t, . t? ??rst? assesses toss . - age J. 0i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York 18MAG 2968 Case No. In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or friend}? the person by name and address) Loews Regencyr Hotel, 543 Park Avenue, Room 1623 APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney,r for the request a search warrant and state under penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property edema? the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location): Loews Regency Hotei, 543 Park Avenue, Room 1323, 3 Suite that Encompasses Rooms 1323. 1329, and 133C- Naw York. New York 13335 Districtct? New York there is nowconcealed (Month? the locate'd?in?there??ee?Southemf person or describe the properg: to be seizeaD?. See Attached Af?davit and its Attachment A The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(c) is {check one or more): m?evidence of a crime; Montraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; B?grcperty designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime; El a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained. The search is related to a violation of: Code Section?s} O?ense Descripticn?s} 13 U30 1014. 1343. Conspiracy, false bank entries, false statements to a ?nancial g; 1344, 52 39115 and 301% institution, wire fraud, bank fraud, and illegal campaign contributions The application is based on these facts: See Attached Af?davit and its Attachment A if Rf Continued on the attached sheet. El Delayed notice of 0 days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: is requested i5 under 13 U.S.C. 3103s, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet, w" Sworn to before me and signed in my presence. 1 - II Date: li?i if) ii EM. f? Judgea?stgaatwe . I City and state: NewYork,NY Emmy}? Printegnnmeand rifle - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page-2 of 201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL States of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described Agent Af?davit in Support of as Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Application for Search and Seizure Room 1623, a Suite that Encompasses Rooms Warrant 1628, 1629, and 1630 New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Containers?terns Contained Therein Reference No. 2013R00127 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.: deposes and says: I. A. Af?ant 2.. On or about April 8, 2018, the Honorable Henry B. Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a search and seizure warrant for the premises known and described as Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1723, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Containers?terns Contained Therein. The warrant and my supporting af?davit (the ?Af?davit?) are appended hereto. The Af?davit is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety as Exhibit A. 2017.08.Agent?Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly .. - .. .-.--: .. .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 201 3. On or about April 9, 2018, based upon a conversation with another law enforcement agent who spoke to an employee of Loews Regency Hotel, I learned that Michael Cohen is in fact staying in Room 1623 (in a suite encompassing rooms 1623, 1629, and 1630) (collectively, ?Room 1628?), not Room 1728. Accordingly, I respectfu?y submit the attached amended warrant pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the following Subject Premises: Loews ftegency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1628, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Contained Therein (?Subject For the reasons detailed in the Affidavit and herein, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-4 ??contains?evidence, fruits, and ins'trurnentalities 'of- violations of - 8 -1005-= (false - bank entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank ?'aud) (collectively, the ?Bank Fraud Offenses?), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions} (the ?Campaign Finance Offenses?), and 13 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?Subject Offenses?). 4. Based on the foregoing, I request the court to issue a warrant to seize the items and information speci?ed in Attachinent A to this a?idavit and to the Search and Seizure Warrant. 201108.02 -.-.-.-..- r7. - .g-w Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 201 5. In light of the con?dential nature of the continuing investigation, I respectfully request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith be maintained under seal until the. Cotut orders otherwise. Special Agent FBI '7 L5 ii??im?s?af, Sworn to before me on 9th day oprril, 2?18 If? HON. B. PITMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ru? Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 5 of 201 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises?4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises-4"} are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Room 1623 (a suite encompassing rooms 1628, 1629, and 1630) (collectively, ?Room 1623?), located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a Intuit}r hotel located on Park Avenue and 615t Street. Subject Premises- 4 is located on the 16th ?oor of the hotel. IL Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be from Subiect Premises?,4. are evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 U. .C. 371 (conspiracy,as asit pertains to the other Subject Offenses], 1005 I I (false bank entries), 1014 {false statements to a fmancial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank and 52 U. 0 ss and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses"), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Melrose Credit Union, andl'or taxi medallions, from January 1, 2013 to the present. b. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen andfor entities associated with him to transfer anv interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to _1ndl'or entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/or Melrose. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or ?om Essential Consultants or the nature ofanv work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or item Michael D. Cohen dc Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, Born January 1, 2013 to the present. g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, andfor financial transactions between and?am sass convened by 2 201108.02 ??rJ?r . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 6 of 201 and any pawns Cohen: from January 1, 2012 to the present. o. Communications with others, including?andr?or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, andlor t?mances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial institution related to the intended purpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial institution; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account ata ?nancial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. q. Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Subject Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized from Subject Premises?4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored information falling within the categories set forth in Section HA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBook Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 3 201103.112 - -.- . . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 7 of 201 belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, portable hard drives, disk drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any seized or copied computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer devices or storage media, including any hardware or software manuals or other information concm-ning the con?guration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 3. Any evidence concerning the identities or locations of those persons with access to, control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media andior the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the E31 contained therein for information responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate information responsive to the warrant, including, for example: surveying various ?le ?directories? and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a file cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les}; - opening or cursorily readhrg the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; scanning sterage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted ?les or deliberately hidden ?les; a performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and I reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information reflecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 201103.02 ., Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 8 of 201 Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to search only for ?les, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identi?ed in Sections ILA and 11.3 of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the E81 ?om seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to? established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonany designed to protect any attorney-client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart ?'om the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2?17.03.02 - .. .. .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 99f 201 1m?n. .- I-. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 10 of 201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1n the Matter of the Application of the United 5 To BE men UNDER SEAL States of America for a Search and Seizure i Warrant for the Premises Known and Described 5 Agent A?idavit in Support of as (1) 502. Park Avenue, ?\lew Application for Search and Seizure York, New York 10022, (2) Michael Cohen?s i Warrant O?ce at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New 5 York, New York 10112, (3) Safe Deposit Box Located at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park 3 Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and Regency Hotclr540 Park Avenue, Room-?-- -- - - 1728, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Contained Therein, and: 1 the Electronic Devices Known and Described as: an Apple iPhone with Phone Number _3 _and (2) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number Reference No. 2018R00127 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) 35.: _Speeia1 Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Af?ant 2. I make this Af?davit in support of an application pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a warrant to search the premises speci?ed below (the ?Subject 2 2017.03.02 ?ll 1 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 11 of 201 Premises?) and the electronic devices speci?ed below (the ?Subject Devices?) for, and to seize, the items and information described in Attachments A, B, C, D, and F. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge; my review of documents and other evidence; my conversations with other law enforcement personnel; and my training, experience and advice received concerning the use of electronic devices in criminal activity and the forensic analysis of electronically stored information Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of ?e?stabl?ishing probable cause, it'doesnot include all the facts-that have learned during-the-course: of my investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated. B. The Subject Premises and Subject Devices 3. Subject Premises~1, Subject Premises-2, Subject Premises-3 and Subject Premises? 4 (collectively, the ?Subject Premises?) are particularly described as: a. Subject Premises-1 is Apartment-located inside the building at 502 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The building located at 502 Park Avenue is a 32? floor brick residential building. Subject Premises-1 is located on the-?oor of the building. Based on my review of New York City propeity records, I have learned that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own Subject Premises-l.l Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises-1 is Cohen?s full?time residence. b. Subject Premises-2 is an office located on the 23rd ?oor of the building at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1 As noted tri?e, I have learned that on or about October 23, 2015, Cohen transferred Subject Premises-1 into a trust. 3 201103.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 12 of 201 is a Eli??oor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. Subject Premises-2 is located on the 23rd ?oor of the building inside of the of?ces of the law ?rm Squire Patton Boggs. The of?ce is assigned to Michael Cohen. As described below, Michael Cohen works and conducts meetings at Subject Premises-2. c, Subject l?remises-B is a safety deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 1 0019. Based on my review of records ?maintained hy?TBBanquthave learned that-the safety'deposit box is approximately ?ve inches by- - ten inches in size, and is marked as box - The safety deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. d. Subject Premises~4 is Room 1723 located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and 6 lat Street. Subject Premises?4 is located on the 17th ?oor of the hotel. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuant to search warrants described below, I have learned that on or about January 5, 2018, Cohen received an email from an employee of Loews Regency, which included a price quote for a long-term stay suite based on a three-month stay ?'om January 8 to April 8, On or about January 29, 2013, Cohen sentan email to a Loews Regency employee, stating, in pertinent part: just spoke to my wife and she has scheduled the move for Thursday. Please mark down that we will be taking possession on Thursday, February lst.? Based on my review of cell phone location data, I have learned that, over the past 24 hours, two cellular phones used by Cohen have been located in the vicinity of Subject Prennses-4- In particular, on or about 2 Although the quoted price contemplated a three?month stay from January 3 to April 8, it appears that Cohen did not move in until February 1, and as of today, April 8, cellphone location information demonstrates that Cohen?s cellular phones are in still in the vicinity of Subject Premises?4. 4 2m than; Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 13 of 201 April 8, 2018, law enforcement agents using a ?trigger?sh? device identi?ed Room 1728 as the room within the hotel in which the Subject Devices are most likely present.3 e- Therefore, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Premises-4- 4. Subject Device?1 and Subject Device-2 (collectively, the ?Subject Devices? are particularly described as: Subject Deviced- is an Apple iPhone serviced udth?the?telephone-number- Based on my review of records maintained by 1 have learned that Subject Device?1 is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained by I have learned that Subject Device-l is presently located in the Southern District of New York. b. Subject Device?2 is an Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number _Based on my review of records maintained by 1 have learned that Subject Device?2 is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained by I have learned that Subject Device-2 is presently located in the Southern District of New York. c. Based on my training, experience, and research, and from consulting the manufacturer?s and service providers? advertisements and product technical speci?cations available online, I know that the Subject Devices have capabilities that allow them to, among other things: make and receive telephone calls; save and store contact hiformation; send and receive 3 Based on my conversations with these agents, I understand that it is also possible that the Subject Devices are one ?oor below, in Room 1628. However, as noted, I understand that Cohen received a price quote for a long-term stay suite and is residing there with his family. Based on my conversations with FBI agents conducting surveillance, I understand that Room 1723 appears to be a suite, whereas Room 1628 appears to be a standard room. 5 2011mm ?mu Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 14 of 201 emails and text messages; download and run mobile telephone applications, including call and messaging application such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Dust; take, send, and receive pictures and videos; save and store notes and passwords; and store documents. C. The Subject Offenses 5. For the reasons detailed below, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of '??violations of 1014 (false?statementsto a?nancial- institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and i344 (bank fraud) (collectively, the ?Bank Fraud Offenses?), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30lO9(d)(l)(A)(l) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Campaign Finance Offenses?), and 13 U.S.C. 3?71 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?Subject D. Prior Applications 6. The FBI and the United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of New York have been investigating several courses of criminal conduct by Michael Cohen. Cohen is an attorney who currently holds himself out as the personal attorney for President Donald Trump, and who previously served for over a decade as an executive in the Trump Organization, an international conglomerate with real estate and other holdings. 7. In connection with an investigation then being conducted by the Of?ce of the Special Counsel the FBI sought and obtained from the Honorable Beryl A. Howell, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, three search warrants for emails and other content information associated with two email accounts used by Cohen, and one search warrant for stored content associated with an iCloud account used by Cohen. Speci?cally: 201 - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 15 of 201 a. On or about July 18, 201?, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account -@gmail.corn (the ?Cohen Gmail Account?) sent or received between January 1, 2016 and July 18, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Gmail Warrant?). b. On or about August 8, 2.017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for content stored in the iCloud account associated with Apple ID _@gtnail.com (the ?Cohen iCloud Accoun and the ?Cohen iCloud Warrant?). c. Bnror about-November -13 r20 the -FBI sought? and? obtained?a?search warrant for emails in the Cohen Gmail Account sent or received betWeen June 1, 2015 and November 13, 2017 (the ?Second Cohen Gmail Warrant?). d. On or about November 13, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account -- (the ?Cohen Account?) sent or received between the opening of the Cohen Account? and November 13, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Warrant?)- 8. The SCD has since refen'ed certain aspects of its investigation into Cohen to the USAO, which is working with the New York Field Of?ce. As part of that referral, on or about February 8, 2018, the 300 provided the USAO with all nonuprivileged emails and other content information obtained pursuant to the First Cohen Grnail Warrant, Second Cohen Gmaii Warrant, and Cohen Warrant. On or about March 7, 2013, the SCO provided the USAO 4 Based on my review of this warrant and the af?davit in support of it, I imow that the warrant did not speci?z a time period, but the af?davit indicated that, pursuant to court order, the service provider had provided non-content information for the Cohen Account that indicated that the account contained emails from the approximate period of March 2017 through the date of the warrant. 201103.02 I - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 16 of 201 with all non-privileged content obtained pursuant to the Cohen iCloud Warrant.S A ?lter team working with the SCO had previously reviewed the content produced pursuant to these warrants for privilege. 9. On or about February 28, 2013, the USAO sought and obtained search warrants for emails in the Cohen Ganail Account and the Cohen Account, among other accounts, sent or received between November 14, 2017 and February 28, 2018 (the ?Third Cohen Gmail Warrant? and the ?Smd?Cohen The-content produced-pursuantto these-warrantsis? subject to an ongoing review for privilege by an SDNY ?lter The emails search warrants described above are referred to collectively as the ?Cohen Email Warrants.? 11. On or about April 7, 2013, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained a warrant for prospective and historical cellphone location hiforrnation for Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2. On or about April 8, 2018, the USAC) and FBI sought and obtained authority to employ an electronic technique, commonly lmown as a ?trigger?sh,? to determine the location of Subj ect Device-1 and Subject Device-2. I II. Probable Cause A. Overview 12.. The United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of New York and FBI are investigating, among other things, schemes by Target Subject Michael Cohen to de?'aud multiple banks from in or about 2016 up to and including the present, and to make an illegal 5 The SCO had previously provided a subset of this non?privileged content on or about February 2, 2018- I ?5 On or about February 28, 2013 and April T, 2018, the USA-E) and FBI sought and obtained Rule 41 search Warrants authorizing the search of emails and content obtained pursuant to previously I issued warrants for additional subject offenses. 8 . 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 17 of 201 campaign contribution in October 2016 to then?presidential candidate Donald As noted, Cohen is an attorney who currently holds himself out as the personal attorney for President Donald and who previously served for over a decade as an executive in the Trinitp Organization, an international conglomerate with real estate and other holdings. 13. The investigation has revealed that Cohen has made af?rmative misrepresentations in and omitted material information from ?nancial statements and other disclosures that Cohen "provided?Wmultiple' 'banltrircomec?on with?a?transaetion of? approximately $22 million in debt he owed on taxi medallion loans item the banks. As set forth in detail below, in these ?nancial statements, and in his oral and other written statements to these banks, Cohen appears to have intentionally misrepresented his ability to pay cash by failing to disclose cash he began receiving in 2017 from new consulting work; (ii) signi?cantly understated his total holdings of cash and cash equivalents; failed to disclose tens of thousands of dollars he received in interest income, and (iv) failed to inform the banks from which he was seeking debt relief that he had agreed to make a $3.8 million cash payment to a third party, - _in connection with _icquisition of the taxi medallions securing Cohen?s debt. By making these misrepresentations and material omissions, Cohen avoided making payments on his loans, and attempted to ?audulently induce the banks to relieve him of certain repayment obligations and personal guarantees that Cohen and his wife had signed. 