such policies and procedures then
in effect. The Law Firm shall certify that such policies and procedures have been fully
implemented as of the date of the submission of the written report. The report shall address, at
minimum, the Law Pirrn?s formal procedures for when independent diligence should be
undertaken in responding to such inquiries to ensure that the information provided is reliable,
accurate and complete.

7. The Law Firm agrees to continue to undertake a review of its policies and
procedures designed to ensure the Law Finn?s compliance with PARA. The Law Firm shall
continue to engage, at its own expense, outside counsel to advise in a professionally independent
and objective fashion on the development of enhanced policies and procedures to ensure
compliance with PARA. The Law Finn shall, within 130 days of the entry of this Agreement,
submit a written report to 1301 that sets forth such policies and procedures regarding PARA
compliance then in effect. The Law Firm shall certify to that such policies and procedures
have been fully implemented as of the date of the submission of the written report. The report
shall address, at minimum, the Law Finn?s policies and procedures related to:

a. Client intake procedures to identify the direct or indirect involvement of a foreign
principal andfor activities that may trigger potential PARA registration
obligations;

b. Promoting ?rm-wide awareness of PARA compliance, including PARA-
compliance training and messaging to appropriate personnel;

tar

 

 

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 5 of 44

c. Establishing guidance conceming conduct or activities that may trigger potential
PARA registration obligations in the form of a firm-wide policy on representing
foreign principals, which provides information on:

i. The PARA statute in order to assist attorneys and personnel in identifying,
tracking, and ongoing monitoring of client relationships and matters that
present possible PARA registration obligations;

ii. Approval processes for engagements and matters that present possible
PARA registration obligations;

Review mechanisms to evaluate potential PARA registration obligations at
the time of client intake or during the delivery of professional services on
behalf of the Firm?s clients; and

iv. Required procedures for responding to inquiries {tom the PARA Unit.

d. Promotion of ?rm-wide awareness of FARA compliance, including by
distributing the Law Firm?s FARA policy and conducting FARA-compliance
training-and continued messaging to appropriate personnel.

3. The Law Firm agrees to make payment of 657, 568. 9! (the ?Settlement
Amount?), which represents all funds received by the Law Firm from any source in connection
with the Law Firm 5 work for the that the Law Firm has not previously returned to the
The Law Firm shall pay the Settlement Amount to the United States Treasury within ten
(10) business days of the signing of this Settlement Agreement. The Law Firm ?trther agrees that
it will not seek or accept directly or indirectly reimbursement or indemni?cation from any source
with regard to the Settlement Amount.

9. The Attorney General agrees that so long as the Law Firm continues to comply
with the terms herein, the Attorney General will not undertake any action against the Law Firm
concerning any act within the scope of or related to the conduct described in this Agreement and
its Appendix. The Attorney General agrees that its exclusive redress for any breach of this
Agreement will be through an injunction, civil enforcement action or other available civil
remedy. The Law Firm acknowledges that no promise or representation has been made by the
Attorney General with regard to any civil or criminal liability that may have arisen or may arise
?oor the facts underlying this action for the Law Firm?s current or former partners, agents,
employees, attorneys, or other persons who worked in active concert orparticipation with them.

10. The Law Firm agrees that, in order to ensure that the Attorney General may
enforce this Agreement in the event of a breach, including by seeking an injunction against the
Law Firm and other appropriate civil relief (including to ensure compliance with the terms
herein), the Law Firm agrees that, for a period of two (2) years {tom the execution of this
Agreement, it will not assert any defense based upon any applicable statute of limitations with
respect to the Attorney General asserting any civil claim in law or equity for the Law Finn?s 9

fig;

4

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 6 of 44

failure to ?le a timely registration statement as required by PARA for the work described in the
Appendix.

Sincerely,



I. BRATT

Chief, Counterintelligence and Export
Control Section (CBS)

National Security Division

United States Department of ustiee

Date: January 15,2019 BY: 
.A. McCullough

  

  

ienal Security Division

AGREED AND CONSENTED T0:
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER FLOM LLP

Date: January]5,2019 BY: gov 

Eric J. Friedman
Executive Partner

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 7 of 44

APPENDIX

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

 

1. The Foreign Agents Registration Act 22
U.S.C. 611 et seq., was enacted in 1933. It is a
disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents
of foreign principals, as those terms are defined by the
statute, to register with the Attorney General and to make
periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the
foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts, and
disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure
of the required information facilitates evaluation by the
Federal Government and the American people of the
statements and activities of such persons in light of their
function as foreign agents. The FARR Unit of 
National Security Division is primarily responsible for the
administration and enforcement of PARA.

2. Relevant provisions of PARA include, in substance
and in part, the following:

a. Any person who acts as an ?agent of a
foreign principal? is required to file, within ten days of
becoming an agent of a foreign principal, a registration
statement with the Attorney General containing the
information specified in the statute. 22 U.S.C. 612(a}.

b. A foreign agent?s registration obligation
?continue[s] from day to day, and termination of such
status shall not relieve such agent from his obligation to
file a registration statement for the period during which
he was an agent of a foreign principal.? Id.

c. The term ?agent of a foreign principal" is
defined under FARR, in pertinent part, as:

any person who acts as an agent,
representative, employee, or servant, or
any person who acts in any other capacity
at the order, request, or under the
direction or control, of a foreign
principal or of a person any of whose
activities are directly or indirectly
supervised, directed, controlled,



Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 8 of 44

financed, or subsidized in whole or in
major part by a foreign principal, and
who directly or through any other person
engages within the United States in
political activities for or in the
interests of such foreign principal; [or]
(ii) acts within the United States as a
public relations counsel, publicity
agent, [or] information~service employee

. . . for or in the interests of such
foreign principal. Id. 


3. Registration under PARA requires disclosure from

an agent of, principally, (1) information related to the
compensation an agent receives for its work on behalf of a
foreign principal, the identity of the source of that
compensation, (3) written and oral agreements with the
foreign principal, and (4) a full description of ?the
nature and method of performance of [its] agreement or
understanding? with the foreign principal.

THE ENGAGEMENT AND THE BEFORE

4. In or about the spring of 2012, the Government of
Ukraine or ?Ukraine?}, through its Ministry of
Justice {the and with Paul Manafort's assistance,
retained Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP (the ?Law
Firm?) to, among other things, prepare a report (the
?Report") on the evidence and procedures used during the
2011 prosecution and trial of former Prime Minister Yulia
Tymoshenko and to address various questions regarding its
fairness.1 Several Law Firm partners and associates worked
on the Report, which was led by a Washington, D.C., based
partner (?Partner 

5. On or about February 20, 2012, Partner-1 emailed
Manafort a preliminary engagement letter between the Law

 

1 DOJ has represented to the Law Firm that the has waived any applicable
privilege with respect to information contained herein. The Law Firm has
represented to the DDJ that the facts herein are not derived from any Law
Firm client confidential information.

2 Partner?1 has not been associated with the Law Firm since April 13, 2018. 

2

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 9 of 44

Firm and the GoU,-dated February 20, 2012 [the ?February
20, 2012 Preliminary Engagement Letter?), which proposed a
trip to Ukraine by Partner?l and another Washington, D.C.
based partner (?Partner?2") for meetings with government
decision?makers and other parties so that the Law Firm
could assess whether it would undertake the matter. The
February 20, 2012 Preliminary Engagement Letter stated,
among other things, that a third party ?ha[d] agreed to pay
the fees, charges and disbursements incurred in connection
with the Preliminary Engagement,? and that initial
retainer [would] be paid to the Firm at the outset of the
Engagement in the amount of $150,000.? On or about March 1,
2012, Manafort replied to Partner?1's email, indicating
that the letter would be signed that day and asking for
wire transfer instructions, as well as dates when Partner?1
and other attorneys could travel to Kiev for meetings with
600 representatives.

6. In or about early April 2012, Partner?l traveled
to Kiev and met with, among others, a Ukrainian
businessperson who was associated with the funding of the
Law Firm's work for the (?Business Person?1?}; Partner-
2 did not go on this trip. On or about April 5, 2012,
after having met with the and Business Person-l,
Partner?l indicated to Manafort that the Law Firm was
prepared to start on the project as soon as Business
Person?1 made the first payment. On or about April 12,
2012, Partner-1 and Manafort exchanged an email in which
Partner?l confirmed that ?the deal? was that the Law Firm
would be advanced $4 million for the project against which
it would charge its customary fees and actual expenses
incurred. The Law Firm was told that Business Person?1
would have no role beyond providing funding in connection
with the Report.

7. Soon thereafter, the retained the Law Firm
to, among other things, prepare the Report. An engagement
letter dated April 10, 2012 (the ?April 10, 2012 Engagement
Letter?}characterized the scope of the engagement as
_?serving as a rule of law consultant to the Ministry [of
Justice] and advising the Ministry on a variety of rule of
law issues, including those that may arise before the

11 

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 10 of 44

European Court for Human Rights.?3 The April 10, 2012
Engagement Letter also stated that the Law Firm ?is willing
to take on this project with the clear understanding that
[the Law Firm] will have access to all relevant materials
and information that [the Law Firm] deems necessary to do
its job, and that [the Law Firm] will be free to reach its
own conclusions based on its own independent work.? The
April 10, 2012 Engagement Letter provided that the Law
Firm?s ?fees will be based on the time that [the Law
Firm?s] lawyers spend on the Engagement . . . charged at
[the Law Firm's] normal hourly rates . . . against a
retainer that has been paid in advance.? In addition,
Partner?1 wrote in an email in April 2012 that ?the powers
that be in NYC . . . insist and I agree that we should
include a provision in the retainer agreement that ?[the
Law Firm] is not being retained to engage - and will not
engage in political activities as defined by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act A nearly identical
provision was included in the April 10, 2012 Engagement
Letter.