2017.08.02 -- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 18 of 201 15. Based on my review of emails obtained from the Cohen Email Warrants, mformation obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, and documents produced pursuant to subpoenas, as well as my review of public sources, I have learned that Cohen has used the Subject ??Pren1ises tote)- receive-documents related-tome Cohen-ef?his?tani? medallion debt, receive documents andlor conduct meetings related to his consulting work, receive documents andfor conduct meetings relating to his ?nances and assets, some of which, as noted above and as detailed ?n'ther herein, he has concealed from the banks in connection with the. re?nancing of his taxi medallion debt, - and house and operate electronic devices that were utilized in connection with, among other things, the taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s consulting work, and l? Speci?cally, as described below, Subject Premises-l likely contains evidence concerning Cohen?s taxi medallion loans, his negotiations with banks, his personal ?nances, his consulting work, his tax returns, and?, as well as electronic devices containing such evidence, all of which constitute or contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. Additionally, as described below, Subject PremiseSuZ likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s consulting work, his ?nances, and? as well as electronic devices containing such evidence. Subject Premises?3, as described below, likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s assets and ?nances, including assets that. may not have been disclosed to banks in connection with the re?nancing of Cohen?s taxi medallion debt or documents relating to such assets, and documents or evidence related to Subject Premises?4 likely contains electronic 1 l) 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 19 of 201 devices, including Subject Deviced and Subject Device-2., which themselves contain evidence of the Subject Offenses, including concerning Cohen?s taxi medallion loans, his negotiations with banks, his personal ?nances, his consulting work, his tax renn'ns, and Accordingly, and as set forth in more detail below, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will include evidence of the Subject Offenses. B. Probable Cause Regarding Subjects? Commission of the Subject Offenses? - - Cohen Statements to Sterling National Bank 1 6. As set forth in detail below, in 2014, Cohen, through LLCs controlled by him and his wife, Laura Cohen, entered into a series of loans from Sterling National Bank (?Sterling?) and the Melrose Credit Union (?Metrose?), secured by taxi medallions, for approximately $20 million. Though entered into by LLCs, the loans were also secured by personal guarantees in the names of both Cohen and his wife. Over time, as the taxi industry weakened and the medallions lost value, Cohen sought to renegotiate the terms of those loans andfor relieve himself from their obligations, including the personal guarantees. As part of that effort, Cohen made a series of representations to Sterling and Melrose about his net worth, assets, available cash and income, among other things. Speci?cally, based on my review of records maintained by Sterling and Melrose, and public sources concerning the taxi industry and the value oftani medallions, as well as my participation in interviews with a Sterling executive vice-president (the ?Sterling Employee-l?) and two other 7 1n the following recitation of probable cause, I frequently refer to phone calls or text messages involving Cohen. The text messages described herein as sent or received by Cohen were all sent or received from the telephone numbers associated with Subject Device?1 or Subject Device-2. The vast majority of the phone calls described herein made or received by Cohen were made or received by the telephone numbers associated with Subject Device~l or Subject Device-2, although in certain limited instances Cohen used a landline or other phone. 11 201mm: . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 20 of 201 Sterling employees (?Sterling Employee-2? and ?Sterling Employee?3?), I have learned, among other things, the following: a. Taxi medallions are small metal plaques af?xed to taxis. Without a medallion, it is illegal to operate a taxi in cities with medallion systems, such as New York City. Cohen and his wife own multiple LLCs that collectively own 32 taxi medallions (each LLC oWns two medallions).E Cohen?s purchase of these New York taxi medallions was originally ?nanced by loans from Capital One'banlt, forwhich-the-medallions- serr ed- ascollaterala? Gohen-was-not-a-taai operator, and leased his medallions to a third party. That third party made payments to Cohen, who in turn used some of those proceeds to malte his loan payments to Capital One. b. In early 2014, Cohen became a customer of Sterling when he sought to re?nance a mortgage on a rental property that he owned. In or around April 2014, Cohen raised with Sterling the prospect ofre?nancing his taxi medallion loans, which were then at Capital One. By in or about September 2014, Cohen began negotiating a lending transaction with Sterling that would allow Cohen to pay off his loans at Capital One and borrow more money from the then-increase in value of the medallions. According to Sterling Employee-1, in 2014, prior to the recent upheaval in the taxi indusuy?as a result of the emergence of ride-sharing services, such as ?ber?{aid medallion loans were viewed by banks and investors as safe, short term credits, as the market value of taxi medallions was consistently rising. Consequently, taxi medallion loans??like the loans held by Cohen??were frequently re?nanced at increasing amounts as the value of the medallions rose. According to Sterling Employee-1, borrowers typically cashed out the increase in the loan amount 3 One of these companies, Mad Dog Cab Corp, was jointly owned by Sondra Cohen, who I believe is Cohen?s mother. 12 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 21 of 201 and used the additional funds for other purposes. Cohen appears to have followed this approach in 2014, when he agreed to re?nance his medallion loans for approximately $22 million, which? to letters ?'om Capital One in Sterling?s ?les?was greater than his previous debt at Capital One Bank ($21 million, of which $14.6 million Was a line of credit to Cohen). This allowed Cohen to cash out the proceeds from the transaction. c. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling, I have learned that on or ?'??ahoutDecember S, 20 taxi-medallion-ELES enteredinto-loan-agreements? and promissory notes with Sterling for the principal sum of $1,375,000, with repayment due on December 8, 2016. Each loan was signed by Michael or Laura Cohen, depending on who was the sole shareholder of the LLC. The address listed tor each of the LLCs was the address for Suhj ect Premises-1 . The loans were also each secured by a security agreement, dated the same day, making the medallions collateral for the notes. To give Sterling additional security, Michael and Laura Cohen signed personal guarantees and confessions of judgment, giving Sterling the right to pursue collection against the Cohens? personal assets were their corporations to default under the loan agreements. The personal guaranty agreements stated that the LLCs had of?ces at the address for Subject Premises-1, and contained a notice provision that stated that any notices required by the agreements should be mailed to Subject Premises-l. In total, Sterling agreed to lend approximately $22 million to the Cohens' companies. d. Pursuant to participation agreements, Sterling transferred 45 percent of Cohen?s taxi medallion debt to Melrose.9 9 Melrose, which had a business principally focused on taxi medallion loans, is now in conservatorship by the National Credit Union Administration 3 2011mm sun?.m- - - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 22 of 201 e. In evaluating Cohen?s requested re?nancing of the taxi medallions, Sterling (and Melrose, consistent with its participation in the deal) conducted due diligence. At Sterling?s request, Cohen provided Sterling with a statement of ?nancial condition, dated August 1, 2014 (the ?August 2014 Financial Statement?), which indicated that Cohen had $100,740,000 in total assets, $23,550,000 in total liabilities, and a net worth of From my review of a Sterling credit memorandum, dated September 29, 2014, I know that Sterling viewed the from- the medallions?were? - projected to be positive, the value of the collateral (as estimated by Sterling) exceeded $42 million, and the net worth of Cohen?who was the direct obligor under the guarantee agreements?was over $77 million. An internal Sterling credit and risk rating analysis report, dated October 20, 2014, recommended approval of the loans for substantially the same reasons. f. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling and public sources, I have learned that over time, the collateral backing Cohen?s loans (taxi medallions) lessened in value due to the rise in ride-sharing companies. Additionally, Cohen began falling behind on loan payments to Sterling and Melrose. llcnow from records maintained by Sterling and an interview with Sterling Employee-2 that, beginning in or around September 2015, Cohen told Sterling, in sum and substance, that the individual leasing Cohen?s medallions had fallen behind in making payments to Cohen, and that as a result, the cash ?ow from his taxi medallions had been reduced, leaving him with a shortfall of approximately $16,000 each month. For instance, I have reviewed an email from Sterling Employee?2, dated September 9, 2015, summarizing a call with Cohen? which according to the email and toll records for Cohen?s cellphone occurred on September 3, 1? Cohen subsequently provided Sterling with a revised statement of ?nancial condition, also dated August 1, 2014, which reported assets of $99,420,000, total liabilities of 5 0,000, and a net worth of$75,370,000. 14 201103-112 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 23 of 201 2015-?during which Cohen told Sterling Employee-2, in sum and substance, about his cash flow problems and a shortfall of approximately $16,000. In that same email, Sterling Employee?2 commented that despite Cohen?s statements, his personal ?nancial information ?indicate[d] a strong ability to make up the difference in payments.? Cohen, however, according to Sterling Employee-2, pushed the bank for a reduction in Cohen?s payments. g. From my review of records maintained by Sterling and my participation in an interview with" Sterling and Sterling?Employee-Zspoke again on September 23, 2015, and that during the call Cohen stated, in sum and substance, that the individual to whom Cohen leases the medallions had again reduced payments to Cohen. I know from my review of. records maintained by Sterling that between in or about September 2015 and November ZOIS, Sterling raised the possibility?both internally and with Cohen?of Cohen posting his real estate holdings, personal residence, or some other collateral as additional security for the banks.11 According to these records, however, Cohen resisted these requests. From my review of loan documents and records maintained by Sterling, I know that in or about November 2015, as a result of Cohen?s representation that he was not earning suf?cient returns on his medallions to cover interest payments, Sterling and Melrose agreed to amend their loans with Cohen by, among other things, reducing the interest rate Cohen paid to Melrose and extending the loan maturity date to December S, 2017. h. I know from interviews with Sterling Employee-] and Sterling Employee-2, as well as emails I have reviewed, that in or about October 2016, Cohen told Sterling Employee?1 that Cohen had a potential buyer of his taxi medallions, named ?who would agree to Based on my review of property records, I know that on or about October 2.8, 2015, around the time period when Sterling raised the possibility of Cohen posting his personal residence? Subject Premises-Fair, collateral, Cohen transferred Subject Premises?1 into a trust. 15 saunas; Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 24 of 201 assume Cohen?s debt with Sterling and Melrose. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling, as well as the interviews with Sterling Employee?I and Sterling Employee-2 referenced above, I know that by or before October 2016, Cohen had entered into negotiations to sell his sixteen corporate taxi medallion entities to_, for the balance of the loans, which at the time was $21,376,000. I 131099 from my review of records maintained by Sterling, and my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?2, that as a the transfer?of- the-medall-iondoansr?and because Sterling wasnnfamiliar with- _?-Ster1ing requested that Cohen make a substantial principal payment on the loan, of approximately one million dollars, prior to the transfer. Cohen rejected this request initially. But on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen told Sterling Employee-l, in sum and substance, that he would make a one million dollar principal reduction payment in order to move forward with the medallion transfer deal with - Indeed, in an email sent by Cohen to Sterling Employee-2 on or about February 22, 2017, Cohen con?rmed that he ?agreed to pay down 1 million from the loan amount" i. Pursuant to the participation agreements between Sterling and Melrose, Sterling was required to secure Meirose?s agreement to participate in the transfer of the taxi medallion debt ?'om Cohen to On or about April 17, 2017, Sterling sent a memorandum to Melrose Summarizing the terms of the proposed transaction, and noting the requirement that Mekose agree to the terms. On or about May 2, 2017, Sterling Employee?1 told that Meh'ose had agreed to the deal in principle, and that Sterling would be sending the parties a term sheet shortly. j. In order for the banks to conduct diligence and evaluate the proposed transaction fully, they requested ?nancial information from the parties. On or about June 7, 2017, Sterling 16 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 25 of 201 Employee-l emailed Cohen to request an ?updated personal ?nancial statement,? completed jointly with Cohen?s wife, and Cohen's most recent federal income tax return. On or about June 8, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-1 a Sterling personal ?nancial statement form that had been ?lled out by hand, which referenced a statement of ?nancial condition, dated May 1, 2017 (the ?May 2017 Financial Statement?) that was also attached. The May 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from Cohen?s accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that ?th?e?information in? the not- cen?-rmed?its?accuracy or completeness. The May 2017 Financial Statement stated that Cohen had total assets of $41,955,000, total liabilities of $39,130,000, and a net Worth of $2,325,000. The May 2017 Financial Statement indicated that Cohen?s assets were comprised of $1,250,000 in cash, $26,155,000 in closely held companies (such as the taxi medallion entities and his real estate holdings), $3,200,000 in real estate investrnents, and his $11,000,000 personal residence.12 k. Based on my review of reports of law enforcement interviews of Sterling Employee-1, I have learned that Sterling Employee?l revie?Wed the May 2017 Financial Statement with Cohen to, among other things, verify its accuracy, and Sterling Employee-1 asked Cohen about speci?c line items on the ?nancial statement, including the cash amount, value of medallions, and total liabilities. Cohen stated to Sterling Employee-l, in sum and substance, that the May 2017 Financial Statement was accurate. 1. On or about-August 16, 201?, Sterling Employee?l emailed Cohen and r- attaching a non?binding term sheet memorializing the potential transaction between 13 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, I know that the precipitous decline in assets from his 2014 ?nancial statement to his 2017 ?nancial statements can be explained primarily by reported depreciation in the 1value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion intrestments. 17 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 26 of 201 Sterling, Melrose, Cohen, and -. The term sheet included a cover letter addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-1. The parties negotiated the provisions of the term sheet and, on or about September 5, 2017, Sterling Employee-1 sent ._md Cohen a copy of the executed term sheet. According to the term sheet,_wou1d borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Melrose, to be secured by the medallions that -vas to acquire ?'om Cohen. bf?j?; 1'3 ill'Pl'inGiPal'l'WhiBh? is what would remain after the $20,000,000 payment on the outstanding loan balance) would be repaid by Cohen and the two banks, with Cohen paying fi?y percent and the banks dividing the remaining half of the balance. Based on my review of an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, the parties reached a preliminary agreement that Cohen would pay $632,956 of the remaining $1,265,912 principal loan balance, and Sterling and Melrose would absorb $353216? and $235,789, respectively, in the form of charge-offs. According to Sterling Employee- 1, Sterling was willing to divide the repayment of the outstanding principal balance?despite its prior insistence that Cohen make a principal pay-down of at least one million dollars?because Cohen represented on a telephone call with Sterling Employee?1 in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient liquidity to pay the full outstanding principal balance. As part of the agreement, Sterling and Melrose also agreed to relieve Cohen and his wife of the personal guarantees that they made on behalf of the LLCs. Thus, after completing the '-transaction, Cohen would no longer have had any outstanding obligations to Sterling or Melrosc. 11. Based on my review of emails sent by Sterling employees, I have learned that because the transaction bemeen the parties was subject to full credit miderwriting by Sterling and Melrose (as Well as Melrose?s regulators at NCUA), in August and September 2017, Sterling 18 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 27 of 201 required and requested additional ?nancial statements. and tax returns for Cohen and for its credit underwriting process. In response to Sterling?s requests, on or about September 25, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a copy of his 2016 tax return. The tax return listed Cohen?s mailing address as Subject Premises-1. Additionally, on or about October 5, 2017, Cohen re?sent Sterling Employee?2 a copy of his May 2.017 Financial Statement. A, day later, on October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a statement of ?nancial condition, dated September Statemen 0. Like the May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from-, Cohen?s accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that the information in the statement came from Cohen, and that -1ad not confirmed its accuracy or completeness. The September 2017 Financial Statement. stated that Cohen had total assets of 5533,43 0,000, total liabilities of $45,630,000, and a negative net worth of $12,200,000.13 Notably, unlike Cohen?s May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement represented to Sterling that Cohen had a negative net worth. The September 2017 Financial Statement indicated that Cohen?s assets were comprised of $1,250,000 in cash, $17,630,000 in closely held companies (including the taxi medallion entities and his real estate holdings ,14 $3,200,000 in real estate investments, and his $11,000,000 personal residence (which, for the ?rst 13 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, 1 know that this ?rrther decline in assets can be explained primarin by reported depreciation in the value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 14 Notably, the September 201?? Financial Statement valued each of Cohen?s thirty-two New York taxi medallions at approximately $130,187.50, which was considerably less than the $650,000 Valuation ascribed to each medallion in the Comm?term sheet. 1 9 an loses. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 28 of 201 time, be indicated was held by a trust .15 The September 20! 7 Financial Statement included assets and liabilities not held in Cohen?s name, such as various entities associated with his taxi medallions and some of his real estate investment entities. p. From my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-2, and my review of records maintained by Sterling, I have also learned that around the time Cohen provided Sterling with these ?nancial statements?Le, in or around September 2017?Cohen stopped paying payments on his taxi-medallion-loans- altogether. According to Sterling-Employee?- 2, Cohen informed Sterling, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient funds to pay the principal and interest payments on his medallion loans. By in or about December 2017, Sterling and Melrose had not been paid approximately $276,937.92 in principal and interest payments on the medallion loans. Based on Cohen?s ?nancial condition as conveyed in the September 201'? Financial Statehient, and his delinquency in making payments to Sterling, among other things, the bank?s credit underwriting committee determined (and memorialized in a December 2017 memorandum) that the Cohen-?- transaction was favorable for the bank - that is, that-would be a better borrower than Cohen. q. 011 or about December 26, 201?, Sterling sent Cohen a demand letter requesting the immediate receipt of past?due loan payments. The demand letter was addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-1. On December 2.9, 2017, Sterling sent Cohen a letter stating that he was in default under the loans between Sterling and Cohen?s medallion corporations. The notice of default was addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-l . Cohen did not make an immediate payment on the loans, but instead sent an e-mail to Sterling Employee-I on or about January 24, 2018, 15 Based on my review of property records maintained by the City of New York, and my participation in an interview with-I know that in 2015, Cohen transferred his residence to a trust. He did not disclose that transaction to -or Sterling until in or about September 2017. 20 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 29 of 201 stating that during the closing of the Cohen-- transaction, Cohen would ?bring all payments up to date as well as deposit the payoff differential.? lCohen also requested by email on January 24, 2018, that at the closing of the Cohen-?- transaction, Sterling provide a letter stating that all of Cohen?s debts have been satis?ed and that Cohen?s personal guarantees of the medallion loans had been terminated. r. The Cohen?-transaction, however, did not close. On or about January and?stated-that--?at this?tim there is no deal with Michael Cohen. Some of the numbers have changed and we are not prepared to go forward.? 5. Based on my participation in the interview with Sterling Employee?2 and my review of records maintained by Sterling, I know that after the Cohen-iced fell apart, Sterling assigned Cohen's loans to Sterling Employee-3, who specializes in collecting on defaulting loans. From my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-3, my review of telephone call notes taken by Sterling Employee?3, and my review of telephone records, I know that Sterling Employee43 spoke several times to Cohen on or about January 30, 2013 about paying down andfor restructuring Cohen?s outstanding taxi medallion loans. 0n the calls, which in total lasted more than an hour, Cohen stated in sum and substance that he did not have more than $1,250,000 to pay toward the medallion loans. 0n the call, in the course of reviewing the failed Cohen-- transaction, Sterling Employee-3 questioned Cohen about the price -vas to have paid for each medallion, and whether there was a side agreement between Cohen and - Cohen denied that there was any side agreement with t. On or about January 31, 2018, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-3 and proposed paying $500,000 to bring the loans current and $750,000 to bring the principal balance to 21 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 30 of 201 $20,500,000. Cohen also suggested revised interest payment amounts. The signamre block on the email indicated that Cohen?s address was the address for Subject Premises?2. On or about January 31, 2018, Sterling Employee-3 responded to Cohen and stated, in sum and substance, that Cohen would need to pay the entirety of the overdue payments and pay down the principal balance of the loan to $20,000,000 (in total, a payment of approximately $1,750,000), and would need to make larger interest payments. HI ab??t'FEbWI??l?S; Cohen emailed Sterling-Employeesand-proposed ?[p]ayrnent of $1.250m which ALL can be used to pay down principal, if [Sterling] will waive past due amounts,? but stated do NOT have more than the $1 250111.? (Emphasis in original.) Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient ?nancial resources to post additional collateral or pro?fund payments. The signature block on the email indicated that Cohen?s address was the address for Subject Premises-2. Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-3, I hare learned that since January 30, 2018, Sterling has continued to renegotiate the medallion loans with Cohen based on Cohen?s representations about his current financial position. In particular, according to Sterling Employee-3, Cohen and Sterling have an agreement in principal to restructure Cohen?s loans based in part of Cohen?s agreement to make a principal payment of approximately $750,000, to make a payment of $500,000 to become current on interest payments, and to post $192,000 in cash collateral for his future payments on me loan. Cohen also agreed to pledge an interest he had in a property. Sterling Employee?3 has stated that had Cohen indicated he had more than $l,250,000 available to him, Sterling would have, among other things, negotiated for a larger reduction to the principal amount of the loan. 22 201103.02 . . :r I4- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 31 of 201 (ii) Cohen Made Material Misrepresenmrions About His neutrons to Banks Cohen Concealed from Sterling and Melrose Cash Derived from 17. As set forth in detail below, despite multiple written and oral representations by Cohen to Sterling (and, by extension, Melrosel's] that he had insuf?cient funds to pay down the principal balance of the medallion loans, make interest payments, or pay pastrdue amounts, it appears that between 2016 and the present, Cohen opened and maintained bank accounts?at?First?Republic ,_and then. . consulting payments in these accounts, which he did not disclose to Sterling. Cohen set up these accounts and received these funds during the very period in which he made disclosures to Sterling about his personal ?nances (including his assets and liabilities) and his ability to make payments on the medallion loans. In these disclosures to Sterling?and despite being asked about these bank accounts by his accountant?Cohen misled the bank by claiming he had insuf?cient liquidity to satisfy his obligations or meet the bank?s demands, while withholding information about these ongoing revenue streams and liquid ?nancial assets at First Republic. 18. Speci?cally, based on my review of documents and bank records produced pursuant to a subpoena by First Republic, and my participation in and review of reports of interviews with a First Republic sales manager (?First Republic Employee?1?) and a First Republic senior managing director (?T?irst Republic I have learned, among other things, the following: ?5 Based on my review of a report of an interview conducted with an employee ofMelrose, I have learned that, pursuant to the participation agreement between Sterling and Melrose, Cohen?s ?nancial statements and other records in Sterling?s possession were forwarded to Melrose so that Meh-ose could make a determination as to whether to approve of the Cohen?' transaction. Based on my review of reports of inter-vistas with Melrose employees, 1 also new that Cohen called employees at Melrose regarding the Cohen-ransaction. 23 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 32 of 201 a. Cohen and his wife have been customers of First Republic since approxinrately June 201 1. Cohen controls several checking and loan accounts at First Republic, some in his own name and others in the names of corporate entities. According to First Republic?s know?your- customer records on Cohen,? his primary physical address is the address for Subject Premises-l . b. On or about October 26, 2016, in Manhattan, New York, Cohen opened a new checking account at First Republic in the name of Essential Consultants LLC (the ?Essential ?Cons?te? account. According-to account opening documents, the primary address for Essential Consultants LLC was the address for Subject Premises-l. When Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, First Republic Employee-1 conducted an interview of Cohen- In response to a series of know?your- customer questions about the purpose of the account?the to which First Republic Employee?l entered into a form?SFCohen stated, in sum and substance, that he was opening Essential Consultants as a real estate consulting company to collect fees for investment consulting work, and all of his consulting clients would be domestic individuals based in the United States. Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that his purpose in setting up the account was to keep the revenue from his consulting business?which he said was not his main source of income?separate from his personal ?nances. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s statements about the intended purpose of the account and source of funds for the account were false. Speci?cally, as described below, the account was not intended to receive?and does not Certain fmancial institutions are required to conduct such procedures pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. See 31 U.S.C. 5313; 31 C.F.R. 1020.220. '3 First Republic Employee-l ?rst ?lled out the form on the day he hiterviewed Cohen, October 26, 2016. On or about December 19, 2016, at the request of bank compliance personnel, First Republic Employee-1 updated the form to add more detail about Cohen?s statements. 24 2017.03.02 -?qw Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 33 of 201 appear to have in connection with real estate consulting work; in addition, the account has received substantial payments ?'om foreign sources. c. I know Erom my review of First Republic banlt records that were scheduled by an FBI forensic accountant that after Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, Cohen received payments into that account from foreign businesses and entities that do not re?ect the stated client pro?le for the residential and commercial real-estate consulting services. Speci?cally, the Essential I. know the_ following: i. Beginning on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen began receiving payments of $33,3 33 into the Essential Consultants Account from an entity called Columbus Nova LLC. According to public sources, Columbus Nova is an investment management ?rm controlled by Renova Group, an industrial holding company based in Zurich, that is controlled by Russian national Vilctor Velcselberg. From January 2017 to August 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received seven payments totaling $5 83,332.98 ?'om Columbus Nova LLC. ii. Beginning on or about April 5, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account began receiving payments from Novartis Investments, SARL, which I believe to be the in?house ?nancial subsidiary of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis International AG (?Novartis?). Between April 2017 and February 2013, the Essential Consultants Account received eleven wire payments from a Swiss bank account held in the name ofNovartis, each in the amount of $99,980, for a total of 1,099,?80. Beginning in or about April 20] 7, the Essential Consultants Account started receiving wire payments from a bank account associated with the telecommunications company Inc. Speci?cally, on or about April 14, 2017, sent $100,000 to the ?25 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 34 of 201 Essential Consultants Account and, from in or about June 2017 to in or about January 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received ten $50,000 payments from In total, ATRLT sent $600,000 to the Essential Consultants Account. iv. On or about May 10, 2017, June 9, 2017, July 10, 2017, and November 27, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received four deposits in the amount $150,000 (totaling $600,000) from a bank account in South Korea. The account holder ?om which the money was sent i's'Koreei Kerospac?e is a South Koreaabased-company-that - produces and sells ?xed-wing aircraft, helicopter aircraft, and satellites to the United States Department of Defense, among other customers. v. On or about May 22, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received a $150,000 deposit from an account at a Kazakhstani bank. The listed account holder at Kazkommertsbank was a second bank named BTA Bank, A0. A message accompanying the wire payment indicated that the payment was a consulting fee as per Inv ETA-101 DD May 10, 2017 consulting agreement WIN DD 08 05 2017 CNTR WINDD vi. in total, item on or about January 31, 2017 to on or about February 1, 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received approximately $3,033,112.98 in transfers and checks from the aforementioned entities. As of on or about January 10, 2.018, the balance in the Essential Consultants Account was $1,369,474.23. Cohen?s withdrawals from the Essential Consultants account reveal that it was used for largely personal purposes, including to pay, among other things, American Express bills and fees from ?the Core Club,? a private social club in New York. d. On or about April 4, 2017, Cohen opened another new checking account at First Republic, this one in the name of Michael D. Cohen 85 Associates, PC. (the Account?). 26 2017mm Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 35 of 201 Cohen was the only authorized signatory on the account. According to account opening documents, the primaiy address for Account was the address for Subject Premises?l. Among other things, the Account received ten wire transfers and one check from an account in the name of Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm. As noted above, Subject Premises-2 is located inside the New York of?ce of Squire Patton Boggs. In total, from on or about April 5, 2017, to on or about January 2, 2018, the Account received $426,097.70 in deposits, and "The ?27201-8rwas-S344?41735: As discussed below?Cohen: never disclosed any of the balance in the Essential Consultants or accounts to Sterling during the negotiations with respect to the - transaction or the subsequent loan re?nancing negotiations, including in his May 2017 Financial Statement and September 2017 Financial Statement. 19. Based on my review of emails that were seized pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, and my review of reports of interviews with employees of and Novartis, it appears that the aforementioned payments to the Essential Consultants Account and WCSLA Account were for political consulting work, including consulting for international clients on issues pending before the Trump administration. Speci?cally, from my review of emails from the Cohen Gmail Account, the Cohen Account, and public sources, I hays learned the following: a. On or about April 28, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with In the email, Cohen attached a ?Consulting Agreement? between KAI and Essential Consultants dated as of about May 1, 2017. The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Hemises-Z. The document indicates that Essential Consultants would render ?consulting and advisory services, as requested" by KAI, and that KAI would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Two Hundred Thousand 2? 1011.03.02 win->- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 36 of 201 US Dollars,? disbursed through eight $150,000 installments between May 2017 and December 2017, I have also reviewed invoices in amounts of $150,000 that Cohen emailed to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with KAI. At the top of the invoices the address listed for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises?2. b. On or about May 8, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with BTA Bank. The signature block on Cohen?s email listed ?Essential Consultants and and provided-the address for?Subj est?Premises- 2- In the email, Cohen attached a doctunent purporting to be a ?Consulting Agreement? between BTA Bank and Essential Consultants dated as of about May 8, 201?. The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises-2, The document indicates that Essential Consultants would render ?consulting and advisory services? to ETA Bank, and that ETA Bank would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand US Dollars,? disbursed through payments of $1 50,000. On or about May 10, 2017', Cohen sent an email to an employee of BTA Bank, and attached to the email an invoice to ETA Bank in the name of Essential Consultants, with the address of Subject Premises- 2. The invoice contemplated a $150,000 payment to Essential Consultants for a consulting fee.? c. On or about January 23, 2017, Cohen appears to have entered into a consulting agreement with which contemplates that Essential Consultants ?shall render consulting and advisory services to and that would ?advise [Essential Consultants] of those issues and matters with respect to which ATELT Services desires [Essential assistance and advice.? The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises- l. The contract calls for ?to pay the Consultant for his services . . . a consulting fee of Fifty 28 231105.02 q, Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 37 of 201 Thousand ($50,000) Dollars . . . per month.? Based on my review of reports of interviews with employees, I have learned that retained Cohen to consult on political issues, including net neutrality, the merger between and Time Warner, and tax reform. d. On or about March 1, 2017, Cohen appears to have entered into a contract between Novartis and Essential Consultants, which provides that Essential Consultants will ?provide consulting and advisory services to Novartis on matters that relate to the repeal and replacement of the Affordable?CaTAEf'in other issues -mutually?agreeab1e-to [Essential Consultants] and Novartis.? The contract provides for a ?consulting fee of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000) US dollars,? to be paid to Essential Consultants in equal installments over the course of a year. Based on my review of reports of interviews with Nov-ands employees, 1 have learned that Novartis retained Cohen to provide political consulting services and to gain access to relevant policymakers in the Trump Administration. e. In or about February 2017, Cohen began negotiating the terms of a ?strategic alliance" with Squire Patton Boggs. On or about March 4, 2017, Squire Patton Boggs emailed Cohen a ?strategic alliance agreement.? Under the terms of the agreement, Cohen agreed to generate business for the law ?rm, and Squire Patton Boggs agreed to pay to Cohen ?an annual strategic alliance fee of $500,000, payable in twelve (12) equal installments." Squire Patton Boggs also agreed to provide Cohen with ?dedicated and segregated of?ce space in [Squire Patton Boggs?s] New York and Washington DC. of?ces, which of?ce space shall be physically separate from [Squire Patton Boggs?s] of?ces and have locked doors and its own locked ?le cabinets." On or about April 3, 2017, Squire Patton Boggs announced on its website that is had formed a ?strategic alliance? with Michael D. Cohen Associates and would ?jointly represent clients.? 29 201103.03 o- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 38 of 201 20. Despite the signi?cant amount of money that Cohen received into the Essential Consultants Account and the Account, and the cash balance in both accounts, Cohen did not disclose that information to Sterling or Melrose. Speci?cally, based on my review of documents provided by - (as noted above, Cohen?s accountant at the time), my participation in an review at - eds et?? haye learned the following: meeting, Cohen told - in sum and substance, that he had setup a law practice called Michael D. Cohen 8.: Associates P.C., and a consulting company called Essential Consultants LLC. Cohen told -, in sum and substance, that he expected to earn $7 5,000 per month in connection with his law practice, and that he expected gross revenues for the consulting business to be between ?ve and six million dollars annually. in. In or about October 2017, if not earlier, -ras preparing a personal ?nancial statement for Cohen. On or about October 6, 2017, -sent an email to Cohen in which .- wrote that is a draft of the new PPS as of September 30, 2017? and attached a draft of the September 201?l Financial Statement. The dra?: statement re?ected that as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had only $1 ,25 0,000 in cash, total assets of approximately $33,430,000 (comprised of taxi medallion interests, real estate interests, and his personal residence and property), and liabilities ofapproaimately $45,613 0,000, leaving him purportedly over $12 million in debt. In the same email, -1uestioned Cohen, in sum and substance, about the fact that the ?nancial statement did not list any value associated with either the Essential Consultants Account or the Account: did not add any value for you[r] two operating entities Michael D. Cohen Associates 30 2017.03.02 ao?In' or ?about?May 2017r-met?with?C?iohen-at Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 39 of 201 POC [sic] and Essential Consultants LLC. Please advise whether or not these should be disclosed and what value.? c. On or about October 6, 2017, Cohen called -3y telephone?which is re?ected on toll records for Cohen?s cellphone?and told - in sum and substance, not to include Essential Consultants or in the September 2017 Financial Statement because they had no value. On or about October 6, 2017, following the call with-Cohen, using the Cohen ?[l]ooks good-tomeLCohen-neverdirected -to make any changes to his cash position as listed in the September 2017 Financial Statement. In a letter dated October 6, 2017, addressed to - Cohen stated, have revieWed the attached statement of ?nancial condition and ?nd it to be correct and consistent with the representations that I made to your firm. The attached is an accurate re?ection of my assets, liabilities and net worth (de?cit) as of September 30, 2017.? Attached to that letter was the September 2017 Financial Statement, which, as noted aboue, was then transmitted to Sterling in connection with the proposed taxi medallion transaction between Sterling, Cohen, and 21. Based on my review of a report of an interview with Sterling Employee-?1, I have learned that Cohen did not disclose his income stream from Essential Consultants to Sterling Employee] or, to his knowledge, anyone else at Sterling. According to Sterling Employee?1, knowledge of such an income stream would have affected Sterling?s demands during the negotiations, particularly with respect to the amount of a principal paydown of Cohen?s debt. Cohen Understated His Available Cash 22. In addition to withholding the existence of his Essential Consultants income from Sterling and Melrose, it appears that Cohen also substantially understated his available cash and cash enuivalents in his ?nancial disclosures. Speci?cally, I know from my review of the September 3 1 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 40 of 201 2017 Financial Statement that Cohen provided to Sterling that Cohen represented that he had $1,250,000 in cash as of September 30, 2017. I also know that on or about January 30, 2018, in a telephone call with Sterling Employee-3, and on February 1, 2018, in an email to Sterling Employee-3, Cohen represented that he did not have more than $1,250,000 in cash. But, from my review of a summary of bank records that were scheduled by forensic accountants, I have learned that Cohen had approximately $5,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2017. A Wish??ns of . equivalents. Specifically, from my review of the account schedule and bank records, Ihavc learned the following: a. Cohen. has three checking andjor savings accounts at Capital One Bank, one of which is in his wife?s name. As of September 30, 2017?, Cohen had $1,105,680.35 in his savings account, and $1,262,982.29 in total in the three accounts at Capital One Bank. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had a total of $1 ,3 89,245.78 in these accourits. b. Cohen has three accounts at Morgan Stanley in his name. As of September 30, 2017, the combined total in cash and cash equivalents in those three accounts was $1,270,600.41. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had $1,284.996.13 in these accounts. c. As of September 30, 2017, Cohen had $260,689.18 in an account at Signature Bank. As of Februaryr 1, 2018, Cohen had $261,517.55 in this account. d. In addition to the Essential Consultants Account and thC&A Account at First Republic, Cohen also had two joint checking accounts with Laura Cohen at First Republic. In total, as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had at least $1,876,209.27 in total in his four accounts at First Republic. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had $3,332,992.95 in these accounts. 32 2017.08.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 41 of 201 e. Cohen has an account at Bethpage Credit Union with $25,931.39 in it as of September 30, 2017. f. As of September 30, 2017, Cohen had $17,542.54 in accounts at Sterling. g. Cohen has two accounts at TD Bank?acne in his name and one held jointly with his wife. Cohen also has a safety deposit box at TD Bankaubj ect Premises?3. The safety deposit box was opened on December 13, 2017 in the names of Michael and Laura Cohen. -?h.?Irrtota1; as?of September 30:201ngehen had-at his aceounts?-? at Capital One Bank, City National Bank, Signature Bank, Sterling Bank, Bethpage Credit Union, First Republic, and Morgan Stanley. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen bad $6,263,732.59 in his accounts at Capital One Bank, City National Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic, and Morgan Stanley.? 23. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen?s written and oral representations to Sterling and Melrose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 were false, and that Cohen withheld information regarding approximately $5 million in ?ends ?'om Sterling and Melrose in order to secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-2, and my review of reports of interviews with Sterling Employee-1 and two Melrose employees, it is my understanding that that Sterling and Melrose would view Cohen?s understating of his assets as material to its decision whether to renegotiate Cohen?s medallion loans and on what terms, or to its decision whether approve of the transfer of these loans to - 19 Based on my review of the account schedules described above, I know that, as of the date of this af?davit, the account balances for TD Bank have not yet been included in the schedule for either date and the account balances for Sterling National Bank and Bethpage Credit Union have not yet been included in the schedule for February 1, 2018. Thus, to the extent that these accounts have positive balances, Cohen?s total balances in fact were even higher on these dates. 33 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 42 of 201 Cohen Has Unrenorted Interest Income 24. It appears that Cohen also bid from Sterling interest income that he was receiving in connection with a six million dollar loan he made to another individual. Speci?cally, I know from my review of the May 2017 Financial Statement and September 2017 Financial Statement that Cohen provided to Sterling that Cohen did not disclose that he had made a note receivable in the amount of approximately $6 million, or that he Was earning approximately $60,000 per month in loan. that were reviewed by another law enforcement agent, my review of property records and documents obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, and my participation in an interview with- I have learned the following: a. Based on my review of property records, I have learned that on or about March 12, 2012, Cohen agreed to lend _?tppr0ximately $2,000,000.20 It appears that the promissory note was unsecured by any real property. On or about April 28, 2014, Cohen and- amended the promissory note, and restructured the loan to increase the principal amount to approximately $5,000,000. Under ?ie terms of the amended promissory note, the loan was secured by_ apartment in Florida. 