8. The April 10, 2012 Engagement Letter incorporated
by reference a contract between the MOJ and the Law Firm,
which was dated April 10, 2012 {the ?April 10, 2012
Contract?). The April 10, 2012 Contract provided that the
Law Firm would be compensated by the government for its
work on the Report at a rate of 100 Ukrainian per
hour with total hours not to exceed 950 hours, which
yielded a total price of 95,000 Ukrainian or
approximately $12,000. In addition to those terms of
payment, as discussed herein, the Law Firm understood that
its work was to be largely funded by Business Person?1.

9. In parallel with the preparation of the Report,
in or about the spring of 2012, at the request of the 
certain of the Law Firm attorneys who worked on behalf of
the to examine the 2011 prosecution of Tymoshenko (the
?Tymoshenko Case?) and prepare the Report {the ?Report
Team?) also began to advise the 000 about rule of law
procedures in connection with a second criminal case
against Tymoshenko in which the had charged Tymoshenko
with embezzlement and tax evasion (?Project 2? and together

 

3 The April 10, 2012 Engagement Letter was not countersigned by the 600. nggji

4

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 11 of 44

with the Report and other projects, the ?Ukraine
Engagement?). Several months later, Partner~l noted in an
email to certain attorneys on the Report Team on or about
August 30, 2012: am concerned that {the Law Firm's]
activity in Project 2 might surface before the report comes
cut, and that would do enormous damage to the credibility
of [the Report].? In response, a Law Firm attorney replied
that this activity had been planned ?before the beginning
of [Tymoshenko's second trial] and on dates [that] might
post date publication of the [Report].? Partner?l
responded that: ?You are right that everything would be
better, I think, if [the Report] could be released and
absorbed and discussed before [Project 2] truly got
underway . . . I am extremely concer[n]ed that information
about [the Law Firm?s] involvement in [Project 2] has come
to the attention of Tymoshenko's lawyer, and that he will
use it to discredit the report at some point. We have our
explanations and defenses, as rule of law
consultants, we are assisting and advising [Ukraine] on how
to manage the second trial with an toward guaranteeing
due [sic] of law and meeting Western standards.?

10. During 2012, the Report Team worked on behalf of
the G00 to examine the Tymoshenko Case and prepare the
Report. As part of the process of generating the Report,
attorneys on the Report Team shared draft versions of the
Report with representatives of the including certain
members of the Ukraine prosecutor general?s office as well
as Manafort and persons working with him. Drafts of the
Report, its Executive Summary, or both were provided to
representatives of the 600 on or about July 27, August 1,
August 23, September 12, and in late September 2012. The
provided comments to the Report Team concerning the
content and conclusions of the Report, both directly and
through Manafort and his associates. The Report Team
incorporated some comments from the and Manafort into
the Report. In many instances, these comments were factual
contentions that the Law Firm attributed to the and
noted where such contentions were disputed, including by
Tymoshenko. There were also comments that the Report Team
did not incorporate into the Report.

11. The Report Team did not provide with
drafts of the Report; however, the Report Team did gig?


l'





Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 12 of 44

interview Tymoshenko and obtain information and advocacy
from her counsel regarding, among other things, specific
contested issues addressed in the Report and requested
materials from them, including on or about June 19, June
27, JUne 29, August 16, August 23, September 10, and
September 24, 2012. For example, on or about August 16,
August 23, and September 10, 2012, the Law Firm sent emails
to Tymoshenko?s counsel seeking information regarding
Tymoshenko?s claim that, between May 24 and July 4, 2011,
she attended meetings with the prosecutor's office
regarding other crimes, which interfered with her ability
to prepare for trial. In particular, on or about September
_10, 2012, Partner-l emailed Tymoshenko?s counsel and asked
that Tymoshenko supply ?evidentiary support for Mrs.
Tymoshenko's claim that between May 24 and July 4, 2011,
Mrs. Tyhmoshenko [sic] was summoned for interviews and
meetings with OPG investigators virtually every day."
Partner-l stated, we do not hear from you soon on
this topic, we will assume that nothing is forthcoming.?
Tymoshenko's counsel did not provide this information. In
other instances, Tymoshenko or her counsel did provide
input to the Report Team, and TymOShenko and her counsel?s
perspective on the relevant facts was attributed to them
explicitly throughout the Report.

12. On or about September 26, 2012, the Report Team
attempted to deliver the final Report to the 600, and the
refused to accept delivery. Subsequently, the G00
proposed additional changes to the Report, many of which
were rejected by the Report Team. Specifically:

a. On or about September 28, 2012, an associate
of Manafort emailed a Law Firm associate who worked on the
Report (?Associate-1?) with proposed changes from the G00.
The attached two-page document began with an introduction
that read, in part, ?[hJaving reviewed the content of the
fourth version of the [Report] . . . we urge you to further
analyze the materials and pay attention to the following
facts, which we consider to be necessary mentioned in the
narrative part and in the summaries of the project.
(Conclusion).? When Associate-l forwarded the comments to
the Report Team, Partner~1 responded, ?We are done. The
final draft should be delivered asap if not earlier!? 

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 13 of 44

b. On or about October 8, 2012, Manafort
emailed Partner?1 and attached a one?and?a?half page letter
that outlined ?technical" and ?substantive? issues with the
Report based on ?a fact review done . . . by on the
Report." Partner-1 responded and stated that the Law Firm
would not be making further changes to the Report.

c. On or about October 16, 2012, Partner?1
emailed Manafort regarding the delivery of the final Report
and the GoU's refusal to accept delivery. That same day,
Partner?1 expressed to Associate-l, ?Honestly, I am quite
angry about this. I don't think we can go ahead and
deliver it without a green light from Manafort. But I am
24 hours away from sending a letter to the Ministry of
Justice telling them that we have completed our work for
them and, as they have known since September 15, we await
instructions as to where to deliver the final report.? On
or about October 18, 2012, Manafort responded and, among
other things, explained that the had ?several issues in
the Report that relate to preparation for the [European
Court of Human Rights] case? and was ?looking for documents
to be entered in the addendum, not in the body of the
Report" because it was ?important to them for purposes of
the'IEuropean Court of Human Rights] case and defending the
case."

d. On or about November 19, 2012, Partner?1
emailed Manafort to explain to Manafort how five final
issues that Manafort had raised had been resolved.
Partner-l refused to accommodate two of the GoU?s comments,
one on the basis that it was not supported by the trial
transcript. Of the three issues that were addressed on
two pages of the Report, one was providing additional
information about a document to which the Report already
cited where Partnerwl agreed to ?make more specific
reference to the fact that the defense counsel introduced
this letter and advanced that legal defense? and that ?the
court did not accept that legal analysis because it
represented only a preliminary legal opinion;? one was
including a reference and citation to a letter ?on the same
topic;? and the last was making ?reference to the
[prosecutor's] theory that [Tymoshenko] entered into [an]
agreement to resolve her outstanding criminal charges in
Russia [where] she was in fact charged with bribing the Eijf



Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 14 of 44

Russian Ministry of Defense. But we will also note that
the trial judge did not adopt that theory of the case when
it came to her motives.? The Report Team did not move any
document to the appendix of the Report.

e. On or about November 20, 2012, Partner-1
emailed Manafort that the Law Firm had responded to the
GoU's comments, referring back to Partner?1's email of the
day before and stating that the ?tweaks have been made, and
the final [R]eport is ready for delivery.?

E. On or about November 30, 2012, Associate?1
emailed Manafort, with copy to Partner?1, to let Manafort
know that the final Report had been delivered to
representatives of the G00.

13. The officially released the Report to the
public on the website on December 13, 2012 at 3 a.m.
Because no registration under FARA was made then,
see infra 1 61, the Law Firm did not disclose at that time,
among other things: the amount of money received by the
Law Firm for preparing the Report and that a third party
[Business Person?1) was associated with the funding of the
Report.