011 or about April 8, 2015, Cohen and -restated the promissory note to increase the principal amount to $6,000,000.11 b. Based on my review of a copy of the restated note, which Was obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that under the terms of the amended and restated learned from Game] that 31 The note that the loan is to husband 311d wife, jointly and severally. For ease of reference, I refer simply to? ?-1erein. 34 2017.00.02 ??er . .- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 43 of 201 promissory note, Cohen?s loan to _s an interest-only loan, and that the principal balance of the loan bears interest at an annual rate of 12.25 percent. I also know that the amended and restated promissory note includes a schedule of payments that require -to pay Cohen approximately $61,250 per month beginning in April 2015 and ending in April 2019. The note also requires tltaJ-epay the principal balance of $6,000,000 on April 28, 2019. c. Based on my review of bank records, I have learned that, consistent with the terms of the? amended?and?restated promissory - approximately $61,250 since April 2015. Speci?cally, based on my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, I have learned that from April 2015 to October 2015, Cohen received checks ?-om an entity called totaling $6 '1 ,25 0 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Bank.22 It appears from my review of bank records and public sources that :-is the owner of From my review of records maintained by Capital One Bar?t, I have also learned that since October 2015, Cohen has received checks horn an entity called 1? totaling $61,250 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Banlc. It appears from my review of bank records and public sources that -.s also the owner of 1- ?In total, it appears that Cohen receives approximately $735,000 per year in interest payments ?om - :31. Based on my review of Cohen ?s May 2017 and September 2017 Financial Statements, my review of his 2015 and 2016 tax returns obtained via subpoena and from the Cohen Email Warrants, and my participation in an interview with - I have learned that Cohen did 22 In April 2015, Cohen received a pro?rated payment. For all months thereafter, the total payment equaled $61,250, but _)tten made the payment in multiple checks. 35 2012.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 44 of 201 not disclose this interest income he was receiving from -to Sterling or Melrose, or list it on his tax returns. I have also learned that while this interest income is taxable, Cohen did not tell -?his accountant?about the income, and -only learned about the income because he began doing _taxes in 2013".23 25. - Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen?s representations to Sterling and Mehose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 Were false, and that Cohen Manon relating to the interest incarnation is receiving from order to secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Cohen Had a Side Agreement was 26. As set forth in detail below, during the course of Cohen?s negotiations to sell his interest in taxi medallions and the associated debt to Cohen not only misrepresented his ?nancial position to Sterling, but also failed to disclose a side agreement he had negotiated with_; it appears that '_.greed to pa}r an above?market price for Cohen?s taxi cab medallions, and in exchange, Cohen agreed to pay _Lpprosjmately $3 .8 million in cash. Speci?cally, from my review of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena by Sterling, and my participation in interviews with Sterling Employee?1, Sterling Employee-2, and Sterling Employee?3, I have learned, among other things, the following: a. On or about September 5, 2017, an executed term sheet was circulated by Sterling Employee-1 to Cohen and - The term sheet listed Cohen?s address as the address for Subject Premises?1. According to the term sheet, ?would borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Meliose, to be secured by the medallions that _was to acquire from 23 Accordingly, this interest income-#which should have been reported as such on Cohen?s tax returns?is included herein in calculations of Cohen?s true cash position. 36 witness Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 45 of 201 Cohen. At a price of $20 million for thirty-tyre taxi medallions, the proposed transaction valued each medallion as worth $625,000. The term sheet also contemplated a $1,265,913 pay-down of the principal balance of the loan. The term sheet made no mention of a $3.8 million payment from Cohen to or any other form of payment or ?nancial transaction between the parties. 13. Additionally, an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, describing the terms of the Cohan-transaction and the new loan to '?did not mentidn any payments .The__ memorandum also noted that the ?loan amount of indicates a purchase price per medallion? but ?it is recognized that this is not in line with current market values.? Indeed, according to an internal Sterling memorandum dated February 5, 2018, in the month of January 201 8, taxi medallions sold for amounts ranging from $120,000 to $372,000. According to Sterling Employee-1 and Sterling Employee?2, they were never told that -a.greed to a purchase price of $625,000 in exchange for a lump sum payment from Cohen, or that Cohen would make any payment to - c. On or about January 30, 2018, Sterling Employee?3 asked Cohen whether Cohen had a side agreement with pay -a sum of money for entering into the medallion transaction. Sterling Employee-3 asked Cohen about such an arrangement because, according to Sterling Employee-3, the price that - was paying for each medallion appeared to be well above the market price. Cohen stated, in sum and substance, that he had no side agreementrand never had a side agreement??with - 27. While Cohen and_ did not disclose any payment from Cohen to _in communications with Sterling, it appears that such a payment was contemplated. Indeed, based on my review of records maintained by -and my participation in an interview 37 menace Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 46 of 201 with -I have learned the following, in substance and in part, regarding the proposed side payment from Cohen to? a. On or about September 19, 2017?,- prepared a memorandum for Cohen entitled, ?Sale of NYC Medallion Entities and Debt Assumption? (the The -Mernorandum summarized the proposed transaction between Cohen and in part, as follows: ?Michael and Laura Cohen will transfer ownership of their 13 NYC medallion snati?? is a Buyer We Mimi-Hanan hank indebt?dnessmpon- the [enhanmpaying downthe. debt portfolio of the 13 entities by $500,000 and a cash payment to the Buyer of b. According to -Cohen told him the parameters of the deal, including the payment of $3,800,000 to - but-lid not know where Cohen was going to obtain - As noted above, Cohen had more than $5,000,000 in cash and $3,800,000 to pay cash equivalents as of September 2017., but had only disclosed in his September 2017 Financial Statement that he had $1.25 million in cash. 28. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling (as well as Melrose, the bank with the participating interest in the loans) and reports of interviews of representatives of Starling other ?nancial institution (and Maltese), I have seen no evidence that Sterling. Melrose, or any involved in the potential deal with Cohen and -was aware of the planned $3.8 million side payment from Cohen to- The Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme 2? The reference to thirteen medallions appears to be an error by - Cohen and his wife together owned sixteen corporations, which in turn owned 32 taxi medallions. 38 amateur 1 an: ?em- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 47 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 48 of 201 I a 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 49 of 201 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 50 of 201 21]] 7.03.912 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 51 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 52 of 201 2017.03.62 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 53 of 201 201?.0l02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 54 of 201 2011.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 55 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 56 of 201 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 57 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 58 of 201 201733.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 59 of 201 2017.08.92 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 60 of 201 201108.132 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 61 of 201 201103.132 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 62 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 63 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 64 of 201 291103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 65 of 201 C. Probable Cause Justifying Search of the Subject Premises and Subject Devices 45. Based on the foregoing, my review of records produced pursuant to subpoenas and the Cohen Email Warrants, and the iCloud Warrant, and my training and experience, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices have been used in furtherance of the Subject Offenses and are likely to contain instrumentalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen permanently resides at Subject Premises-1 and, at least in part, works at both Subject Premises-4 and Subject Premises-2, and that those locations contain evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and his Additionally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?i contains evidence of Cohen?s assets and? Finally, 13131?? is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?4, in which Cohen is temporarily residing, contains electronic 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 66 of 201 devices, including Subject Device-1 and Subject Device?2, which, in turn, contain evidence of the Subject O??enses, such as evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and 46. First, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen lives and operates his businesses, at least in pelt, at Subject Premises-l. Speci?cally, from my review of property records, [know that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own (in trust) Subject Premises-d. From my review of Cohen?s tax?returns, I know he lists?lii?r?hnarjr residence . from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I lmow that Cohen routiner refers to Subject Premises-1 as his home. For example, on or about September 28, 2017 and October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed individuals that his home address is the address for Subject Premises?l . I also know from my review of emails that Cohen receives package delivery noti?cations that list Cohen?s address as the address for Subject Premises-1- Cohen has also provided the address of Subject Premises?l as the address for Essential Consultants and Michael D. Cohen Associates, P.C- For example, the certi?cates of incorporation and account opening docmnents at First Republic for both entities list their addresses as the address for Subject Premises-l. See supra '?il 18(b), 18(d). The consulting agreement between Essential Consultants and also indicated the address for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises? 1. See supra 1i 19(c). 47. There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 is likely to contain evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, from my review of emails produced pursuant to subpoena and the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, as well as my training and experience, I know the following: 53 2017.03.02 Ml" Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 67 of 201 a. According to records maintained by Sterling, the address for all of Cohen?staxi medallion .hLCs is the address for Subject Premises-1. See supra 1i 160:). Additionally, the medallion loan documents indicate that any mailings related to the loans should be sent to Subject Premises-l. See id. Based on my training and experience, as well as my review of public sources, I know that individuals keep records of properties and assets in which they have ownership interests. Accordingly, I submit that Subject Premises-1 likely contains evidence of Cohen?s ownership'of the tan medallioTISLCs,? the?revenue and-the? transaction with Sterling in 2014 to re-?nance the medallion loans that were then with Capital One Bank. b. From my review of records maintained by Sterling, I also know that Sterling addressed documents relating to the -transaction and Cohen?s attempts to modify the terms of the medallion loans to Subject Premises-1. For instance, Sterling addressed the transaction term sheet, see Supra 1] 16(1), and its demand letter and notice of default, see supra 1 16(q), to Subject Premises-1. Accordingly, Subject Premises?l likely contains evidence concerning the -transaction and Cohen?s negotiations with Sterling. Some of those as records relating to a payment from Cohen to --?were concealed from Sterling and cannot be obtained via subpoena to Sterling. Additionally, even where documents were sent to Cohen by Sterling (and therefore are available from Sterling via subpoena), the fact that they may be found in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to Cohen?s possession or knowledge of the documents. c. From my review of records maintained by First Republic, I lmow that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises-l as the mailing addresses for the Essential Consultants Account and MDCELA Account. See supra 111 18(b), 18(c). Accordingly, it is likely that Subject 59 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 68 of 201 Premises-1 contains records relating to the Essential Consultants Account and Account, including, among other things, account opening documents, bank statements, documents provided as part of the lmow-your?customer process, any notes made by Cohen when he was opening the accounts, wire transfer records, and canceled cheeks. Even where these records can be obtained from First Republic, the fact that they may be found in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to, among other things, Cohen?s ownership of the accounts, or his knowledge of transactions or the existence of ?nds in accounts. d. Based on my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, TD Bank, Morgan Stanley, City National Bank, Signature Bank, and Bethpage Credit Union, I know that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises-1 as the mailing for his accounts at each of these ?nancial institutions. Accordingly, it is likely that Subject Premises-l contains records relating to these accounts, including, among other things, bank statements that list account balances. The existence of these records in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to, among other things, Cohen?s ownership of the accounts and his knowledge of the balances in these accounts. e. Additionally, Cohen may have records of other bank accounts or assets that were not disclosed to Sterling and are not presently known by law enforcement. For example, as described above, Cohen has received interest income since 2015 that he has not disclosed to Sterling or paid taxes on. Also, on Cohen?s August 2014 Financial Statement, see supra ?i 16(e), he disclosed $10,000,000 in ?investments in overseas entities.?30 The value of these hivesn'nents was omitted from subsequent ?nancial statements. However, for the reasons outlined above, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen omitted the value of these investments from his 2017 3? Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?3, I have learned that Cohen told Sterling Employee?3 that the reference to ?investments in overseas entities? on his 2014 Financial Statement was to serve merely as a ?placeholder? for potential future investments. 60 2011mm Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 69 of 201 ?nancial statements in order to understate his assets. As Subject Premises-1 is Cohen?s primary residence and he uses Subject Premises-l as the mailing address for bank records, there is probable cause to believe that account statements for unloiown bank accounts or assets concealed ?'om Sterling are likely to be found in Subject Premises?1 . f. Based on my review of records maintained by and produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, Ilmow that the address Cohen provided to for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject momma-ITEM is-probable- cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 will contain evidence concerning the operation of Essential Consultants or money that Cohen received, through Essential Consultants, from Additionally, because Cohen used the address for Subject Premises-1 for at least one consulting arrangement involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to belieue that Subject Premises-1 ma}r contain records of other consulting arrangements that Cohen, through Essential Consultants, has with other individuals or entities. g. Based on my review of records maintained lay-recounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that I-tccountin ?rm sent documents to Subject Premises-1 and used the address for Subject Premises?1 as the address listed on Cohen?s personal and corporate tax returns. See supra 1[ 1601). For instance, on or about October 6, 2017, an employee tit-accounting ?rm emailed Cohen that she had sent Cohen?s September 2017 Financial Statement by FedEx to Cohen?s attention. Accordingly, Cohen?s tax records are likely to he found in Subject Premises-1. h. Based on my review ofhauk records and publicly-available documents, I know that 61 201103.112 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 70 of 201 1. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, 1 know that Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a *MacBook Pro to access his iCloud account. BasE?d' - Apple pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, I know that electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises?1 to, among other things, place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premisesd contains electronic devices, including certain Apple products, that for reasons discussed below are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. j. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email lWarrants, I understand that Subject Premises~1 recently sustained Water damage to certain parts of the premises, and that Cohen has engaged contractors to perform certain remediation work on the premises. In addition, as set forth above, I believe that Cohen and his famin are temporarily residing at Subject Premises?4 in the Loew?s Regency Hotel, which is approximately two blocks from Subject Premises-1. However, based on my review of a work order sent to Cohen?s email by a contractor, I understand diet the ?rst phase of the work order called for the contractor to ?Pack Sc Remove all items 3: ?nnishings in Living Room, Kitchen, Sons Room Dining Room? and store them o?lsite. In addition, based on my review of drawings sent to Cohen by the contractor, it appears that the work. is primarily being done in these rooms. Thus, I believe that the construction ?-to the extent it is still ongoing Would not necessarily have caused Cohen to move 62 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 71 of 201 all documents or evidence responsive to the warrant out ofSubj ect Premises-l because it does not appear that work is being done to the portion of Subject Premises-1, such as a home of?ce or Cohen?s own room, where such documents or evidence would most likely be found.31 48. Second, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen uses Subject Premises-2 as of?ce space, and also that Subject Premises?3?. contains certain electronic devices. Speci?cally, ?'om my review of the ?strategic alliance agreement? between Squire Patton Boggs and Cohen, and?j?eview of'th??' press?relessa on Squi?Patto?n?Bog?gs?s of?ce at Subject Premises-2. See supra 18(d), 19(e). Indeed, I have learned that pursuant to Cohen?s agreement with the law ?rm, he has ?dedicated and segregated office space" in Squire Patton Boggs?s of?ces on the 23rd ?oor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, and that the space is ?physically separate? from the ?rm?s of?ces and has ?locked doors and its own locked ?le cabinets.? See supra'? 19(e). Additionally, I know that under the terms of the agreement, Cohen agreed to ?arrange for [his] own computer server system that is not connected to [Squire Patton Boggs?s] computer network system.? I lmow from my participation in an interview with -who met Cohen at Subject Premises-2 in 2017, that Subject Premises-2 is an of?ce with a door, it appears to be used only by Cohen, and it contains, among other things, a computer and paper ?les. According to -when .saw Cohen at Subject Premises-2, he had two cellular telephones in Subject Premises??2. I also know from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants that Cohen uses the address for Subject Premises?2 in the signature block 3? As noted below, based on my training and experience, I believe that individuals who travel or stay in hotels for short-term periods commonly bring some items with them, such as portable electronic devices or sensitive items, meaning that Cohen has likely taken some evidence ?-om Subject Premises-1 to Subject Premises-4. Nevertheless, given the temporary nature of Cohen?s stay at Subject Premises-4 and the scope of the work being done at Subject Premises?1, I believe it is unlikely that Cohen has taken all evidence that would be subject to seizure out of Subject Premises-l. 63 201103.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 72 of 201 on his emails. Based on my review of notes of a call between Cohen and First Republic Employee? 2 (which notes were taken by another First Republic employee, who was participating in the call and taking notes), I know that, on or about November 15, 2017, Cohen told First Republic Employee-2 that he had a new of?ce at 30 Rock. Moreover, I know from an article in Vanity Fair published on or about February I4, 2013, that Cohen was interviewed by the magazine in Subject Premises-2 in or about February 2018. 49:" Tl?'?i?l?mbabl?ause to? believe that SubjectPremisessfi is?likelyto-contain instrumentalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, from my review of emails produced pursuant to subpoena and the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, as well as my training and experience, I know the following: a. According to records maintained by Sterling, when Cohen was emailing with Sterling Employee-3 in 2013 about a modi?cation to his existing loan ?om Sterling, Cohen listed his address in his email as the address for Subject Premises?2. See supra 'll 16(t), 1601). Accordingly, Subject Premises-2 likely contains evidence concerning Cohen?s loan modi?cation negotiations with Sterling. b. Based on my review of records obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that the address Cohen provided to KAI and ETA for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises-2. See more 111i 19(a), 1903). Therefore, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 will contain evidence concerning the operation of Essential Consultants or money that Cohen received, through Essential Consultants, from KAI and BTA, among other entities with which Cohen had a consulting arrangement. Additionally, based on my review of emails sent in 2018 that were obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that Cohen continues to enter into consulting atrangements through Essential Consultants, and agreements 64 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 73 of 201 41. relating to these arrangements indicate that Essential Consultants is located at Subject Premises? 