14. On or about November 26, 2012, 
approximately two and a half weeks before the Report was
released, Manafort emailed Partner?l to ask about a
memorandum that Manafort and Partner?1 had discussed
regarding (as described by Manafort) Partner?1?s
?assessment of the and weaknesses of [Partner-
1's] findings, especially as relates to the [EurOpean Court
of Human Rights].? On or about the same day, Partner?1
created a Memorandum to File [the ?November 26, 2012
Memorandum"), which discussed ?the and weaknesses
of Tymoshenko's case in the European Court of Human Rights:
and . . . [Partner?1?s] experience in the criminal justice
system of Ukraine." Partner?1 included the following
statement in the document: ?This memorandum is not to be
treated as a document approved or issued by the law firm.
This is my work?product and mine alone." In assessing the
of Tymoshenko's appeal, Partner?1 wrote, in part,
that:

it

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 15 of 44

Partner?1

The Report, which stated that it ?expressled1 no view about
those facts which [the parties] contested,? did not reflect
all of the observations set out in Partner?1's November 26,

[d]espite the fact that [Tymoshenko] did not
present evidence i11 the trial in) establish
that her case was a selective prosecution, a
reviewing court might find that her course of
conduct as Prime Minister even if you take
the prosecutor's case at face value ?-did not
represent an abuse of powers as prime
minister. Two reasons for this: Many
prime Ininisters have in the past directly
negotiated. the natural gas deals with the
Russians. Her decision to order [to execute
the deal] would be seen by many as a
technicality. The true limits on the scope
of her authority were uncertain and
there was some confusion even among legal
experts about this point. Some Western courts
might find that such confusion or uncertainty
or ambiguity as to the precise limits of her
authority would preclude a criminal
prosecutionfconviction of this nature.

also wrote:

The evidence of criminal intent 
that-she actually intended tx) commit a
crime is virtually non-existent.

2012 Memorandum.

15.

The November 26, 2012 Memorandum also assessed
the ?Weaknesses of the [A]ppeal? and provided an assessment
of the system of criminal justice in Ukraine that included
recommendations for, among other things,
for prosecutors and judges, along with the use of juries,
the latter of which was addressed in the Report.
1?s assessment of the criminal justice system in Ukraine
included the statement that ?the owners of the system know
that the system is in trouble, are working to change it,

and are serious about reform.? Among Partnerel's

observations of ?weaknesses,? Partner?l noted Tymoshenko's

?own conduct" and ?attitude toward the process? during

trial {both of which were discussed in the Report) and 

better training

Partner?

g5.

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 16 of 44

wrote that Tymoshenko?s ?failure adequately to explain why
she did what she did is significant? and that the evidence
of Tymoshenko's ?disregard of normal procedures, of the
lack of coordination and coOperation with other leaders of
government, of cloaking her own actions in secrecy" was
?compelling.? Partner?1 also wrote, ?[ejvidence of
[Tymoshenko's] deceit - particularly with respect to the
[then?President of Naftogaz] is powerful.? The Report
did not include these observations. The Report states that
assessing ?whether the facts found by the Court establish
Tymoshenko's guilt? was an issue of Ukrainian law ?beyOnd
the scope of [the Report Team?s] assignment and beyond
[its] expertise? and that the Law Firm was ?not in a
position to evaluate whether the High Council has misused
its authority, or whether the threat of discipline and
dismissal had an effect on Judge Kireyev in this case.?

REQUIREMENTS

 

16. On multiple occasions prior to the Report's
public release, Partner?l and certain other partners
involved in preparing the Report sought and received
analyses and advice from other Law Firm attorneys regarding
the potential applicability of FARR to the Law Firm's work
for the In particular, they received advice from
other attorneys at the Law Firm that engaging in public
relations?related conduct on behalf of the would
require that the Law Firm register as a ?foreign agent?
under FARR. among other things:

a. In response to an initial request in
February 2012, a U.S.-based Law Firm associate sent an
email to Partnerul and Partner?2 attaching the PARA statute
and quoting, among other provisions of FARR, the definition
of ?agent of a foreign principal."

b. On or about April 16, 2012, Associate?l
emailed other attorneys on the Report Team concerning 
issues.? Associate?l noted that hefshe was ?mindful that the
clients view one of the aims of both [the Report} and
[Project] 2 as improved PR on the issue of Ukraine's conduct
in relation to Yulia Tymoshenko and her trial.? Later that
day, Partner?2 asked if Partner?l wanted Partner?2 to
contact a particular Law Firm.partner, the Law Firm?s 

10

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 17 of 44

?resident FARA guru? Partner?3, who was not involved
in the underlying Ukraine Engagement), regarding FARA.
Partner?1 responded, in part: don't really care who you
ask but we need an answer from someone who we can rely on
with a straight face.?

c. On or about April 17, 2012, Partner-2
emailed a U.S.?based Law Firm associate who worked on the
Report, informing the associate that Partner?3 had been
contacted. Partner?2 explained: want to be sure to
structure our representation of Ukraine so that we are not
foreign agents,? and that ?one issue that has come up . .
is retention of a PR firm, which presumably would reach out
to western press, including both Us and European press (and
also our own efforts}.? After speaking with Partner-3, the
associate explained that Partner?3 had advised, among other
things, that ?if we were to perform public relations work
aimed at the US, if our London lawyers were to do so, or if
we were to subcontract with a PR firm to do so, then we
would be obligated to register under FARA. {If the
Ukrainian Government were to hire the PR firm directly,
then FARA would not come into play for After
receiving this advice, Partner-2 emailed Partner-1 that the
Ukraine Engagement ?should not include PR advice,? and that
?somebody else can hire the PR team and manage that"
because the Law Firm was ?in this as lawyers, not spin
doctors.? Partner?1 responded, ?Good advice".

d. On or about June 21, 2012, Partner?2
received ?a brief summary updating? the February 2012
research on the FARA statute. Among other things, the Law
Firm associate tasked with the project explained, as had
been relayed in February 2012, that ?representation of a
foreign principal's interests within the United States
would require registration? (emphasis in original).

PUBLIC RELATIONS EFFORTS SURROUNDING THE RELEASE OF
THE REPORT

17. In or about the spring of 2012, certain Law Firm
attorneys worked with Manafort to identify a public
relations firm to assist the G00 with developing and
implementing a public relations strategy centered on the
Report. On or about April 30, 2012, Partner?1 sent an W(Eif

11

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 18 of 44

email to Manafort identifying four entities that the 
could consider engaging to perform such public relations
work, including a PR Firm with offices in Europe and the
U.S. On or about May 10, 2012, Partner-l emailed Manafort
stating, in part, that engagement of the PR Firm would be
?critical . . . for distributing and circulating and
briefing throughout Europe when our report is completed.?
Ultimately, the selected and retained the PR Firm.

18. Certain Law Firm attorneys on the Report Team and
representatives of the PR Firm exchanged emails concerning
the potential applicability of FARR to the PR Firm's work
on behalf of the 600. For example, on or about May 29,
2012, Partner?1 and a Manhattan?based senior executive at
the PR Firm Firm Senior Executive-l?) exchanged emails
that concerned the PARA statute. Partner?l informed PR
Senior Executive?l that the Law Firm could not engage the
PR Firm as a subcontractor, stating that ?we cannot run
close to the FARR line and if we were seen as hiring and
directing Firm] we would be doing much more than just
lawyering.? PR Firm Senior Executive?1 informed Partner?1
that relates to FARR, we are taking the position at
this time, that our work in Europe . . . does not require
us to file under but that at a future date our
brief is expanded and requires US headquartered personnel
and activities we will then take appropriate steps.?

19. During the spring and summer of 2012, certain
attorneys on the Report Team communicated via email,
telephone, and in?person meetings in Ukraine with Manafort,
Manafort?associate Rick Gates (?Gates?), and members of the
PR Firm, including a U.K.?based Senior Managing Director
Firm Senior in connection with the work that
the Law Firm and the PR Firm each were performing on behalf
of the As the Law Firm drafted the Report, the PR
Firm created a public relations strategy to accompany the
release of the Report, which included, among other things,
outreach to 0.3. media and politicians.

20. On or about July 14, 2012, the PR Firm sent a
document titled ?Communication Strategy? to Gates outlining
a public relations strategy for the release of the Report
Strategy Document?1?), which Gates forwarded to
Associate?1 at the Lawr Firm. PR Strategy Document?1 8?

12

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 19 of 44

characterized the anticipated ?publication of the [Law
Firm] Report" as a ?key event[ that provide[s] an
opportunity for Ukraine to challenge the international
(European/US) perception that it is mounting selective
political prosecutions that do not comply with
international standards.? PR Strategy Document?1 outlined a
multi?faceted public relations strategy for the release of
the Report that included ?media outreach with selected
journalists briefing in general terms about the report?
and ?[rJelease of abstract of report to selected and agreed
journalists.? PR Strategy Document- 1 indicated that
prerelease briefing would include briefings in the United
States.

21. On or about August 7, 2012, Associate?l sent an
email to Partner-l, copying other members of the Report
team, and communicated that Associate-l had spoken with PE
Firm Senior about the PR Firm?s media plan for the
release of the report. Associate?1 conveyed that PR Firm
Senior wanted to speak with Partner?l and Associate?1
?assume{d]? that one of the issues was when PR Firm Senior
MDHI would receive_a copy of the Report.