2. Additionally, because Cohen used the address for Subject Premises?2 for multiple consulting arrangements involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premisesrz may contain records of other unknown consulting arrangements that Cohen has with other individuals or entities. c. Based on my review of records maintained by -tccounting ?rm, and emails i produced?purmohen Email?Warrants, as we'll'a?s?mv - - -l have learned that -visited Subject Premises-2 to meet with Cohen about his taxes. See supra jl 20(a). At that meeting, -:liscussed with Cohen whether Cohen should disclose Essential Consultants on his personal ?nancial statement to banks. According, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 will contain evidence relating to Cohen?s taxes, or notes of his conversation with - Moreover, the fact that Cohen used Subject Premises?2 for a meeting regarding his personal ?nancial matters provides probable cause to believe that documents and infomiation regarding his ?nances will be found in Subject Premises-2. d. Based on my participation in an interview with .1 know that Cohen maintains a computer in Subject Premises-2. From my review of IP data produced pursuant to a subpoena and pen register to Google, it appears that Cohen is logging into his Gmail account from Subject Premises-2. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 contains electronic devices, that for reasons discussed below are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. e. Based upon my training and experience, I have learned that individuals who maintain businesses typically keep records relating to the business?such as contracts with clients and records ofpaymenta?at the business? identi?ed location. 1 am not aware of any addresses 65 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 74 of 201 associated with Essential Consultants other than Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premise-.34.. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 will contain business records for Essential Consultants. SD. Third, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 is liltely to contain insmmientalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. In particular: a. As noted aboVe, Cohen has two bank accounts at TD Bank. In or about November 017, as Cohen Was recenung substantial ?cemeno?meensutuW-tr??whieh hedid'rtot?discl'ose?b to Sterling?Cohen opened the safety deposit box at TD Bank, which is Subject Premises-3. In light of the aforementioned evidence that Cohen conceals assets, including assets at TD Bank, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 contains ?nancial assets, objects ofvalue andfor documents relating to such assets or objects of value that Cohen likely did not disclose to Sterling. Indeed, based on my training and experience, I am aware that people often conceal valuable items in safety deposit boxes. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 will contain evidence of the Bank Fraud Offenses. 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 75 of 201 51. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuanttc the Cohen Email Warrants and cell phone location information, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Hemises? 4. See supra 111] There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-4 contains instrumentalities and evidence of the Subject Offenses, including, the following: 33 As noted above, Subject Premises-3 is approximately ?ve inches by ten inches. Accordingly, I do not believe that it would ?t a large volume of hard copy documents; however, a small number of hard-copy documents, or a large volume of documents contained on a ?ash drive or other portable storage device, would ?t in Subject Premises-3. 67 2017.03.02 1 -.- n??Ti Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 76 of 201 b. As described above, at the time Cohen moved to Subject Premises?4, he was also in the midst ofongoing negotiations with Sterling regarding the re?nancing of his medallion debts. For example, on January 30, 2013, Cohen had a phone call with Sterling Employee-3 about his ?nances and the proposed restructuring, and on February 1, 2018, Cohen sent an email to Sterling Employee?3 claiming that he did not have more than $1.25 million in cash. See Sierra 16(u). Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating Has a in cream rah?Brennan- consult them in connection with these negotiations. c. As described above, Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a MacBoolc Pro to access his iCloud account, and these electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises-l Cohens? permanent residence to place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. See supra 111] 47(i). Although Cohen?s stay at Subject Premises?:4 is temporary, based on my training and experience I know that individuals who travel or stay in hotels for short-term periods commonly bring portable electronic devices with them, such as cellular phones, tablets, or laptops. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises~4, where Cohen currently appears to be residing, contains electronic devices, including Subject Device-1, Subject Device-2, andfor certain Apple products, that for the reasons discussed herein are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. d. Moreover, as set forth above, based on cellphone location information I know that Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2 Were in the vicinity of Subject Premises-4 as recently as this morning (April 8, 2013). As set forth above there is probable cause to believe that Cohen used the Subject Devices in furtherance of the Subject Offenses, including to communicate with Sterling employees regarding the medallion transaction, with First Republic employees regarding 63 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 77 of 201 the Essential Consultants Account, with his accountant regarding his ?nances, and with 52. Although Cohen appears to be residing currently in Subject Premises?4, it is unknown whether Cohen will be physically present within. Subject Premises~4 at the moment the warrant sought herein are executed. If Cohen is within Subject Premises-4 at that moment, Subject Device?l and Subject Device-2 his cellphones A will likely also be within Subject Premises-4. IfCohen is not within Subject Premisesfat on his perso wherever he is located (which, based on location data for Subject Device-l and Subject Device-2 as recently as today, is likely to be in the Southern District of New York). As such, this warrant seeks separate authority to seize Subject Device] and Subject Device?2, in the event that those devices are not located within Subject Premises-4 (or another Subject Premises) at the moment the warrants sought herein are executed. D. Probable Cause Justifying Search of E81 53. Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-l, Subject Premises-2 and Subject Premises?4 contain electronic devices that are likely to contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses (and, as set forth above, that Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2 are themselves electronic devices that are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses). Speci?cally, based on my review of information produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, the iCloud Warrant, and subpoenas, as well as pen register data, 1 submit that there is probable cause that Subject Premises?l contains an Apple iPad Mini, 21 MacBook Pro, and has, at various times, contained Apple cellphones; similarly, there is probable cause that Subject Premisesa contains a computer and has, at various times, contained Apple 69 2017.03.92 T?jrv??I?qml- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 78 of 201 cellphones. These devices are likely to include evidence, fruits, and of the Subject Offenses for the following reasons: a. As described throughout this af?davit, Cohen used email to send and receive communications related to the Subject Offenses. In particular, Cohen used email to send and receive conununications with Sterling, First Republic- the entities to which he is providing consulting services?among others. While some of these emails have obtainEd_v1a subpoenas and?scarch?waifa?t?s, I knew frurn' tbat individuals can and do delete emails from their Internet-based inboxes but retain copies of these emails on their hard drives. I also know that individuals often have multiple email accounts, some of which mayr not be lmown to law enforcement, and as a result electronic devices can be a unique repository of all emails relevant to certain Subject Offenses. Indeed, from my involvement in this investigation, I know that Cohen had an email account with the Trump Organization, but the USAO and FBI have not been able to obtain the contents of that account to date. Thus, emails relevant to the Subject Offenses are likely stored on electronic devices in Subject Premises-1, Subject Premises~2 and/or Subject Premises?4. 1). Additionally, Subject Premises-l, Subject Premise?2 and Subject Premises?4 liker contain electronic copies of documents relevant to the Subject Offenses. Indeed, I know from my training and experience that individuals often retain copies of important documents on their computers or other electronic devices capable of storing information, including cellphones (such as the Subject Devices) and tablets. Here, there are a number of documents that Cohen has likely retained that will be relevant to the Subject Offenses. For example, electronic devices may include documentation of Cohen?s true net worth, a listing of his assets, an accounting of his available 70 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 79 of 201 cash, consulting agreements with third parties, and among other evidence of the Subject Offenses. c. Third, I know from my review of emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants that Cohen sent up online banking with First Republic. Based on my training and experience, 1 know that individuals who set up online banking often receive electronic notices concerning ?nancial transactions and, on occasion, save records of their ?nancial transactions to their devices. Accordingly, there is ?tters cause to Relieve that?Cohen?s elect??c?devices contain evidence of banking activity, including the existence of bank accounts or assets that Cohen did not disclose to Sterling or Melrose. (1. Fourth, from my review of records produced by Apple, I know that Cohen communicates using text message as well as communications applications. These applications that Cohen has downloaded onto a phone include, but are not limited to, WhatsApp, Signal, and Dust. I know from my review of toll records and text messages that, in particular, Cohen communicated with -lsing these applications. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s cellphones 4 the Subject Devices will contain messages that are not otherwise accessible relating to the Subject Offenses. 54. Based on my training and experience, I know that individuals who engage in ?nancial crimes commonly use computers to communicate with rec-conspirators, keep financial ledgers, and retain fraudulent documents. As a result, they often store data on their computers related to their illegal activity, which can include logs of online or cellphone-based ?cha with co?conspirators; email correspondence; contact information of co-conspirators, including telephone numbers, email addresses, and identi?ers for instant messaging and social medial accounts; bank account numbers; and/?or records of uses of funds. 71 201103.02 Ql?F'll Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 80 of 201 55. Based on my training andexperience, I also know that, where computers are used in furtherance of criminal activity, evidence of the criminal activity can often be found months or even years after it occurred. This is typically true because: 0 Electronic ?les can be stored on a hard drive for years at little or no cost and users thus have little incentive to delete data that may be useful to consult in the future. 0 Even when a user does choose to delete data, the data can often be recovered months or years later with the appropriate forensic tools. When a ?le is ?deleted? on a home computer, the data contained in the ?le does not actually disappear, but instead remains stored elsewhere on the computer. Similarly, ?les that have been viewed on the Internet are generally downloaded into a temporary Internet directory or ?cache,? which is only overwritten as the ?cache? ?lls up and is replaced with more recently viewed Internet pages. Thus, the ability to retrieve from a hard drive or other electronic storage media depends less on when the ?le was created or viewed than on a particular user?s operating system, storage capacity, and computer habits. - In the event that a user changes computers, the user will typically transfer ?les from the old computer to the new computer, so as not to lose data. In addition, users often keep backups of their data on electronic storage media such as thumb drives, ?ash memory cards, CD-ROMs, or portable hard drives. 56. Based on the foregoing, I respect?illy submit there is probable cause to believe that Cohen engaged in the Suhj ect Offenses, and that evidence of this criminal activity is likely to be found in the Subject Premises, on computers and electronic media found in the Subject Premises, and on the Subject Devices. In particular, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of the Subject Offenses, as more described in Section II of Attachments A, B, C, D, and to the proposed warrants, including the following: a. Evidence necessary to establish the occupancy or ownership of the Subject Premises, including without limitation, utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes, addressed correspondence, bank statements, identi?cation documents, and keys. b. Evidence relating to Sterling, Melrose, andfor taxi medallions. 72 201108.02 on the hard drive, in ?slack?space,? until it is overwitten by new data summer as? -II- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 81 of 201 c. Evidence relating to. a plan, proposal, or agreement for Cohen audfor entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to _ndfor entities associated with him. d. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling andfor Melrose. e. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and?sti?e Ef??ments made semen?canteens or file nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. f. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen tit Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. g. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records. 11. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen. and_ and any payments try-:0 Cohen. 73 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 82 of 201 p. Communications with others, including-andtor other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances; q. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial instiuition related to the intended pmpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial instimtion; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution; Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Suhiect b??enses under investigation. Procedures for Searching ESI A. Execution of Warrant for E81 57. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure provides that a warrant to search for and seize property ?may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or 74 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 83 of 201 copying of electronically stored information . . . for later review.? Consistent with Rule 41, this application requests authorization to seize any computer devices and storage media and transport them to an appropriate law enforcement facility for review. This is typically necessary for a number of reasons: 0 First, the volume of data on computer devices and storage media is often impractical for law enforcement personnel to review in its entirety at the search location. i Second, because computer data is particularly vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modi?cation inf?destruction, computer de_vrces are ideally examined?i?conutolled environment, such as a law enforcement laboratory, where trained personnel, using specialized software, can make a forensic copy of the storage media that can be subsequently reviewed in a manner that does not change the underlying data. I Third, there are so many types of computer hardware and software in use today that it can be impossible to bring to the search site all of the necessary technical manuals and specialized personnel and equipment potentially required to safely access the underlying computer data. a? Fourth, many factors can complicate and prolong recovery of data from a computer device, including the increasingly common use of passwords, or other features or con?gurations designed to protect or conceal data on the computer, which often talte considerabletime and resources for forensic personnel to detect and resolve. 58. As discussed herein, Squire Patton Boggs is a functioning law ?rm that conducts legitimate business unrelated to Cohen?s commission of the Subject Offenses. Subject Premises- 2 is an of?ce located inside of Squire Patton Boggs?s New York of?ce. In order to execute the warrant in the most reasonable fashion, law enforcement personnel will attempt to investigate on the scene of what computers or storage media, if any, must be seized or copied, and what computers or storage media need not be seized or copied. Law enforcement personnel will speak with Squire Patton Boggs personnel on the scene as may be appropriate to determine which ?les and electronic devices within Subject Premises-2 belong to or were used by Cohen. While, based on the foregoing, it does not appear that Cohen shared electronic devices or a server with Squire Patton Boggs, where appropriate, law enforcement personnel will copy data, rather than physically seize i5 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 84 of 201 computers, to reduce the extent of any disruption of Squire Patton Boggs?s operations. If, after inspecting the seized computers elf?site, it is determined that some or all of this equipment is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the evidence, the Government will return it. 59. Additionally, because Cohen is an attorney, and claims to serve as a personal attorney for Trump, the review of evidence seized from the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will be conducted pursuant to established screening procedures to ensure that the law enforcement in a manner reasonany designed to protect an}r attorney?client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures will include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to review potentially privileged communications and determine which communications to release to the investigation and prosecution team. B. Accessing ESI on the Subject Devices 60. As described above, the Subject Devices are both Apple brand devices. 61. I know from my training and experience, as well as from information found in publicly available materials including those published by Apple, that some models of Apple devices such as iPhones and iPads o?'er their users the ability to unlock the device via the use of a ?ngerprint or thumbprint (collectively, ??nger-print?) in lieu of a numeric or alphanumeric passcode or password. This feature is called Touch ID. I also know that the Apple iPhone offers its users the ability to unlock the device via the use of facial recognition (through infrared and visible light scans) in lieu of a mnneric or alphanumeric passcode or password. This feature is called Face ID. 62. If a user enables Touch ID on a given Apple device, he or she can register up to 5 ?ngerprints that can be used to unlock that device. The user can then use any of the registered 76 . 201T.D3.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 85 of 201 ?ngerprints to unlock the device by pressing the relevant ?nger(s) to the device?s Touch ID sensor, which is found in the round button (often referred to as the ?home? button) found at the bottom center of the front of the device. If a user enables Face ID on a given Apple device, he or she can unlock the device by raising the iPhone to his or her face, or tapping the screen. In my training and experience, users of Apple devices that offer Touch ID or Face ID often enable it because it is considered to be a more convenient way to unlock the device than by entering a numeric or or assm?a?'a more secnr?e?waymteat?dmsEntents. 63. In some circum stances, Touch ID or Face ID cannot be used to unlock a device that has either security feature enabled, and a passcode or password must be used instead. These circumstances include: (1) when the device has just been turned on or restarted; (2) when more than 48 hours has passed since the last time the device was unlocked; (3) when the passcode or password has not been entered in the last 6 days, and the device has not been unlocked via Touch ID in the last 3 hours or the device has not been unlocked via Face ID in the last 4 hours; (4) the device has received a remote lock command; or ?ve unsuccess?ll attempts to unlock the device via Touch ID or Face ID are made. 64. The passcodes or passwords that would unlock the Subject Devices are not known to law enforcement. Thus, it will likely be necessary to press the ?ngers of the user of the Subject Devices to the devices? Touch ID sensor, or hold the Subject Devices in front of the user's face to activate the Face ID sensor, in an attempt to unlock the devices for the purpose of executing the search authorized by this warrant. Attempting to unlock the releVant Apple devices via Touch ID with the use of the ?ngerprints of the user, or via Face ID by holding the device in front of the user?s face, is necessary because the government may not otherwise be able to access the data contained on those devices for the purpose of executing the search authorized by this warrant. 77 1017.03.02 ~1r - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 86 of 201 65. Based on these facts and my training and experience, it is likely that Cohen is the user of the Subject Devices, and thus that his ?ngerprints are among those that are able to unlock the Subject Devices via Touch ID or his face is able to unlock the Subject Devices via Face 1D. 66. Although I do not know which of a given user?s 10 ?ngerprints is capable of unlocking a particular device, based on my training and experience 1 know that it is common for a user to unlocks Touch ID-enabled Apple device via the ?ngerprints on thumbs or index ?ngers. ?In the eveh?t?t Isa Dairies above within the ?ve attempts permitted by Touch 1D, this will simply result in the device requiring the entry of a password or passcode before it can be unlocked. 67. I also [crew from my training and experience, and my review of publicly available materials published by Apple that Apple brand devices, such as the Subject Devices, have a feature that allows a user to erase the contents of the device remotely. By logging into the Internet, the user or any other individual who possesses the user?s account information can take steps to completely wipe the contents of the device, thereby destroying evidence of criminal conduct, along with any other information on the device. The only means to prevent this action is to disable the device?s ability to connect to the Internet immediately upon seizure, which requires either access to the device itself to alter the settings, or the use of specialized equipment that is not consistently available to law enforcement agents at every arrest. 63. Due to the foregoing, I. request that the Court authorize law enforcement to press the ?ngers (including thumbs) of Cohen to the Touch sensors the Subject Devices, or hold the Subject Devices in front of Cohen?s face, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the Subject Devices via Touch ID or Face ID in order to search the contents as authorized by this warrant. ?3 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 87 of 201 C. Review of 69. Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media andfor the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement o?icers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, attorneys for the gorermnent, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government 'reviev?he'ESIco?tai?d'the?i? for informatio?esponsive'to' the war-rant? 70. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to determine which ?les or other ESI contain evidence or fruits of the Subject Offenses. Such techniques may include, for example: 0 surveying directories or folders and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); 0 conducting a ?le-by-?le review by ?opening? or reading the ?rst few ?pages" of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents (analogous to performing a cursory examination of each document in a ?le cabinet to determine its relevance); a ?scanning" storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted data or deliberately hidden ?les; and . performing electronic keyword searches through all electronic storage areas to determine the existence and location of data potentially related to the subject matter of the investigation?; and a reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer 1was used. 3? Keyword searches alone are typically inadequate to detect all relevant data. For one thing, keyword searches work only for text data, yet many types of ?les, such as images and videos, do not store data as searchable text. Moreover, even as to text data, there may be information properly subject to seizure but that is not captured by a keyword search because the information does not contain the keywords being searched. ?all. 79 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 88 of 201 71. Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to restrict their search to data falling within the categories of evidence speci?ed in the warrant. Depending on the circtunstances, however, law enforcement personnel may need to conduct a complete review of all the E81 from seized devices or storage media to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. D. Return "it til: the necessmv??- to retrieve and preserve the data, and the devices themselves are not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return these items, upon request. Computer data that is or unreadable will not be returned unless law enforcement personnel have determined that the data is not an histrurnentality of the offense, (ii) a fruit of the criminal activity. contraband, (iv) otherwise unlawfully possessed, or evidence of the Subject Offenses. 30 2017.03.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 89 of 201 A0 93 Rev. 05i10)3earoh and Seizure Warrant UNITED DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District chew York In the Matter of the Search of (Briefly: describe tits property to be searches" or identi?l the person bytranre and address) Cage N0. Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room WEB, New York, New York 10065. and any closed contained therein. See Attachment 0 SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement of?cer An application by a federal law enforcement o?ieeror an attorney for the government requests the search oft?lie following person or property located in the Southern District ofm New York (id-52131951 the person or describe the property: to be searched and give its incaticn): Loewe Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1723, New York, New York 10005, and any closed ecntaineratiterns contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (ident??t the person or describe the property to be seized}: See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. . YOU ARE COEMANDED to execute this warrant on or before Li I?m [3 first to exceed days) Ed in the daytime 5:any time in the day or night as I ?nd reasonable cause has been established. Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. The of?cer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant, must prepare an inventory as required by law and return this warrant and inventory to the Clerk of the Court, Upon its? retum, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seat by the Clerk of the Court, USMJInitiais I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 15, (except for delay of trial), and authorize the of?cer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched SBiZed (aback tire appropriate box) Elfor days (not to exceed Duntil, the facts justifying, the later specific date of Date and time issued: thf}; 6- pi?i??m, Judge is signature City and State: New York, NY l-lon. Henry B. Pitman. LLB. Manistrate Judas - Primed Home andtitie "l .hrh -.-..- - . .. .. .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 90 of 201 AD 93 (Rev. 01m9}3eareh and Seizure Warrant (Page 2) Return Case No; Date and time warrant exeeuted: Copy of warrant and inventory left with: Inventotjr made in the presence of Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized: Certi?cation I declare under penalt},t ofpetjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original warrant to the Court. Date: o?cer ?a signature Pi'r'itterhteme and this . . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 91 of 201 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searchedr-Suhject Premises~4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?4?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all loclced and closed containers found therein: Room 1723 located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New 1 York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and ?lst Street. Subject 1 i Premises?4 is located on the 11th ?oor of the hotel. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses -- - fruits, and of violations of 13 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy, as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial histitution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud), and 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Melrose Credit Union, andfor taxi medallions, from January 1, 2.013 to the presentEvidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen and/or entities associated with him to transfer anv interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to ndfor entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling andfor Melrose. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essential Consultants or the nature I of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. i e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen its Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Mohael D. Cohen 8: Associates. i; f. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, ?including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2.013 to the present. pr. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, andfor ?nancial transactions between Cuba and?mt? ?its ?Wad by 1 3 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 92 of 201 and any payments by -to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. o. with others, including?andfor other accountants, relating to Cohen?s haul: accounts, taxes, debts, andfor ?nances, ?'om January 1, 2013 to the present. p. records, documents, and other ?les reflectingr false representations to a fmancia] institution related to the intended purpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial instinnion; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds flowing into an account; or the purpose or nature of anyT financial transactions involving that financial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. Evidence of Cohen's intent as it relates to the Suhj ect Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized from Subject Premises?4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored information falling within the categories set forth in Section ILA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBooIc Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 14 201103112 I - Case Document 43-?2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 93 of 201 l. belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, portable: hard drives, disk drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized from Subject Premises?4 also include: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any seized or copied computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any) physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer devices or storage media, including any hardware or software manuals or other information concerning the con?guration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 3. Any evidence concerning the identities or locations ofthose persons with access to, C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media andl'or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the E31 contained therein for infonnation responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate in formation responsive to the warrant, including, for example: in surveying various file ?directories? and the individual files they contain (analogous to looking at the outside ofa file cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); - opening or cursorily reading-the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; I scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted files or deliberately hidden files; . performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and 0 reviewing metadata, system infonnation, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 15 caravans control over, or ownership of the seized or .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 94 of 201 Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to search only for files, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identi?ed in Sections ILA and 11B of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the E81 from seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionalle review of the iteins described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonably designed to protect any attorney?client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedtnes shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 16 201103.rn?vnrl-W?mnn- I . -. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 95 of 201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL States of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described Agent Af?davit in Support of as Loevvs Regency Hotel, 540 Park. Avenue, Application for Search and Seizure Room 1628, a Suite that Encompasses Rooms Warrant 1623, 1629, and 1630 New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Containersa?Items Contained Therein Reference No. 201 3R00 12? SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) 33.: being duly . .. - deposes and says: I. Introduction 11'1?. .1 2. On or about April 3, 2013, the Honorable Henry B. Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a search and seizure warrant for the premises known and described as Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1128, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Contained Therein. The warrant and my supporting affidavit {the ?Af?davit?) are appended hereto. The Af?davit is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety as Exhibit A. 2017.03.TF-u?-n- -. - -. as. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 96 of 201 3. On or about April 9, 2013, based upon a conversation with another law enforcement agent who spoke to an employee of Loews Regency Hotel, I learned that Michael Cohen is in fact staying in. Room 1623 (in a suite encompassing rooms 1628, 1629, and 163 0) (collectively, ?Room 1623?), not Room 1728. Accordingly, I respectfully submit the attached amended warrant pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the following Subject Premises: Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1623, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Contained Therein (?Subject Premises?4?). For the reasons detailed in the Affidavit and herein, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that Subj eet Premises-4 contains evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations '3ng U.S.C. 1005 (false bani?""? entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud) (collectively, the ?Bank Fraud Offenses?), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(l)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Campaign Finance Offenses?), and 13 .S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?subject Offenses?). 4. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request the court to issue a warrant to seize the items and information specified in Attachment A to this af?davit and to the Search and Seizure Warrant. 2017.03.02 -.-. - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 97 of 201 5. In light of the con?dential nature of the continuing investigation, I reapeotfully request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith be maintained under seal until the Court orders otherwise. Special Agent FBI Sworn to before me on 9th day of April, 2018 HON. HENRY B. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20110332 . .mlw . . . . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 98 of 201 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises-4?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Room 1628 (a suite encompassing rooms 1623, 1629, and 1630) (collectively, ?Room 1628?), located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and ?lst Street Subject Premises- 4' 15 located on the l6th floor of the hotel II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses ?1he1tems to be seized from Siibject Premises-4 are ?evidence, fruits, and instrumental??ies of violations of 18 U. S. C. 371 (conspiracy, as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false stateme to a financial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud), and 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Melrose Credit Union, andlor taxi medallions, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 1). Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen andfor entities associated with him to transfer armr interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to _1ndfor entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling andr'or Melrose. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essential Consultants or the nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen 35 Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen &.Assoc1ates. f. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities,- including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, ?'om January 1, 2013 to the present. 2. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and ?and1?or entities controlled by 1? 2 21111.11an - .. -1 - -. . - Case Document 43-2? Filed 03/19/19 Page 99 of 201 and any payments by-to Cohen, from January 1, LIU 1L- LU L115 111. UDUILL. o. Communications with others, including ?sndfor other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, andfor ?nances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial institution related to the intended purpose of an account or loan at that fmancial institution; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. q. Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it'relates to the Subject Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored information falling within the categories set forth in Section ILA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBook Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 3 2011mm -- -.--.- -In if ., .. x. .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 100 of 201 belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, portable hard drives, disk drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any seized or copied computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer devices or storage media, including any hardware or software manuals or other information concerning the con?guration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 3. control over, or ovmershipof the seized or copied computer devices_or storage Any evidence concerning theidentities or locations of those persons with access to, (3. Review of Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media andfor the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the contained therein for information responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate information responsive to the warrant, including, for example: 0 201103.02 surveying various file ?directories? and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; . scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted ?les or deliberately hidden ?les; - performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. - - . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 101 of 201 Law enforcement personnel-will make reasonable efforts to search only for ?les, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identified in Sections ILA and 11B of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the ESI from seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonany designed to protect any attorney-client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privilegesCase Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 102 of 201 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 103 of 201 ?ll UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1n the Matter of the Application of the United 5 To BE men UNDER SEAL States of America for a Search and Seizure. 1 Wan ant for the Premises Known and Described: Agent A?idavit in Support of as (1) 502. Park Avenue, ?\lew3 Application for Search and Seizure York, New York 10022, (2) Michael Cohen? s: Warrant O?ce at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New 5 York, New York 10112, (3) Safe Deposit Box Located at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park 3 Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and Trieste Regency H0t61;?540 Park Avenue,- -- - . 1728, New York, New York 10065, and Any Closed Contained Therein, and: 1 the Electronic Devices Known and Described as: an Apple iPhone with Phone Number _3 _and (2) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number Reference No. 201811001127 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) 35.: _Speeial Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Af?ant 2. I make this Af?davit in support of an application pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a warrant to search the premises speci?ed below (the ?Subject 2 2017.03.02 1 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 104 of 201 Premises?) and the electronic devices speci?ed below (the ?Subject Devices?) for, and to seize, the items and information described in Attachments A, B, C, D, and F. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge; my review of documents and other evidence; my conversations with other law enforcement personnel; and my training, experience and advice received concerning the use of electronic devices in criminal activity and the forensic analysis of electronically stored information Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of ?e?stabl?ishing probable cause, it'doesnot include all the facts-that have learned during-the-course: of my investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated. B. The Subject Premises and Subject Devices 3. Subject Premises~1, Subject Premises-2, Subject Premises-3 and Subject Premises? 4 (collectively, the ?Subject Premises?) are particularly described as: a. Subject Premises-1 is Apartment-located inside the building at 502 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The building located at 502 Park Avenue is a 32? floor brick residential building. Subject Premises-1 is located on the-?oor of the building. Based on my review of New York City property records, I have learned that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own Subject Premises-l.l Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises-1 is Cohen?s full?time residence. b. Subject Premises-2 is an office located on the 23rd ?oor of the building at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1 As noted tri?e, I have learned that on or about October 23, 2015, Cohen transferred Subject Premises-1 into a trust. 3 201103.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 105 of 201 is a lid??oor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. Subject Premises-2 is located on the 23rd ?oor of the building inside of the of?ces of the law ?rm Squire Patton Boggs. The of?ce is assigned to Michael Cohen. As described below, Michael Cohen works and conducts meetings at Subject Premises-2. e, Subject l?remises-B is a safety deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 1 0019. Based on my review of records ?maintained hy?TBBanquthave learned that-the safety'deposit box is approximately ?ve inches by- - ten inches in size, and is marked as box - The safety deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. d. Subject Premises~4 is Room 1723 located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and 6 lat Street. Subject Premises?4 is located on the 17th ?oor of the hotel. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuant to search warrants described below, I have learned that on or about January 5, 2018, Cohen received an email from an employee of Loews Regency, which included a price quote for a long-term stay suite based on a three-month stay ?'om January 8 to April 8, On or about January 29, 2013, Cohen sentan email to a Loews Regency employee, stating, in pertinent part: just spoke to my wife and she has scheduled the move for Thursday. Please mark down that we will be taking possession on Thursday, February lst.? Based on my review of cell phone location data, I have learned that, over the past 24 hours, two cellular phones used by Cohen have been located in the vicinity of Subject Prennses-4- In particular, on or about 2 Although the quoted price contemplated a three?month stay from January 3 to April 8, it appears that Cohen did not move in until February 1, and as of today, April 8, cellphone location information demonstrates that Cohen?s cellular phones are in still in the vicinity of Subject Premises?4. 4. 2m 1113.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 106 of 201 April 8, 2018, law enforcement agents using a ?trigger?sh? device identi?ed Room 1728 as the room within the hotel in which the Subject Devices are most likely present.3 e- Therefore, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Premises-4- 4. Subject Device?1 and Subject Device-2 (collectively, the ?Subject Devices? are particularly described as: Subject Deviced- is an Apple iPhone serviced udth?the?telephone-number- Based on my review of records maintained by 1 have learned that Subject Device?1 is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained by I have learned that Subject Device-l is presently located in the Southern District of New York. b. Subject Device?2 is an Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number _Based on my review of records maintained by 1 have learned that Subject Device?2 is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained by I have learned that Subject Device-2 is presently located in the Southern District of New York. c. Based on my training, experience, and research, and from consulting the manufacturer?s and service providers? advertisements and product technical speci?cations available online, I know that the Subject Devices have capabilities that allow them to, among other things: make and receive telephone calls; save and store contact hiformation; send and receive 3 Based on my conversations with these agents, I understand that it is also possible that the Subject Devices are one ?oor below, in Room 1628. However, as noted, I understand that Cohen received a price quote for a long-term stay suite and is residing there with his family. Based on my conversations with FBI agents conducting surveillance, I understand that Room 1723 appears to be a suite, whereas Room 1628 appears to be a standard room. 5 2011mm ?mu Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 107 of 201 emails and text messages; download and run mobile telephone applications, including call and messaging application such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Dust; take, send, and receive pictures and videos; save and store notes and passwords; and store documents. C. The Subject Offenses 5. For the reasons detailed below, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of '??violations of 1014 (false?statementsto a?nancial- institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and i344 (bank fraud) (collectively, the ?Bank Fraud Offenses?), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30lO9(d)(l)(A)(l) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Campaign Finance Offenses?), and 13 U.S.C. 3?71 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?Subject D. Prior Applications 6. The FBI and the United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of New York have been investigating several courses of criminal conduct by Michael Cohen. Cohen is an attorney who currently holds himself out as the personal attorney for President Donald Trump, and who previously served for over a decade as an executive in the Trump Organization, an international conglomerate with real estate and other holdings. 