22. On or about August 28, 2012, Gates made available
to Associate-l a set of public relations strategy documents
reflecting the global media rollout strategy for the
Report. 'Associate-l forwarded the documents to a member of
the Law Firm's public relationship group (?Law Firm PR
Law Firm PR Employee~l forwarded the
documents to Partner-2, who then sent the documents to
Partnerel and suggested that they discuss. One of the
documents introduced the strategy as follows: ?[tJhe
public release of the report prepared by [the Law Firm]
will provide a major opportunity for the Government [of
Ukraine] to re?set the agenda and demand a fresh appraisal
of its position regarding the trial and conviction of Yulia
Tymoshenko.? The document went on to state that the Law
Firm ?cannot proactively lead in communications, given
their restrictions by FARR registration and disclosure.?
Another of the documents in the public relations strategy
documents set forth a list of media and government
personnel around the world including in the United States
to be contacted in connection with the release of the
Report, which included approximately 20 members of the U.S.

y? hi



13

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 20 of 44

Congress. Another document in the set was a spreadsheet
titled ?Master Control Grid? (?Master Control 
which set forth a step-by?step plan for the execution of
the public relations strategy in the days leading up to
and following the public release of the Report. The plan
reflected in Master Control Grid?1 included that, on the
day before the released the Report to the public,
Partner?1 and the PR Firm_would engage in ?[m]edia
briefings.?

23. On or about August 30, 2012, Associate?l emailed
Partner?1, Partner-2, and a Law Firm associate, asking
?[d]oes anyone have any objections to showing [the PR Firm]
a copy of the report now? in order to ?give [the PR Firm]
as much time as possible to digest and prepare? for its
release. Partner?l responded to that group that he was
already ?talking directly to [PR-Firm Senior about
giving them [the PR Firm] early access to the report? and
that Associate?1 should not ?jump the gun quite yet.?

24. On or about September 2, 2012, Manafort
communicated PR Firm Senior MD?l?s reaction to the draft to
Partner~1. Manafort wrote that it was PR Firm Senior 
l?s opinion that, in substance and in part:

the media.will see this report as a vindication
of [Tymoshenko's] position and the
international community will come down hard on
UKRAINE. I have attached.[PR Firm Senior MDl?s]
comments. While you and I know that the details
of the report are more favorable? the
conclusions will drive the perceptions.

In an email to Associate?l on or about September 3, 2012,
Partner?l asked if Associate~1 was aware of how PR Firm
Senior had obtained a draft of the Report. Associate?
1 responded, don?t know what Firm Senior has
said or what he has been quoting. I would imagine he has
had sight of a copy from one of the persons outside [the
Law Firm]. 

25. On or about September 10, 2012, after Partner?1 
had delivered a ?final draft? to Manafort, Partner?1 

14

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 21 of 44

emailed Manafort, stating: would like to find our
[sic] what the communications strategy is no rush.?

26. On or about September 13, 2012, Manafort sent an
email to Partner-1, stating: have attached Firm?s]
proposed plan for release next week. It envisions a
leaking of the document on Monday. This is not yet
approved by the GOVERNMENT. I wanted to get this document
to you to bring your thinking into the process.? Attached
to Manafort's email to Partner?l was a document 
Strategy Document?2?}, titled Report Media Plan,?
which contained a further updated version of the public
relations strategy for the release of the Report. PR
Strategy Document?2 began by stating:

The public release of the report prepared by
[the'Law Firm] will provide an opportunity for
the independent endorsement of the Government
message that the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko 
was not politically? motivated and that her
conviction was based on the evidence before
the court.

The REPORT does provide ample justification,
based on the record, of the legitimacy of the
process and conviction. These findings will
be the foundation for our strategy. It is
important that all parties on the GOVERNMENT
side he linked and co-ordinated. The handling
of the initial release is critical to our
ability to define the REPORT and its findings.

PR Strategy Document?2 set forth a proposed
which included that order to ensure
the Government message that [the Law Firm] has found no
evidence of political motivation is conveyed at the outset
of release," the Report would be ?leak[ed]? to a particular
journalist at a major U.S. media outlet
(?Publication ?after the Ukrainian media has closed
down" on the night before the Report's public release. PR
Strategy Document?2 further indicated that: a principal
at a certain U.S.-based lobbying firm also
working with Manafort and Gates for the (?Lobbying
Firm?2?} would ?engage[ Journalist?2 for a 



15

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 22 of 44

?prebriefing?; Journalist-2 would be ?given an off?the
record briefing call with [Partner?1]?; and Journalist?2
would be told that he/she had until a certain time to
release an ?exclusive? in advance of the Report's public
release. PR Strategy Document?2 explained that the purpose
of this advance briefing of a select U.S.?based journalist
was to ?effectively set the agenda for subsequent coverage?
of the Report.

28. PARA requires an agent of a foreign principal to
register within ten days of agreeing to become an agent and
before performing any activities for the foreign principal.
22 U.S.C. 612(a).

THE PUBLICEEION AND DISSEHINATION OF THE REPORT IN THE U.S.

29. On or about September 23, 2012, PR Firm Senior 
1 sent an email to Partner-l, Associate?l, Manafort, Gates,
and a Ukraine?based associate of Manafort and Gates
regarding a meeting that was to take place later that day
{the Meeting?). The email read, in relevant part:
?I've been asked to send you an agenda and a draft
communications pack for consideration at [the] meeting. I
look forward to discussing these with you then. . . Please
bear in mind that the briefing packs are covered
off by a review of [the] Message Master and [the] Master 
and A. It's worth a quick read of the media plan.? The
attached ?Message Master? contained proposed media.messaging
and talking points regarding the content and conclusions of
the Report. The documents circulated by PR Firm Senior 
also included an updated version of the Master Control Grid
referenced above (?Master Control which contained
an entry which was the only highlighted item in the
document indicating that on the day before the public
release of the Report, Law Firm]? would
participate in the ?[e1ngagement with The
public relations strategy was thereafter modified such that
the select U.S. based journalist to receive an advance
briefing would be Journalist?l at Publication?l instead of
Journalist-2 at Publication?2. Communications at the time
of the outreach, such as those described herein, infra, at
it 32, 34 - reflect that Partner-l had a prior
relationship with Journalist?1. 

16

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 23 of 44

30. In advance of the NYC Meeting, on or about
September 21, 2012, Associate-l sent an email to PR Firm
Senior MDel, copying Partner?1, attaching a copy of the
Report and stating, in part, that you know, [the
Report] is not yet in circulation, so please do not
circulate it or show it to anyone {even in [the PR 

31. On or about September 24, 2012, Partner?1 emailed
Manafort that the Report Team would have to ?reverse
direction on the issue of [Law Firm] lawyers being used to
background journalists about the [R]eport," explaining that
?[o]ur objective here is to remain true to the mission
which is to do a professional job and to prepare an
independent report that has maximum integrity.? Manafort
asked whether Partner?1 could answer questions if
journalists were first directed to the Law Firm's
communications professionals. Partner-1 responded that the
Report Team could answer questions ?run through" the
communications professionals.

32. During the week following the NYC Meeting, on or
about October 2, 2012, Partner?1 sent an email to
Journalist?l, asking: ?Would you take a call from
[Lobbyist?2} about a report that we ([the Law Firm], that
is) wrote about the Tymoshenko case?? Later that day,
Journalist?1 replied to Partner~1, stating that ?[Lobbyist?
2] knows me? and providing Journalist?1?s contact
information. Partner-1 then forwarded Journalist?1's
contact information to Lobbyist?2, stating ?[t]his is
[Journalist?1] contact info.? Partner?1 also sent an email
to Journalist?1, copying Lobbyist-2, connecting Journalist?
1 and Lobbyist-2 by email. Partner?l also directed his
assistant to have a ?hard copy of Ukraine report hand
delivered this afternoon to [Lobbyist?2] at [hisfher]
office.?

33. The did not officially release the Report on
its website until December 13, 2012 at approximately 3 a.m.
During the week prior to the official public
release, on or about December 5, 2012, Associate-1 received
an email at Associate-1's personal email address from PR
Firm Senior attaching a set of public relations
strategy documents that had been updated. The PR document
set included an updated version of the Master Control Grid rqiaa

II

I

17

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 24 of 44

(?Master Control which set forth a day?by?day
public relations plan for the period surrounding the release
of the Report. The public relations plan laid out in Master
Control Grid?3 included the following steps to be taken on
Wednesday, December 12, 2012, the day before the
public release of the Report:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time(in UKR) Action Unit Responsible Action
The report will be given to
l' . . 
1300 [dourna ist l]of[Publication 1] who
will have an exclusrve on the
material for 24 hours
[Partner?1] will give an on?
record[ ]interview with
[Publication?1]
1900 [Partner?1] [Journalist?1] will write an
article to be placed in
[Publication-1]that will be
released Thursday morning
{midnight}
0700 ARTICLE RELEASED

 

 

 

 

34. On December 10, 2012, PR Firm Senior emailed
Journalist-1 and stated that he was ?working with [Partner?
1] of [the Law Firm] (who I understand you know well} and
his client, [the and PR Firm Senior asked
whether Journalist?1 would be interested in ?receiving the
report and a briefing with [Partner-1] on an exclusive basis
in the States.? Journalist?1 responded to PR Firm Senior MD-
1 that he had heard about the report a month or more before
but had never received a copy. PR Firm Senior 
forwarded this exchange to Partner-1. 



18

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 25 of 44

35. On December 11, 2012, after receiving PR Firm
Senior MD?l's email, Partner?l emailed Journalist?l. In
Partner?1?s email, he stated: just learned that the
Ukrainians intend to release our report about the
Tymoshenko case on Thursday finally and that the
Ukrainians have determined that you should be given first
look at it. . [Ilf you are interested, I would be happy
to get you a copy {all 186 pages of it) and even happier to
talk to you about it.?

36. Shortly after sending the email to Journalist?1,
Partner?1 reported on his action by forwarding the email to
Firm Senior PR Firm Senior reaponded, in
part, that: ?If you don?t hear back from [Journalist?1] by
1500, it might be best to speak to your [Publication?3]
contact as time is short.? Partner?l replied: ?We are on
it." PR Firm Senior thanked Partner?1 for the
response and noted that representatives of the were
?pressing me for reassurance here so any update would be
very welcome. I hope the chat goes well.?

37. On the afternoon of December 11, 2012,
Journalist?1 replied to Partner?1's email and suggested
they talk ?today.? Journalist?l wrote that it ?will be good
to catch up? and also esplained that: ?It was a bit hard
for me to discuss with our foreign desk editors until I
have a sense of what the report says, and when your
associates called last month, or maybe earlier, they were
promising to bring a copy over within a day or two. When
they disappeared I didn?t know what to make of it.?
Journalist?l similarly responded to PR Firm Senior MD-l's
email, stating: ?I?m a little confused by this: didn?t we
all discuss this a month or more ago? It was supposed to
arrive then, and suddenly everyone went silent.?

38. About an hour after receiving Journalist?1?s

response, Partner-1 sent an email to Journalist-1 attaching
a copy of the Report and informing Journalist?1 that 

19

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 26 of 44

Partner?1 would also ?hand-deliver a hard copy of this
report to your home tonight.?4

39. Also on December 11, 2012, Partner?1 sent an
email to Partner?2 with the Subject ?IJournalist?l]
conversation" that indicated that Partner-1 had spoken to
Journalist?l. Several minutes later, Partner?2 replied:
?What did [Journalist?1] think of the Tymoshenko report?"
Partner?1 and Partner?2 then agreed to meet in Partner~2's
office.

40. Also on December 11, 2012, after speaking with
Journalist-1, Partner?1 again emailed PR Firm Senior 
Partner?1 explained that Journalistwl had received the
Report by email and wrote: am hand delivering a hard
copy to [Journalist?1's] home this evening on my way home.
[Journalist?1] will tell us tomorrow if [Journalist?1]
wants to use it. [Journalist?1] will check with
[Journalist?1's] deputy foreign editor.? PR Firm Senior 
1 replied to Partner?l, copying Gates, stating that 
are both keeping our fingers crossed for [Journalist?1] and
thank you for your efforts here, especially hand delivering
the report.? PR Firm Senior further stated that,
depending on the time of Journalist-1?s meeting with
Publication?1's deputy foreign editor, ?it would leave us
little time to take the report to your [Partner?1's]
contact at [Publication?3] or to [Journalist?2] if
[Publication?1] decided not to go with this.? PR Firm
Senior asked Partnerml: ?Did you get a view of how
keen [Journalist?1] was to run this and [Journalist-1's]
confidence in getting to print, based on your conversation
[with Journalist?l]? Rick [Gates] is wondering whether we
should wait until [Journalist?1] reports back before
engaging with [Publication?2] etc. What are your
thoughts?" Partner?l responded to PR Firm Senior 
stating: ?We told [Journalist-1] that it was [Journalist-
l's] if [Journalist?1] wanted to use it. [JOurnalist-l]
agreed to get back to us with an answer tomorrow. Tomorrow
is not too late for [Journalist?2] or for 

Wt?

 

4 Later that night, Partner-1 emailed Journalist-1, informing Journalist?1
that Partner-1 would be ?dropping off hard copy" to Journalist?1 ?in 5
minutes."

20

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 27 of 44

41. On the morning of the following day, December 12,
2012, Journalist?l emailed Partner?l, indicating that
Journalist?l was having difficulty opening the electronic
copy of the Report sent by Partner?l the previous day.
Partner?l replied: ?Working on it.? Shortly thereafter, a
Law Firm associate emailed Journalist?l, copying Partner?l,
attaching another electronic copy of the Report ?[oln behalf
of Later that day, Partner-1 received an email
from his assistant, who informed Partner?1 that Journalist-1
had ?received it with no problem.?

42. Later that day, on December 12, 2012 the
day before the public release of the Report}, Journalist?1
emailed Partner-l, stating: ?[wJe've read it and are ready
to talk? and that a colleague in Moscow (?Journalist?IE?)
was going to take the lead. In his email, Journalist?l
noted ?one issue" flagged by Journalist?13 was that
?there's rumor/dispute in Ukraine about how and how much
[the Law Firm] got paid.? Shortly thereafter, Journalist?
1B emailed Partner?l with a list of six multi-part
questions and suggested a conference call among Journalist?
l, Journalist?IE, and Partner?1. The first question on the
list related to how much the Law Firm was paid and whether
anyone other than the government paid for the Law Firm's
work. Another question posed by Journalist-13 was whether
the Law Firm would have any role in the proceedings at the
European Court of Human Rights related to Tymoshenko.

43. After speaking with Publication?1, Partner?1 sent
an email to Journalist?l consisting of a quote that the
Report did not conclude whether the Ukrainian government's
prosecution of Tymoshenko was politically motivated: ?We
leave to others the question whether this prosecution was
politically motivated. We say nothing about that. Our
assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and
determine whether the trial was fair.? Partner?l then
forwarded that email to Partner-2 explaining that
Journalist?1 wanted a quote on ?selective prosecution vs.
politically-motivated prosecution.?

44. At approximately 5:38 p.m, (EST) on December 12,
2012, Partner-1 emailed Journalist?1, informing qurnalist? Giff
.


21

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 28 of 44

1 that ?[t]he report will become public at 3 a.m. our time
tomorrow morning.?5

45. On December 12, 2012, and prior to the public
release of the Report the following day, Publication?l
published an article {the ?Article?! on the Report authored
by Journalist~l and Journalist-1B. Among other things, the
Article stated that the Law Firm had concluded that
?important legal rights of {Tymoshenko} were violated
during her trial,? ?[b]ut over all, the lawyers
seemed to side heavily with the government of President
Viktor F. Yanukovich," as ?[tJhey concluded that Ms.
Tymoshenko's conviction was supported by the evidence
presented at trial, and they found no evidence in the trial
record to support her main contention: that her prosecution
was a politically motivated effort by Mr. Yanukovich, her
archrival, to sideline her and cripple Ukraine?s main
opposition party.? The Article quoted Partner-l: ?We leave
to others the question whether this prosecution was
politically motivated. We say nothing about that. Our
assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and
determine whether the trial was fair.?

46. The final version of the Report, in substance and
among other things, stated that while the Law Firm ?doEesj
not opine about whether the [Tymoshenko] prosecution was
politically motivated or driven by an improper political
objective,? the Law Firm concluded that ?based on our
review of the record, we do not believe that Tymoshenko has
provided specific evidence of political motivation that
would be sufficient to overturn her conviction under
American standards.? The Report also states that: ?the
court's decisions not to permit [Tymoshenko] to call
certain witnesses and to allow important witnesses to
testify while Tymoshenko was unrepresented by counsel would
constitute violations of due process in Western courts?;
the court's decision not to allow certain defense witnesses
resulted in ?Tymoshenko?s ability to present a defense in
her trial appear[ing] to have been compromised to a degree

 

5 As set forth above, Document-2 stated that ?we propose to

leak? an advance copy of the Report to a journalist and that ?[t]he -
journalist will be told that he has until [a Specified.time] to release 12?
his exclusive? in advance of the Report's public release.

22

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 29 of 44

that is troubling under Western standards of due process
and the rule of law?; and Tymoshenko's continued detention
beyond the end of trial until the date of her sentencing
was ?improper? and that her incarceration during trial
?raises concerns about whether she was inappropriately
deprived of her liberty prior to her conviction.?r 

THE RESPONSE TO THE FREE DECEMBER 18, 2012
INQUIRY AND REQUEST FOR INFORMBTION

47. On or about December 18, 2012, following the
public release of the Report and the appearance of media
coverage regarding the Report, the FARA Unit sent a letter
to the Law Firm advising that the Law Firm?s work for the
may require registration pursuant to FARA. The PARA
Unit requested that the Law Firm provide information
addressing four topics, including, a description of
the activities the firm has engaged in or the services it
has rendered to the Ministry of Justice of the Government
of Ukraine.? (?Question and a copy of the
existing or proposed written agreement, if any, or a full
description of the terms and conditions of each existing or
proposed oral agreement, if any, the firm may have with the
Ministry of Justice of the Government of Ukraine?
(?Question The other two questions related generally
to the Law Firm?s structure.

48. On or about December 21, 2012, Partner?4, who was
not involved in the underlying Ukraine Engagement, emailed
the FARA Unit?s letter to Partner?1 and Partner-2.
Partner-4 noted that the Law Firm had received the PARA
Unit's letter and that Partner-4 would be ?available to
discuss and review? the Law Firm's response to the FARA
Unit, although he was ?not familiar with the obligations
under Partner?2 replied, stating that Partnern2 and
Partner?1 would ?provide the information on the
representation? for the Law Firm's response 
Questions 3 and 4) and would ?follow up" regarding next
steps.