7. In connection with an investigation then being conducted by the Of?ce of the Special Counsel the FBI sought and obtained from the Honorable Beryl A. Howell, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, three search warrants for emails and other content information associated with two email accounts used by Cohen, and one search warrant for stored content associated with an iCloud account used by Cohen. Speci?cally: 201108.02 - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 108 of 201 a. On or about July 18, 201?, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account -@gmail.corn (the ?Cohen Gmail Account?) sent or received between January 1, 2016 and July 18, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Gmail Warrant?). b. On or about August 8, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for content stored in the iCloud account associated with Apple ID _@gtnail.com (the ?Cohen iCloud Accoun and the ?Cohen iCloud Warrant?). c. Bnror about-November -13 r20 the -FBI sought? and? obtained?a?search warrant for emails in the Cohen Gmail Account sent or received betWeen June 1, 2015 and November 13, 2017 (the ?Second Cohen Gmail Warrant?). d. On or about November 13, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account -- (the ?Cohen Account?) sent or received between the opening of the Cohen Account? and November 13, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Warrant?)- 8. The SCD has since refen'ed certain aspects of its investigation into Cohen to the USAO, which is working with the New York Field Of?ce. As part of that referral, on or about February 8, 2018, the 300 provided the USAO with all nonuprivileged emails and other content information obtained pursuant to the First Cohen Grnail Warrant, Second Cohen Gmaii Warrant, and Cohen Warrant. On or about March 7, 2013, the SCO provided the USAO 4 Based on my review of this warrant and the af?davit in support of it, I imow that the warrant did not speci?z a time period, but the af?davit indicated that, pursuant to court order, the service provider had provided non-content information for the Cohen Account that indicated that the account contained emails from the approximate period of March 2017 through the date of the warrant. 201103.02 I - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 109 of 201 with all non-privileged content obtained pursuant to the Cohen iCloud Warrant.S A ?lter team working with the SCO had previously reviewed the content produced pursuant to these warrants for privilege. 9. On or about February 28, 2013, the USAO sought and obtained search warrants for emails in the Cohen Ganail Account and the Cohen Account, among other accounts, sent or received between November 14, 2017 and February 28, 2018 (the ?Third Cohen Gmail Warrant? and the ?Smd?Coh'e?n The-content produced-pursuant-?to these-warrantsis? subject to an ongoing review for privilege by an SDNY ?lter team.?Ei The emails search warrants described above are referred to collectively as the ?Cohen Email Warrants.? 11. On or about April 7, 2013, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained a warrant for prospective and historical cellphone location hiforrnation for Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2. On or about April 8, 2018, the USAC) and FBI sought and obtained authority to employ an electronic technique, commonly lmown as a ?trigger?sh,? to determine the location of Subj ect Device-1 and Subject Device-2. I II. Probable Cause A. Overview 12.. The United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of New York and FBI are investigating, among other things, schemes by Target Subject Michael Cohen to de?'aud multiple banks from in or about 2016 up to and including the present, and to make an illegal 5 The SCO had previously provided a subset of this non?privileged content on or about February 2, 2018- I ?5 On or about February 28, 2013 and April T, 2018, the USA-E) and FBI sought and obtained Rule 41 search Warrants authorizing the search of emails and content obtained pursuant to previously I issued warrants for additional subject offenses. 8 . saunas: Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 110 of 201 campaign contribution in October 2016 to then?presidential candidate Donald As noted, Cohen is an attorney who currently holds himself out as the personal attorney for President Donald and who previously served for over a decade as an executive in the Trinitp Organization, an international conglomerate with real estate and other holdings. 13. The investigation has revealed that Cohen has made af?rmative misrepresentations in and omitted material information from ?nancial statements and other disclosures that Cohen "provided?Wmultiple' 'banltrircomec?on with?a?transaetion of? approximately $22 million in debt he owed on taxi medallion loans item the banks. As set forth in detail below, in these ?nancial statements, and in his oral and other written statements to these banks, Cohen appears to have intentionally misrepresented his ability to pay cash by failing to disclose cash he began receiving in 2017 from new consulting work; (ii) signi?cantly understated his total holdings of cash and cash equivalents; failed to disclose tens of thousands of dollars he received in interest income, and (iv) failed to inform the banks from which he was seeking debt relief that he had agreed to make a $3.8 million cash payment to a third party, - _in connection with _icquisition of the taxi medallions securing Cohen?s debt. By making these misrepresentations and material omissions, Cohen avoided making payments on his loans, and attempted to ?audulently induce the banks to relieve him of certain repayment obligations and personal guarantees that Cohen and his wife had signed. 2017.08.02 -- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 111 of 201 15. Based on my review of emails obtained from the Cohen Email Warrants, mformation obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, and documents produced pursuant to subpoenas, as well as my review of public sources, I have learned that Cohen has used the Subject ??Pren1ises tote)- receive-documents related-tome Cohen-ef?his?tani? medallion debt, receive documents andlor conduct meetings related to his consulting work, receive documents andfor conduct meetings relating to his ?nances and assets, some of which, as noted above and as detailed ?n'ther herein, he has concealed from the banks in connection with the. re?nancing of his taxi medallion debt, - and house and operate electronic devices that were utilized in connection with, among other things, the taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s consulting work, and l? Speci?cally, as described below, Subject Premises-l likely contains evidence concerning Cohen?s taxi medallion loans, his negotiations widi banks, his personal ?nances, his consulting work, his tax returns, and?, as well as electronic devices containing such evidence, all of which constitute or contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. Additionally, as described below, Subject PremiseSuZ likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s consulting work, his ?nances, and? as well as electronic devices containing such evidence. Subject Premises?3, as described below, likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s assets and ?nances, including assets that. may not have been disclosed to banks in connection with the re?nancing of Cohen?s taxi medallion debt or documents relating to such assets, and documents or evidence related to Subject Premises?4 likely contains electronic 1 l) 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 112 of 201 devices, including Subject Deviced and Subject Device-2., which themselves contain evidence of the Subject Offenses, including concerning Cohen?s taxi medallion loans, his negotiations with banks, his personal ?nances, his consulting work, his tax renn'ns, and Accordingly, and as set forth in more detail below, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will include evidence of the Subject Offenses. B. Probable Cause Regarding Subjects? Commission of the Subject Offenses? - - Cohen Statements to Sterling National Bank 1 6. As set forth in detail below, in 2014, Cohen, through LLCs controlled by him and his wife, Laura Cohen, entered into a series of loans from Sterling National Bank (?Sterling?) and the Melrose Credit Union (?Metrose?), secured by taxi medallions, for approximately $20 million. Though entered into by LLCs, the loans were also secured by personal guarantees in the names of both Cohen and his wife. Over time, as the taxi industry weakened and the medallions lost value, Cohen sought to renegotiate the terms of those loans andfor relieve himself from their obligations, including the personal guarantees. As part of that effort, Cohen made a series of representations to Sterling and Melrose about his net worth, assets, available cash and income, among other things. Speci?cally, based on my review of records maintained by Sterling and Melrose, and public sources concerning the taxi industry and the value oftani medallions, as well as my participation in interviews with a Sterling executive vice-president (the ?Sterling Employee-l?) and two other 7 1n the following recitation of probable cause, I frequently refer to phone calls or text messages involving Cohen. The text messages described herein as sent or received by Cohen were all sent or received from the telephone numbers associated with Subject Device?1 or Subject Device-2. The vast majority of the phone calls described herein made or received by Cohen were made or received by the telephone numbers associated with Subject Device-r] or Subject Device-2, although in certain limited instances Cohen used a landlhie or other phone. 11 201mm: . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 113 of 201 Sterling employees (?Sterling Employee-2? and ?Sterling Employee?3?), I have learned, among other things, the following: a. Taxi medallions are small metal plaques af?xed to taxis. Without a medallion, it is illegal to operate a taxi in cities with medallion systems, such as New York City. Cohen and his wife own multiple LLCs that collectively own 32 taxi medallions (each LLC oWns two medallions).E Cohen?s purchase of these New York taxi medallions was originally ?nanced by loans from Capital One'banlt, forwhich-the-medallions- serr ed- ascollaterala? Gohen-was-not-a-taai operator, and leased his medallions to a third party. That third party made payments to Cohen, who in turn used some of those proceeds to malte his loan payments to Capital One. b. In early 2014, Cohen became a customer of Sterling when he sought to re?nance a mortgage on a rental property that he owned. In or around April 2014, Cohen raised with Sterling the prospect ofre?nancing his taxi medallion loans, which were then at Capital One. By in or about September 2014, Cohen began negotiating a lending transaction with Sterling that would allow Cohen to pay off his loans at Capital One and borrow more money from the then-increase in value of the medallions. According to Sterling Employee-1, in 2014, prior to the recent upheaval in the taxi indusuy?as a result of the emergence of ride-sharing services, such as ?ber?{aid medallion loans were viewed by banks and investors as safe, short term credits, as the market value of taxi medallions was consistently rising. Consequently, taxi medallion loans??like the loans held by Cohen??were frequently re?nanced at increasing amounts as the value of the medallions rose. According to Sterling Employee-1, borrowers typically cashed out the increase in the loan amount 3 One of these companies, Mad Dog Cab Corp, was jointly owned by Sondra Cohen, who I believe is Cohen?s mother. 12 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 114 of 201 and used the additional funds for other purposes. Cohen appears to have followed this approach in 2014, when he agreed to re?nance his medallion loans for approximately $22 million, which? according to letters from Capital One in Sterling?s ?les?was greater than his previous debt at Capital One Bank ($21 million, of which $14.6 million Was a line of credit to Cohen). This allowed Cohen to cash out the proceeds from the transaction. c. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling, I have learned that on or ??'??ahontDecember S, 20 taxi-medallion-ELES enteredinto-loan-agreements- and promissory notes with Sterling for the principal sum of $1,375,000, with repayment due on December 8, 2016. Each loan was signed by Michael or Laura Cohen, depending on who was the sole shareholder of the LLC. The address listed tor each of the LLCs was the address for Subject Premises-1 . The loans were also each secured by a security agreement, dated the same day, making the medallions collateral for the notes. To give Sterling additional security, Michael and Laura Cohen signed personal guarantees and confessions of judgment, giving Sterling the right to pursue collection against the Cohens? personal assets were their corporations to default under the loan agreements. The personal guaranty agreements stated that the LLCs had of?ces at the address for Subject Premises-1, and contained a notice provision that stated that any notices required by the agreements should be mailed to Subject Premises-l . in total, Sterling agreed to lend approximately $22 million to the Cohens' companies. d. Pursuant to participation agreements, Sterling transferred 45 percent of Cohen?s taxi medallion debt to Melrose.9 9 Melrose, which had a business principally focused on taxi medallion loans, is now in conservatorship by the National Credit Union Administration 3 suitcase - - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 115 of 201 e. In evaluating Cohen?s requested re?nancing of the taxi medallions, Sterling (and Melrose, consistent with its participation in the deal) conducted due diligence. At Sterling?s request, Cohen provided Sterling with a statement of ?nancial condition, dated August 1, 2014 (the ?August 2014 Financial Statement?), which indicated that Cohen had $100,740,000 in total assets, $23,550,000 in total liabilities, and a net worth of From my review of a Sterling credit memorandum, dated September 29, 2014, I know that Sterling viewed the from- the medallions?were? - projected to be positive, the value of the collateral (as estimated by Sterling) exceeded $42 million, and the net worth of Cohen?who was the direct obligor under the guarantee agreements?was over $77 million. An internal Sterling credit and risk rating analysis report, dated October 20, 2014, recommended approval of the loans for substantially the same reasons. f. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling and public sources, I have learned that over time, the collateral backing Cohen?s loans (taxi medallions) lessened in value due to the rise in ride-sharing companies. Additionally, Cohen began falling behind on loan payments to Sterling and Melrose. limow from records maintained by Sterling and an interview with Sterling Employee-2 that, beginning in or around September 2015, Cohen told Sterling, in sum and substance, that the individual leasing Cohen?s medallions had fallen behind in making payments to Cohen, and that as a result, the cash ?ow from his taxi medallions had been reduced, leaving him with a shortfall of approximately $16,000 each month. For instance, I have reviewed an email from Sterling Employee?2, dated September 9, 2015, summarizing a call with Cohen? which according to the email and toll records for Cohen?s cellphone occurred on September 3, 1? Cohen subsequently provided Sterling with a revised statement of ?nancial condition, also dated August 1, 2014, which reported assets of $99,420,000, total liabilities of 5 0,000, and a net worth of$75,370,000. 14 201103-112 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 116 of 201 2015-?during which Cohen told Sterling Employee-2, in sum and substance, about his cash flow problems and a shortfall of approximately $16,000. In that same email, Sterling Employee?2 commented that despite Cohen?s statements, his personal ?nancial information ?indicate[d] a strong ability to make up the difference in payments.? Cohen, however, according to Sterling Employee-2, pushed the bank for a reduction in Cohen?s payments. g. From my review of records maintained by Sterling and my participation in an interview with" Sterling and Sterling?Employee-Zspoke again on September 23, 2015, and that during the call Cohen stated, in sum and substance, that the individual to whom Cohen leases the medallions had again reduced payments to Cohen. I know from my review of. records maintained by Sterling that between in or about September 2015 and November ZOIS, Sterling raised the possibility?both internally and with Cohen?of Cohen posting his real estate holdings, personal residence, or some other collateral as additional security for the banks.11 According to these records, however, Cohen resisted these requests. From my review of loan documents and records maintained by Sterling, I know that in or about November 2015, as a result of Cohen?s representation that he was not earning suf?cient returns on his medallions to cover interest payments, Sterling and Melrose agreed to amend their loans with Cohen by, among other things, reducing the interest rate Cohen paid to Melrose and extending the loan maturity date to December S, 2017. h. I know from interviews with Sterling Employee-] and Sterling Employee-2, as well as emails I have reviewed, that in or about October 2016, Cohen told Sterling Employee?1 that Cohen had a potential buyer of his taxi medallions, named ?who would agree to Based on my review of property records, I know that on or about October 2.8, 2015, around the time period when Sterling raised the possibility of Cohen posting his personal residence? Subject Premises-Fats collateral, Cohen transferred Subject Premises?1 into a trust. 15 saunas; Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 117 of 201 assume Cohen?s debt with Sterling and Melrose. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling, as well as the interviews with Sterling Employee?I and Sterling Employee-2 referenced above, I know that by or before October 2016, Cohen had entered into negotiations to sell his sixteen corporate taxi medallion entities to_, for the balance of the loans, which at the time was $21,376,000. I 131099 from my review of records maintained by Sterling, and my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?2, that as a the transfer?of- the-medall-iondoansr?and because Sterling wasnnfamiliar with- _?-Ster1ing requested that Cohen make a substantial principal payment on the loan, of approximately one million dollars, prior to the transfer. Cohen rejected this request initially. But on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen told Sterling Employee-l, in sum and substance, that he would make a one million dollar principal reduction payment in order to move forward with the medallion transfer deal with - Indeed, in an email sent by Cohen to Sterling Employee-2 on or about February 22, 2017, Cohen con?rmed that he ?agreed to pay down 1 million from the loan amount" i. Pursuant to the participation agreements between Sterling and Melrose, Sterling was required to secure Meirose?s agreement to participate in the transfer of the taxi medallion debt ?'om Cohen to On or about April 17, 2017, Sterling sent a memorandum to Melrose Summarizing the terms of the proposed transaction, and noting the requirement that Mehose agree to the terms. On or about May 2, 2017, Sterling Employee?1 told that Meh'ose had agreed to the deal in principle, and that Sterling would be sending the parties a term sheet shortly. j. In order for the banks to conduct diligence and evaluate the proposed transaction fully, they requested ?nancial information from the parties. On or about June 7, 2017, Sterling 16 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 118 of 201 Employee-l emailed Cohen to request an ?updated personal ?nancial statement,? completed jointly with Cohen?s wife, and Cohen's most recent federal income tax return. On or about June 8, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-1 a Sterling personal ?nancial statement form that had been ?lled out by hand, which referenced a statement of ?nancial condition, dated May 1, 2017 (the ?May 2017 Financial Statement?) that was also attached. The May 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from Cohen?s accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that ?th?e?information in? the not- con?rmed?its?aceuracy or completeness. The May 2017 Financial Statement stated that Cohen had total assets of $41,955,000, total liabilities of $39,130,000, and a net Worth of $2,325,000. The May 2017 Financial Statement indicated that Cohen?s assets were comprised of $1,250,000 in cash, $26,155,000 in closely held companies (such as the taxi medallion entities and his real estate holdings), $3,200,000 in real estate investrnents, and his $11,000,000 personal residence.12 it. Based on my review of reports of law enforcement interviews of Sterling Employee-1, I have learned that Sterling Employee?l revie?Wed the May 2017 Financial Statement with Cohen to, among other things, verify its accuracy, and Sterling Employee-1 asked Cohen about speci?c line items on the ?nancial statement, including the cash amount, value of medallions, and total liabilities. Cohen stated to Sterling Employee-l, in sum and substance, that the May 2017 Financial Statement was accurate. 1. On or about-August 16, 201?, Sterling Employee?l emailed Cohen and r- attaching a non?binding term sheet memorializing the potential transaction between 13 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, I know that the precipitous decline in assets from his 2014 ?nancial statement to his 2017 ?nancial statements can be explained primarily by reported depreciation in the 1value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion intrestments. 