49. Partner-1 and sartnerez drafted the Law Firm?s
response to the FARA Unit's Questions 3 and 4 seeking
information about the Law Firmfs work for the Over
the course of the ensuing weeks, Partner?l and Partner?2



23 

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 30 of 44

continued to refine the reaponse to the FARA Unit, with
general input from Partner?4, who relied on Partner?1 and
Partner?2 for their knowledge of the underlying facts and
PARA .

50. On or about February 6, 2013, Partner?1 responded
to the FARA Unit's inquiry of December 18, 2012 {the
?February 6, 2013 Letter?). The February 6, 2013 Letter
included the following in response to the FARA Unit?s
request for description of the activities the Firm has
engaged in or the services it has rendered to the Ministry
of Justice of the Government of Ukraine?:

In April 2012, the Ministry of Justice for the
Government of Ukraine asked the Firm to serve as
consultant [sic] on rule of law issues and to provide
advice about the question of Ukraine's criminal
justice system as viewed through the prism of western
standards of due process, and, in particular, to
advise the Ministry about rule~of?law issues that
might arise before the EurOpean Court for Human
Rights. A major focus of the assignment was to
conduct an independent inquiry into the facts and
circumstances Surrounding the prosecution, trial,
conviction and sentencing of [Tymoshenko] and to write
a report on the Firm's findings in light of western
standards of due process. The Firm insisted on
complete independence and total access to relevant
individuals and evidence in connection with our work.
As an explicit component of our assignment from the
very beginning, the Law Firm?s work was conditioned on
the understanding with the client that the Firm would
not provide any services that would be covered by the
Foreign Agent [sic] Registration Act or would
require registration under PARA. The Firm completed
its investigative work in September 2012, and
delivered its report to the Ministry in December 2012.

.51 Neither the response to Question 3 nor any other
part of the February 6, 2013 Letter signed by Partner? 1
made any reference to Partner? ?1's interactions with
lobbying or public relations firms working for the G00,
contact between Partner?l and the media in connection with

the Report, the 600's public relations campaign associated 
Qk if

24

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 31 of 44

with the Report, or that the GoU's public relations plan
included Partner?1 contacting and providing the Report to a
0.3. media publication in advance of its public release.

52. In response to Question 4, the February 6, 2013
Letter attached, among other things, the April 10, 2012
Contract, which reflected that the Law Firm would be paid
the approximately $12,000 by the The February 6, 2013
Letter further stated that ?there was an oral agreement
with a private citizen of Ukraine in which that individual
agreed to contribute funds to help pay for the work,? but
declined to identify the private citizen Business
Person?1}. The February 6, 2013 Letter noted that ?there
have been discussions with the Government of Ukraine about
the possibility of [the Law Firm] receiving additional
compensation.? The letter did not include any reference to
the February 20,_2012 Preliminary Engagement Letter, which
provided for an initial retainer of $150,000 from a third
party.

THE RESPONSE TO THE FARR APRIL 9, 2013
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

53. On or about April 9, 2013, the FARE Unit sent a
letter addressed to Partner?1, seeking ?additional
information to determine whether your firm is obligated to
register under The FARR Unit?s letter asked,
among other things, ?To whom, if anyone, did your firm
release or distribute the report and when?" and ?Did you or
anyone in your firm have any media interviews or comments
to the media, public, or government officials about the
report and the findihgs of your firm??r

54. The FARA Unit?s letter also requested information
about the Law Firmfs compensation for the Ukraine
Engagement. The FARA Unit noted that the April 10, 2012
Contract that had been attached to the Law Firm?s February
6, 2013 Letter stated that the ?time spent on this contract
by [the Law Firm] is not to exceed 950 hours, and the fee
for [the Law Firm]'s work will be 95,000 Ukrainian
The FARA Unit stated: ?This is equivalent to
$11,675.02 U.S. dollars. It is unclear to us from the
contract and supporting documentation how much additional
money [the Law Firm] charged the Ukrainian Government to 

25

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 32 of 44

perform this work." The FARA Unit's letter also asked for
the identity of the ?private citizen? associated with the
funding of the Report, ?the amount of money paid by the
private citizen to [the Law Firm],? and ?any other sources
of money for the Tymoshenko work.?

55. During April and May 2013, Partner?1 and Partner-
2 prepared a reaponse to the FARA Unit's April 9 Letter.
On or about May 29, 2018, the PARA Unit's letter and a
proposed response were sent to and reviewed by other
partners at the Law Firm. Relying on the factual
representations set forth in the preposed response, these
other partners suggested only ?minor changes,? along with a
direction that the proposed response be sent to the client
for review prior to its submission to the FARA Unit.

56. On or about June 3, 2013, Partner?1 submitted a
final version of the above?discussed letter, signed by
Partner?1, to the FARA Unit in response to its April 9
Letter (the ?June 3, 2013 Letter?). The FARA Unit relied
to its detriment on false and misleading statements in this
letter that were similar in a number of respects to the
February 6, 2013 Letter, including as to when Partner-1
made the Report available to Journalist?1 and for what
purpose. As a result, the FARA Unit was deprived of the
complete information that the FARA Unit expected to receive
in response to its inquiry. The following facts, among
others, were not fully reflected in the June 3, 2013
Letter:

a. On December 12, 2012, Publication?l released
an article regarding the content of the Report.
Publication?1?s article stated that the Report would be
?publicly released" the next day. Partner?1 provided the
Report to Publication?l prior to its official public
release with the knowledge of certain other members of the
Report Team. Several attorneys on the Report Team received
copies of one or more public relations strategy documents
generated by the PR Firm, Manafort, and Gates {such as, for
example PR Strategy Document?2}, which set forth that a
U.S. newspaper would receive an advance copy of the Report
and briefing from Partner?1 in order to ?effectively set
the agenda for subsequent coverage.? In addition, Master
Control Grid?3, which was received by Law Firm Associate?l



26

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 33 of 44

from PR Firm Senior on or about December 6, 2012,
listed as an ?[a]ction? that the Report would ?be given to
[Journalist?l] of [Publication?l] who will have an
exclusive on the material for 24 hours.? Master Control
Grid?3 assigned this task to Master
Control Grid-3 also listed as an ?[alction? that Partner?1
was to provide an on-the?record interview with Publication?
1 prior to the release of the Report.

b. Partner?1 exchanged a series of emails with
Journalist-1 on December 11, 2012. Partnerhl also exchanged
a series of emails with Journalist-1 in early October 2012
about Journalist?1 speaking with Lobbyist-2 regarding the
Report and provided an advance copy of the Report to
Lobbyist?2.

c. Partner?1 and Partner-2's email exchange on
December 11, 2012, indicated that Partner?1 had already
communicated with Journalist?1 about the Report on that
day, not ?December 12?13, 2012? as stated in the June 3,
2013 Letter. In the course of the preparation of the Jane
3, 2013 Letter, on or about May 20, 2013, Partner?2 revised
the dates set forth in a version of the draft letter to
reflect that Partner?l had provided the Report to
Journalist?1 at Publication?l on ?December 11?12, 2012.?
Prior to submitting the June 3, 2013 Letter to the FARR
Unit, when asked to take ?one last look? at the letter,
Partner?2's short email reply to Partner?1 noted a typo and
stated assume you're sure about the dates we provide.?

In response to a question as to whether anyone in
the firm had ?any media interviews or comments to the
media, public, or government officials about the report and
the findings of [the] firm,? the June 3, 2013 Letter stated
that ?[Partner?l] provided brief clarifying statements
about the report? to Journalistul of Publication?1 and two
other publications, and explained that ?[o]ne purpose of
the statements was to correct misinformation that the media
had received and was reporting from the Ministry of
Justice and from the Tymoshenko legal team in Ukraine.?

58. The June 3, 2013 Letter also stated that the Law

Firm ?completed the [R]eport and provided the final draft 
of the [R]eport to the in September 2012.? As \lggir

27

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 34 of 44

described herein, supra, at i 12, the Report Team sought to
deliver what it considered to be the final report in
September 2012 but then made certain limited changes to two
pages of the Report in November 2012 in response to
comments from Manafort and the G00, and Partner~1 emailed
Manafort on or about November 20, 2012, to inform Manafort
that the final Report was ready for delivery.

59. The June 3, 2013 Letter also stated that ?to
supplement" the previous response about agreements with the

500, Partner?1 had attached ?a signed copy . . . of our
initial agreement with Ukraine and the copy of a more
recent agreement . . . reflecting Ukraine's undertaking

with respect to final payment.? Partner~1 attached an
engagement letter, dated April 5, 2012, which had actually
been executed in March 2013, along with a contract, dated
March 11, 2013, both of which are introduced more fully
herein, infra, at 80 81.

60. With respect to the FARA Unit?s inquiry regarding
the Law Firm's compensation, the June 3, 2013 Letter
explicitly declined to provide the identity of Business
Person-1, stating, in part, that do not believe that
we engaged in conduct requiring us to register under PARA,
and, respectfully, we therefore do not believe that you are
entitled to such information,? and to this
individual?s ?connection to our work,? other than providing
financial assistance to help fund the project, this
individual had no connection to the project whatsoever,
either professionally or personally, and to our knowledge
was not involved in any way with the work that we did." As
such, the June 3, 2013 Letter's response to the FARA Unit?s
inquiry regarding the Law Firm?s compensation did not
disclose, among other things, that the Law Firm had
received payments of $4 million from an offshore account,
see infra 0 T0, as of June 3, 2013 to cover its fees and
expenses in connection with the engagement on behalf of the
G00. The June 3, 2013 Letter attached the March 11, 2013
Contract ?reflecting Ukraine's undertaking with respect to
final payment,? which, as discussed herein, infra, served
to increase the price of the contract to 10,200,000
Ukrainian over 1 million USU) from 95,000
Ukrainian under the April 10, 2012 Contract. kg%jz

28

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 35 of 44

61. Registration under FARA would have required the
Law Firm to disclose, among other things, accurate and
complete information related to the compensation that it
received for preparing the Report on behalf of the G06, and
the identity of Business Person~l. In addition,
registration under FARA would have required the Law Firm to
file or otherwise disclose its written and oral agreements
with the and ?[dJescribe fully the nature and method of
performance of {its} agreement or understanding" with the
the engagement letter with a clarification of the
actual amount billed and a full description of all efforts
to publicize the Report as part of a public relations
campaign to change U.S. public opinion concerning the
Tymoshenko trial]. See Exhibit to Registration Statement
Pursuant to Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended (OMB No. 1124u0004} at Question 7.

THE RESPONSE TO THE FARR SEPTEMBER 5, 2013
DETERMINATION LETTER

62. On or about September 5, 2013, the FARA Unit sent
a letter addressed to Partner?1, advising that the FARA
Unit had determined that, as a result of the dissemination
of the Report to the media and communications with the
media regarding the Report, the Law Firm must register
pursuant to FARA as an agent of the Partner?1
forwarded the FARA Unit?s letter to Partner?4, copying
another Law Firm partner and stating: has concluded
that we should register under FARA. I am looking at what
options are available, if any.?6 Partner-4 forwarded
Partnerwl?s email to another Manhattan-based partner, who
responded to Partnerw4, stating, in substance and in part,
?next week let?s discuss impact on registering.? Partner?4
responded, ?[inll put it on the list for next week.?

63. On or about September 19, 2013, Partner?1 sent an
email to Partner-4 with the Subject that began ?Just
for the record? and then made false and misleading
statements. Partner-1?s email stated the following:

 

5 Partner~2 left the Law Firm on June 28, 2013 and returned to the Law Firm on 
January 1, 2015. 

29

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 36 of 44

ii.



2013,

[The Law Firm] did not ?disseminate the
report to news media.? Three media outlets
who were not able to obtain a copy of the
report from the Ministry in Kiev, contacted
us and asked us to provide them with a copy.
The report was a public document.

at no time did [Law Firm] attorneys ?contact
the media.? Quite to the contrary, we were
approached by the media asked for
interviews, asked for background
commentary, etc. and we did not respond.
The only time we responded was to correct
misinformation.

best of

to

To the
statements
Ukraine.

misinformation.
our report and

my recollection,
the press were not about
They were to correct

The statements were about
about us.

01.11?

64. On or about the following day, September 20,
Partner?l emailed Partner?4 and a Law Firm associate

a draft response to the PARA Unit prepared by Partnerel,
which draft response was forwarded by Partner-4 to another

Law Firm partner.
false and misleading statements.

Partner?1?s draft response included
Partner-1's draft

response stated as follows:

told you that the firm provided a copy of the
report to a reporter from [Publication-1] [and

two other publications]. Ukrainian authorities
had released the report to the general public
much earlier in that day, but these three outlets
for some reason had not been able to obtain
copies of the report. They approached the firm,
asked us if we could provide them with a copy,

and so we did so. The law firm did not
?disseminate? this report. The firm did

not send this
journalists.

this law firm
media. It is

Firm] took ?actions

report to media outlets or

To my knowledge, no one in
initiated any contacts with the
simply wrong to say that [the Law

[to] contact the mediaCase Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 37 of 44

. As I told you in my letter of June 2013,
I did communicate briefly with two print?media
journalists. Even with them, I took no action to
contact them. They initiated the contact. As to
the Substance and the reason for my
communications with these three journalists, my
contact with them was for the sole purpose of
defending my law firm and correcting
misinformation.

65. The draft response was not submitted to the FARA
Unit. Instead, the Law Firm requested an in person meeting
with the FARA Unit, so that Partner?1 could directly
address questions from the FARA Unit. Law Firm records
show that Partner-l edited the draft response on September
24, 2013, and then accessed the document on September 26,
October 4, and October 9, 2013 the day of the
meeting with the FARA Unit}. Throughout this period, the
document contained the statements set forth in the
paragraph above.

66. On or about October 9, 2013, members of the FARA
Unit met with Partner?1, in Washington, 0.0. (the ?October
9, 2013 Meeting?). Also in attendance were Partner?3, who
was included for his FARA.expertise and prior dealings with
the FARA Unit, and Partner?4, both of whom relied on
Partner-l for his knowledge of the underlying facts. At
the meeting, Partner~1 conveyed information generally
consistent with that contained in the draft reaponse that
he had emailed internally on September 20, 2013. As a
result, the FARA Unit relied upon information that was
false and misleading in making its decision. The FARA Unit
asked the Law Firm to submit a letter following the October
9, 2013 Meeting.

67. On or about October 11, 2013, the requested
letter was submitted to the FARA Unit. It was dated October
10, 2013, and was signed and principally prepared by
Partner?1 (?the October 10, 2013 Letter?}. The October 10,
2013 Letter stated, among other things, that the Law Firm
distributed copies of the Report to certain U.S. media
outlets including Publication?1 only ?in response to
requests from the media.? As set forth above, Partner?1
contacted Publication-1 prior to the official public {gig




31

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 38 of 44

release of the Report, offered to and did provide an
advance copy of the Report to Publication?1, and discussed
the Report with Publication?l. Partner-1 also provided an
advance copy of the Report to Lobbyist?2 in October 2012
and emailed Journalist-l to ask if he would ?take a call
from [Lobbyist?2] about a report that we {[the Law Firm],
that is) wrote about the Tymoshenko case??. Journalist?1
responded, ?[s]ure. {Lobbyist- 2] knows me . . . 
Partner? ?1 then connected Journalist?1 and Lobbyist-2 by
email. As a result the FARA Unit relied to its detriment
upon statements made by Partner?1 on the Law Firm?s behalf
that were false and misleading in making its decision.

68. On or about January 16, 2014, the FARA Unit sent
a letter to Partner?1, advising that, ?based upon the
information you brought to our attention[, the Law Firm]
has no present obligation to register under 

69. On or about February 27, 2014, Partner?1, at
Partnern??s direction, called the FARA Unit to inquire if
Partner-l could reach out to Publication?l without
implicating FARA. The PARA Unit called back Partner?1 and,
on this call, as reflected in a memorandum to file drafted
by Partner?1 on the same date as the call, Partner-1
expressed a ?desire to respond to [a Publication?l] article
and to correct misinformation in the article. . . 
According to the memo, Partner?1 told the PARA Unit that
there were ?serious inaccuracies in the [Publication-1]
article much like the ones that caused us to talk to
journalists when the report was first published in December
2012 and we wanted to correct the record.? Specifically,
Partnerwl set out ?two areas of concern . . .: The
journalists want to report that [the Law Firm] made a
finding of fact that there was no political motivation in
Tymoshenko's prosecution. No such thing happened, and we
want to explain it. (2) The journalists want to say that
[the Report] was ?sympathetic' to the government of
Ukraine. We want to say that the [R]eport concluded that
there were serious violations of Tymoshenko?s rights during
the trial. . . Partner?1 asked if the FARA Unit could
?give us comfort hat [sic] by answering these questions and
making these corrections and addressing these concerns,
FARA will not see us as being 5 [sic] agents of a foreign
government.? Partner?1 told the FARA Unit that the Law 

f'f?I

32

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 39 of 44

Firm ?had stopped working for Ukraine well over a year
ago[, and the Law Firm was] not taking instruction from
anyone in Ukraine.? The FARE Unit advised that ?[t]here
would be no need for us to register under 

THE LAW FIRM RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY $4.7 MILLION
IN CONNECTION WITH ITS WORK ON THE UKRAINE ENGAGEMENT

In or about the spring and summer of 2012, as the
Law Firm worked on the Ukraine Engagement for the the
Law Firm received payments totaling $4 million from an
entity called Black Sea View Limited, which had a bank
account at the Bank of Cyprus in the Republic of Cyprus.
The Law Firm understood this money to be from Business
Person?1. These monies were applied over time from the Law
Firm?s escrow account to the fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the Law Firm's work on the Ukraine
Engagement. Specifically:

a. On or about April 19, 2012, $2 million was
wired from Black Sea View Limited to the Law Firm.

b. On or about June 7, 2012, $1 million was
wired from Black Sea View Limited to the Law Firm.

c. On or about July 16, 2012, $1 million was
wired from Black Sea View Limited to the Law Firm.

71. On or about August 9, 2012, Law Firm PR Employee?
1? circulated an editorial titled ?[Law Firm] Stink? that
had been published in the Kyiv Post on or about the same
day. The editorial noted that the 600's relationship with
the Law Firm was ?highly suspicious? and stated that the
GOD claimed that the Law Firm ?works for a mere $12,000?
and that none of the Law Firm's expenses are paid by the
government. The editorial stated that the public did not
know who was paying the Law Firm and, accordingly, that
?the public may never know of conflicts of interest, or
worse things, that may lurk behind [the] arrangement.?
Partner?2 forwarded the article to Partner?1 and wrote, in
substance and in part, really need to get them to
disclose the funding.? Partner~1 responded, in substance
and in part, that he had already told Manafort that he ?has
got to get [Business Person?1] out whether voluntarily or inf



:r

33

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 40 of 44

non voluntarily.? Partner?2 responded, in substance and in
part, that the issue was ?about to explode, including in
the American press? and that it was better to ?get ahead of
it now while we still have a bit of a chance.? In an email
exchange with members of the Law Firm's public relations
group that same day, one member of-the group noted that the
Law Firm's ?fees in most of our client engagements are not
publically available? unless the client advises otherwise.
Partner?1 agreed, writing that the government [of
Ukraine] wants the third party to step forward that would
be up to the government to make happen.?

T2. On or about August 10, 2012, Partner?2 wrote an
email to Partner-l and stated, in substance and in part,
?[ylou were mentioning the Ukraine payment situation last
night and then our connection broke up. I really think we
need to get it out there as soon as we can. know you
agree}. If we don't, it's self-defeating for [Business
Person?l] and the government. Will put us in a very deep
hole in the western press. We still have a bit of a window
now and we should take it."

73. On or about August 10, 2012, and August 13, 2012,
Partner-1 exchanged emails with Manafort to make
arrangements to speak on August 10, 2012 and August 13,
2012, respectively. On or about August 14, 2012, Manafort
emailed Partner?1 that ?Kyiv wants to move ASAP and is
pressing me for an answer." Partner?l responded and posed
the question, one promised [Business Person?1]
anonymity did they?? Manafort responded, don't know,
but I do know that is what he is saying he wants now.?

74. On or about August 15, 2012, in an email to
Partner?1, Manafort suggested a discussion of ?what [a
certain representative] proposes before putting
anything in writing." In the same email thread, on or
about August 16, 2012, Manafort emailed Partner~1, asking:
?Is the number $1,300,000 good for official submission??
Partner-1 responded: ?My thought is $250,000 per month
which is either $1.25 million or $1.5 million.? Manafort
replied: ?Ok I will tell them 1.250.?

75. A few days later, on or about August 20, 2012,
Manafort emailed Partner?1, asking Partner?1 to, among other



34

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 41 of 44

things, send an invoice for ?$1,250,000 for services
rendered." On or about August 22, 2012, Partner?l emailed a
letter to Manafort, addressed to the MOJ and signed by
Partner?1 on the Law Firm?s letterhead stating, among other
things: ?You have asked me to provide you with an invoice
setting forth the outstanding payments due from the
Government of Ukraine for services rendered in connection
with [the Ukraine Engagement]. For services rendered during
the months of April, May, June, July and August, there is an
outstanding balance due of $250,000 per month for a total of
$1.25 million.? Neither the MOJ nor any other entity or
individual made any payment pursuant to this invoice.

76. On or about August 22, 2012, Manafort responded
to Partner?1?s email and attached a draft letter, which he
asked Partner?1 to date July 18, 2012 and to email back to
Manafort because that would ?finish what [he] needfed] for
administrative purposes." A letter to dated July 16,
2012 and signed by Partner?1, in part reads similarly to
the draft letter attached to Manafort?s email and includes
the following statement:

Due to the complexity of the case, conducting
an examination that would comply with ?2 of
the contract will require specialists of a
higher class and tgreater training than. was
originally planned when the initial contract
was concluded. In addition, because of the
volume of materials that need to be inspected,
carrying out the assignment will require many
more working hours than was first contemplated
in the contract.

[The Law Firm] respectfully submits that it is
not able to perform the above task upon the
terms set in the contract of April 10, 2012,
and recommends that an additional contract
settling the aforementioned issues should be
concluded.

Metadata from the letter dated July 16, 2012, indicated

that the document was created and printed on August 23,

2012, and that the author was Partner?l. Neither the MOJ 


35

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 42 of 44

nor any other entity or individual made any payment
pursuant to this document at that time.

77. On or about November 20, 2012, Partner?1 wrote to
Manafort that: ?We have more than exhausted the retainer
[from Business Person?1]. We are owed another $75,000 in
time and expenses. . . . Can we expect or hope for payment
from MOJ at some point??

78. On or about December 26, 2012, Manafort emailed
Partner-l and wrote that he had attached three documents
that ?relate to the MoJ/[Law Firm] contract.? Manafort
explained that the needed some basic information from
the Law Firm ?for the official record.? One of the
attached documents was a one?page letter from a Deputy
Minister at the to Partnerml, dated August 28, 2012,
which stated that the had considered Partner?1?s letter
of August 22, 2012, ?concerning increase of the volume of
work related to the expert examination as to compliance
with the [Report on the Tymoshenko case] and respective
increase of the contract price? and had approved the
'increase of the contract price.

79. On or about February 15, 2013, a representative
of the emailed Partnernl with copy to Manafort,
Associate?l, and others. The email discussed an increase
in the amount of the April 10, 2012 Contract 95,000
Ukrainian and cited as basis for the increase an
explanation consistent with that set forth in the letter
from Partner~l, dated July 16, 2012, and discussed herein,
supraabout February 25, 2013, Associate?1
emailed Partner?l and attached a draft Law Firm engagement
letter that ?we discussed.? Associate-l wrote that the
draft letter needed to be ?dated on a date in April on
which [Partner?1 was] in Ukraine.? Partner?l forwarded the
draft to his assistant and asked her to ?print out a new
draft of the old retainer letter and put a date on it from
April 2012 when I was in Ukraine.? After confirming the
date of April 5, 2012 with Partner?1, Partner?1's assistant
provided a draft to Associate?l on or about March 7, 2013.
The executed letter, signed by Partner-1, was hackdated to
April 5, 2012 [the ?April 5, 2012 Engagement Letter"). The -
1fo

36

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 43 of 44

April 5, 2012 Engagement Letter changed the description of
the scope of the engagement to read: ?The Engagement
involves conducting an inquiry and writing an independent
report on the evidence and procedures used during the
prosecution and trial of former Prime Minister Yulia
Tymoshenko, applying Western standards of due process and
rule of law.? It did not reference advising the Ministry
on ?a variety of rule of law issues, including those that
may arise before the European Court for Human Rights?
Tymoshenko's appeal). On or about March 14, 2013,
Associate?1 emailed Partner-l and Partner-2 and attached
the April 5, 2012 Engagement Letter and a contract for
services dated March 11, 2013 {the ?March 11, 2013
Contract"), which both bore signatures from Partner?1 and
an MOJ official. The March 11, 2013 contract reflected an
increase of the total price to be paid by the to the
Law Firm under the contract to 10,200,000 Ukrainian
{i.eL, over 1 million 050). The initial April 10,
2012 Contract reflected a price of 95,000 Ukrainian


81. On or about March 25, 2013, Partner?1 emailed
Manafort regarding the ?final bill to Ukraine.? Partner?1
explained that the final bill would reflect the Law Firm's
?fees and expenses for the time frame July 2012 through
March 2013.? Partner-l also stated that ?[y]ou should know
and Ukraine should also know that we are taking pains
NOT to double charge for time and expenses that others have
already paid for" and that Partner?1 ?anticipate[d] that,
once Ukraine pays our invoice, [the Law Firm] will be
making reimbursement to those who contributed to our fees
and expenses in the past.?

82. In or about April 2013, after the monies received
from Black Sea View had been fully applied to the Law
Firm's fees and expenses for its 000 work and additional
monies were owed to the Law Firm, the Law Firm sent an
invoice to the MOJ stating, in substance and in part, that
the amount due for services rendered from August 2012 to
March 2013 with respect to the Report was 8,595,523.65
Ukrainian On or about June 6, 2013, the MOJ paid
that invoice by wiring the approximate USU
equivalent of 8,595,523.65 Ukrainian to the Law
Firm's escrow account. Approximately $450,000 was applied gig?

37

Case Document 93-1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 44 of 44

to satisfy amounts owed to the Law Firm for its fees and
expenses per invoices outstanding. On or about June 14,
2017, the Law Firm subsequently returned $567,812.50 to the
MOJ that had been maintained in the Law Firm?s client
escrow account, which represented funds in excess of
the fees and disbursements for the Ukraine Engagement.

83. The Law Firm received payments totaling
$5,225,381.41 in connection with its work on behalf of the
With the return of the unused funds maintained in the
Law Firm's escrow account, the total amount paid to the Law
Firm for its fees and expenses was 

Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93-2 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CRIMINAL NUMBER:
v.
1:18-cr-00032-2-DLF
CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING LLC
Defendant.
PROPOSED ORDER
With the Court having considered Defendant Concord Management and Consulting
LLC’s Renewed Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution, and any opposition
thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall produce all information that will
corroborate or refute Concord’s claim of selective prosecution.
Date: _______________________

___________________________________
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
United States District Judge