17 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 119 of 201 Sterling, Melrose, Cohen, and -. The term sheet included a cover letter addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-1. The parties negotiated the provisions of the term sheet and, on or about September 5, 2017, Sterling Employee-1 sent ._md Cohen a copy of the executed term sheet. According to the term sheet,_wou1d borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Melrose, to be secured by the medallions that -vas to acquire ?'om Cohen. bf?j?; 1'3 ill'Pl'inGiPal'l'WhiBh? is what would remain after the $20,000,000 payment on the outstanding loan balance) would be repaid by Cohen and the two banks, with Cohen paying fi?y percent and the banks dividing the remaining half of the balance. Based on my review of an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, the parties reached a preliminary agreement that Cohen would pay $632,956 of the remaining $1,265,912 principal loan balance, and Sterling and Melrose would absorb $353216? and $235,789, respectively, in the form of charge-offs. According to Sterling Employee- 1, Sterling was willing to divide the repayment of the outstanding principal balance?despite its prior insistence that Cohen make a principal pay-down of at least one million dollars?because Cohen represented on a telephone call with Sterling Employeewl in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient liquidity to pay the full outstanding principal balance. As part of the agreement, Sterling and Melrose also agreed to relieve Cohen and his wife of the personal guarantees that they made on behalf of the LLCs. Thus, after completing the '-transaction, Cohen would no longer have had any outstanding obligations to Sterling or Melrose. Based on my review of emails sent by Sterling employees, I have learned that because the transaction bemeen the parties was subject to full credit miderwriting by Sterling and Melrose (as Well as Melrose?s regulators at NCUA), in August and September 2017, Sterling 18 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 120 of 201 required and requested additional ?nancial statements. and tax returns for Cohen and for its credit underwriting process. In response to Sterling?s requests, on or about September 25, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a copy of his 2016 tax return. The tax return listed Cohen?s mailing address as Subject Premises-1. Additionally, on or about October 5, 2017, Cohen re?sent Sterling Employee?2 a copy of his May 2.017 Financial Statement. A, day later, on October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a statement of ?nancial condition, dated September Statemen 0. Like the May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from-, Cohen?s accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that the information in the statement came from Cohen, and that -1ad not confirmed its accuracy or completeness. The September 2017 Financial Statement. stated that Cohen had total assets of 5533,43 0,000, total liabilities of $45,630,000, and a negative net worth of $12,200,000.13 Notably, unlike Cohen?s May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement represented to Sterling that Cohen had a negative net worth. The September 2017 Financial Statement indicated that Cohen?s assets were comprised of $1,250,000 in cash, $17,630,000 in closely held companies (including the taxi medallion entities and his real estate holdings ,14 $3,200,000 in real estate investments, and his $11,000,000 personal residence (which, for the ?rst 13 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, 1 know that this ?rrther decline in assets can be explained primarin by reported depreciation in the value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 14 Notably, the September 201?? Financial Statement valued each of Cohen?s thirty-two New York taxi medallions at approximately $130,187.5 0, which was considerably less than the $650,000 Valuation ascribed to each medallion in the sheet. 1 9 an tacos. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 121 of 201 time, be indicated was held by a trust .15 The September 20! 7 Financial Statement included assets and liabilities not held in Cohen?s name, such as various entities associated with his taxi medallions and some of his real estate investment entities. p. From my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-2, and my review of records maintained by Sterling, I have also learned that around the time Cohen provided Sterling with these ?nancial statements?Le, in or around September 2017?Cohen stopped paying payments on his taxi-medallion-loans- altogether. According to Sterling-Employee- 2, Cohen informed Sterling, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient funds to pay the principal and interest payments on his medallion loans. By in or about December 2017, Sterling and Melrose had not been paid approximately $276,937.92 in principal and interest payments on the medallion loans. Based on Cohen?s ?nancial condition as conveyed in the September 201'? Financial Statehient, and his delinquency in making payments to Sterling, among other things, the bank?s credit underwriting committee determined (and memorialized in a December 2017 memorandum) that the Cohen-?- transaction was favorable for the bank - that is, that-would be a better borrower than Cohen. q. 011 or about December 26, 201?, Sterling sent Cohen a demand letter requesting the immediate receipt of past?due loan payments. The demand letter was addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-1. On December 2.9, 2017, Sterling sent Cohen a letter stating that he was in default under the loans between Sterling and Cohen?s medallion corporations. The notice of default was addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-l . Cohen did not make an immediate payment on the loans, but instead sent an e-mail to Sterling Employee-I on or about January 24, 2018, 15 Based on my review of property records maintained by the City of New York, and my participation in an interview with-I know that in 2015, Cohen transferred his residence to a trust. He did not disclose that transaction to -or Sterling until in or about September 2017. 20 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 122 of 201 stating that during the closing of the Cohen-- transaction, Cohen would ?bring all payments up to date as well as deposit the payoff differential.? lCohen also requested by email on January 24, 2018, that at the closing of the Cohen-?- transaction, Sterling provide a letter stating that all of Cohen?s debts have been satis?ed and that Cohen?s personal guarantees of the medallion loans had been terminated. r. The Cohen?-transaction, however, did not close. On or about January and?stated-that--?at this?tim there is no deal with Michael Cohen. Some of the numbers have changed and we are not prepared to go forward.? 5. Based on my participation in the interview with Sterling Employee?2 and my review of records maintained by Sterling, I know that after the Cohen-iced fell apart, Sterling assigned Cohen's loans to Sterling Employee-3, who specializes in collecting on defaulting loans. From my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-3, my review of telephone call notes taken by Sterling Employee?3, and my review of telephone records, I know that Sterling Employee43 spoke several times to Cohen on or about January 30, 2013 about paying down andfor restructuring Cohen?s outstanding taxi medallion loans. 0n the calls, which in total lasted more than an hour, Cohen stated in sum and substance that he did not have more than $1,250,000 to pay toward the medallion loans. 0n the call, in the course of reviewing the failed Cohen-- transaction, Sterling Employee-3 questioned Cohen about the price -vas to have paid for each medallion, and whether there was a side agreement between Cohen and - Cohen denied that there was any side agreement with t. On or about January 31, 2018, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-3 and proposed paying $500,000 to bring the loans current and $750,000 to bring the principal balance to 21 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 123 of 201 $20,500,000. Cohen also suggested revised interest payment amounts. The signamre block on the email indicated that Cohen?s address was the address for Subject Premises?2. On or about January 31, 2018, Sterling Employee-3 responded to Cohen and stated, in sum and substance, that Cohen would need to pay the entirety of the overdue payments and pay down the principal balance of the loan to $20,000,000 (in total, a payment of approximately $1,750,000), and would need to make larger interest payments. HI ab??t'FEbWI??l?S; Cohen emailed Sterling-Employeesand-proposed ?[p]ayrnent of $1.250m which ALL can be used to pay down principal, if [Sterling] will waive past due amounts,? but stated do NOT have more than the $1 250111.? (Emphasis in original.) Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient ?nancial resources to post additional collateral or pro?fund payments. The signature block on the email indicated that Cohen?s address was the address for Subject Premises-2. Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-3, I have learned that since January 30, 2018, Sterling has continued to renegotiate the medallion loans with Cohen based on Cohen?s representations about his current financial position. In particular, according to Sterling Employee-3, Cohen and Sterling have an agreement in principal to restructure Cohen?s loans based in part of Cohen?s agreement to make a principal payment of approximately $750,000, to make a payment of $500,000 to become current on interest payments, and to post $192,000 in cash collateral for his future payments on me loan. Cohen also agreed to pledge an interest he had in a property. Sterling Employee?3 has stated that had Cohen indicated he had more than $1,250,000 available to him, Sterling would have, among other things, negotiated for a larger reduction to the principal amount of the loan. 22 201103.02 . . :r I4- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 124 of 201 (ii) Cohen Made Material Misrepresenmrions About His stances to Banks Cohen Concealed from Sterling and Melrose Cash Derived from 17. As set forth in detail below, despite multiple written and oral representations by Cohen to Sterling (and, by extension, Melrosel's] that he had insuf?cient funds to pay down the principal balance of the medallion loans, make interest payments, or pay pastrdue amounts, it appears that between 2016 and the present, Cohen opened and maintained bank accounts?at?First?Republic ,_and . consulting payments in these accounts, which he did not disclose to Sterling. Cohen set up these accounts and received these funds during the very period in which he made disclosures to Sterling about his personal ?nances (including his assets and liabilities) and his ability to make payments on the medallion loans. In these disclosures to Sterling?and despite being asked about these bank accounts by his accountant?Cohen misled the bank by claiming he had insuf?cient liquidity to satisfy his obligations or meet the bank?s demands, while withholding information about these ongoing revenue streams and liquid ?nancial assets at First Republic. 18. Speci?cally, based on my review of documents and bank records produced pursuant to a subpoena by First Republic, and my participation in and review of reports of interviews with a First Republic sales manager (?First Republic Employee?1?) and a First Republic senior managing director (?T?irst Republic I have learned, among other things, the following: ?5 Based on my review of a report of an interview conducted with an employee ofMelrose, I have learned that, pursuant to the participation agreement between Sterling and Melrose, Cohen?s ?nancial statements and other records in Sterling?s possession were forwarded to Melrose so that Meh-ose could make a determination as to whether to approve of the Cohen?' transaction. Based on my review of reports of mtervietvs with Melrose employees, 1 also new that Cohen called employees at Melrose regarding the Cohen-ransaction. 23 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 125 of 201 a. Cohen and his wife have been customers of First Republic since approxinrately June 201 1. Cohen controls several checking and loan accounts at First Republic, some in his own name and others in the names of corporate entities. According to First Republic?s know?your- customer records on Cohen,? his primary physical address is the address for Subject Premises-l . b. On or about October 26, 2016, in Manhattan, New York, Cohen opened a new checking account at First Republic in the name of Essential Consultants LLC (the ?Essential ?Cons?te? account. According-to account opening documents, the primary address for Essential Consultants LLC was the address for Subject Premises-l. When Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, First Republic Employee-1 conducted an interview of Cohen- In response to a series of know?your- customer questions about the purpose of the account?the ansnters to which First Republic Employee?l entered into a form?SFCohen stated, in sum and substance, that he was opening Essential Consultants as a real estate consulting company to collect fees for investment consulting work, and all of his consulting clients would be domestic individuals based in the United States. Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that his purpose in setting up the account was to keep the revenue from his consulting business?which he said was not his main source of income?separate from his personal ?nances. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s statements about the intended purpose of the account and source of funds for the account were false. Speci?cally, as described below, the account was not intended to receive?and does not Certain fmancial institutions are required to conduct such procedures pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. See 31 U.S.C. 5313; 31 C.F.R. 1020.220. '3 First Republic Employee-l ?rst ?lled out the form on the day he interviewed Cohen, October 26, 2016. On or about December 19, 2016, at the request of bank compliance personnel, First Republic Employee-1 updated the form to add more detail about Cohen?s statements. 24 2017.03.02 -?qw Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 126 of 201 appear to have in connection with real estate consulting work; in addition, the account has received substantial payments ?'om foreign sources. c. I know Erom my review of First Republic banlt records that were scheduled by an FBI forensic accountant that after Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, Cohen received payments into that account from foreign businesses and entities that do not re?ect the stated client pro?le for the residential and commercial real-estate consulting services. Speci?cally, the Essential I. know the_ following: i. Beginning on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen began receiving payments of $33,3 33 into the Essential Consultants Account from an entity called Columbus Nova LLC. According to public sources, Columbus Nova is an investment management ?rm controlled by Renova Group, an industrial holding company based in Zurich, that is controlled by Russian national Vilctor Velcselberg. From January 2017 to August 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received seven payments totaling $5 83,332.98 ?'om Columbus Nova LLC. ii. Beginning on or about April 5, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account began receiving payments from Novartis Investments, SARL, which I believe to be the in?house ?nancial subsidiary of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis International AG (?Novartis?). Between April 2017 and February 2013, the Essential Consultants Account received eleven wire payments from a Swiss bank account held in the name ofNovartis, each in the amount of $99,980, for a total of 1,099,?80. Beginning in or about April 20] 7, the Essential Consultants Account started receiving wire payments from a bank account associated with the telecommunications company Inc. Speci?cally, on or about April 14, 2017, sent $100,000 to the ?25 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 127 of 201 Essential Consultants Account and, from in or about June 2017 to in or about January 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received ten $50,000 payments from In total, ATRLT sent $600,000 to the Essential Consultants Account. iv. On or about May 10, 2017, June 9, 2017, July 10, 2017, and November 27, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received four deposits in the amount $150,000 (totaling $600,000) from a bank account in South Korea. The account holder ?om which the money was sent i's'Koreei Kerospac?e is a South Koreaabased-company-that - produces and sells ?xed-wing aircraft, helicopter aircraft, and satellites to the United States Department of Defense, among other customers. v. On or about May 22, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received a $150,000 deposit from an account at a Kazakhstani bank. The listed account holder at Kazkommertsbank was a second bank named BTA Bank, A0. A message accompanying the wire payment indicated that the payment was a consulting fee as per Inv ETA-101 DD May 10, 2017 consulting agreement WIN DD 08 05 2017 CNTR WINDD vi. in total, item on or about January 31, 2017 to on or about February 1, 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received approximately $3,033,112.98 in transfers and checks from the aforementioned entities. As of on or about January 10, 2.018, the balance in the Essential Consultants Account was $1,369,474.23. Cohen?s withdrawals from the Essential Consultants account reveal that it was used for largely personal purposes, including to pay, among other things, American Express bills and fees from ?the Core Club,? a private social club in New York. d. On or about April 4, 2017, Cohen opened another new checking account at First Republic, this one in the name of Michael D. Cohen 85 Associates, PC. (the Account?). 26 2017mm Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 128 of 201 Cohen was the only authorized signatory on the account. According to account opening documents, the primaiy address for Account was the address for Subject Premises?l. Among other things, the Account received ten wire transfers and one check from an account in the name of Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm. As noted above, Subject Premises-2 is located inside the New York of?ce of Squire Patton Boggs. In total, from on or about April 5, 2017, to on or about January 2, 2018, the Account received $426,097.70 in deposits, and "The ?27201-8rwas-S344?41735: As discussed below,?Gehenl never disclosed any of the balance in the Essential Consultants or accounts to Sterling during the negotiations with respect to the - transaction or the subsequent loan re?nancing negotiations, including in his May 2017 Financial Statement and September 2017 Financial Statement. 19. Based on my review of emails that were seized pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, and my review of reports of interviews with employees of and Novartis, it appears that the aforementioned payments to the Essential Consultants Account and WCSLA Account were for political consulting work, including consulting for international clients on issues pending before the Trump administration. Speci?cally, from my review of emails from the Cohen Gmail Account, the Cohen Account, and public sources, I hays learned the following: a. On or about April 28, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with In the email, Cohen attached a ?Consulting Agreement? between KAI and Essential Consultants dated as of about May 1, 2017. The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Hemises-Z. The document indicates that Essential Consultants would render ?consulting and advisory services, as requested" by KAI, and that KAI would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Two Hundred Thousand 2? 1011.03.02 win->- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 129 of 201 US Dollars,? disbursed through eight $150,000 installments between May 2017 and December 2017, I have also reviewed invoices in amounts of $150,000 that Cohen emailed to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with KAI. At the top of the invoices the address listed for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises?2. b. On or about May 8, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with BTA Bank. The signature block on Cohen?s email listed ?Essential Consultants and and provided-the address for?Subj est?Premises- 2- In the email, Cohen attached a document purporting to be a ?Consulting Agreement? between BTA Bank and Essential Consultants dated as of about May 8, 201?. The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises-2, The document indicates that Essential Consultants would render ?consulting and advisory services? to ETA Bank, and that ETA Bank would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand US Dollars,? disbursed through payments of $1 50,000. On or about May 10, 2017', Cohen sent an email to an employee of BTA Bank, and attached to the email an invoice to ETA Bank in the name of Essential Consultants, with the address of Subject Premises- 2. The invoice contemplated a $150,000 payment to Essential Consultants for a consulting fee.? c. On or about January 23, 2017, Cohen appears to have entered into a consulting agreement with which contemplates that Essential Consultants ?shall render consulting and advisory services to and that would ?advise [Essential Consultants] of those issues and matters with respect to which ATELT Services desires [Essential assistance and advice.? The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises- l. The contract calls for ?to pay the Consultant for his services . . . a consulting fee of Fifty 28 231105.02 q, Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 130 of 201 Thousand ($50,000) Dollars . . . per month.? Based on my review of reports of interviews with employees, I have learned that retained Cohen to consult on political issues, including net neutrality, the merger between and Time Warner, and tax reform. d. On or about March 1, 2017, Cohen appears to have entered into a contract between Novartis and Essential Consultants, which provides that Essential Consultants will ?provide consulting and advisory services to Nevartis on matters that relate to the repeal and replacement of the Affordable?CaTAEf'in other issues -mutually?agreeab1e-to [Essential Consultants] and Novartis.? The contract provides for a ?consulting fee of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000) US dollars,? to be paid to Essential Consultants in equal installments over the course of a year. Based on my review of reports of interviews with Nov-ands employees, 1 have learned that Novartis retained Cohen to provide political consulting services and to gain access to relevant policymakers in the Trump Administration. e. In or about February 2017, Cohen began negotiating the terms of a ?strategic alliance" with Squire Patton Boggs. On or about March 4, 2017, Squire Patton Boggs emailed Cohen a ?strategic alliance agreement.? Under the terms of the agreement, Cohen agreed to generate business for the law ?rm, and Squire Patton Boggs agreed to pay to Cohen ?an annual strategic alliance fee of $500,000, payable in twelve (12) equal installments." Squire Patton Boggs also agreed to provide Cohen with ?dedicated and segregated of?ce space in [Squire Patton Boggs?s] New York and Washington DC. of?ces, which of?ce space shall be physically separate from [Squire Patton Boggs?s] of?ces and have locked doors and its own locked ?le cabinets." On or about April 3, 2017, Squire Patton Boggs announced on its website that is had formed a ?strategic alliance? with Michael D. Cohen Associates and would ?jointly represent clients.? 29 201103.03 o- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 131 of 201 20. Despite the signi?cant amount of money that Cohen received into the Essential Consultants Account and the Account, and the cash balance in both accounts, Cohen did not disclose that information to Sterling or Melrose. Speci?cally, based on my review of documents provided by - (as noted above, Cohen?s accountant at the time), my participation in an review We - edmrleeme?? haye learned the following: meeting, Cohen told - in sum and substance, that he had setup a law practice called Michael D. Cohen 8.: Associates P.C., and a consulting company called Essential Consultants LLC. Cohen told -, in sum and substance, that he expected to earn $7 5,000 per month in connection with his law practice, and that he expected gross revenues for the consulting business to be between ?ve and six million dollars annually. in. In or about October 2017, if not earlier, -ras preparing a personal ?nancial statement for Cohen. On or about October 6, 2017, -sent an email to Cohen in which .- wrote that is a draft of the new PPS as of September 30, 2017? and attached a draft of the September 2017 Financial Statement. The dra?: statement re?ected that as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had only $1 ,25 0,000 in cash, total assets of approximately $33,430,000 (comprised of taxi medallion interests, real estate interests, and his personal residence and property), and liabilities ofapproaimately $45,613 0,000, leaving him purportedly over $12 million in debt. In the same email, -1uestioned Cohen, in sum and substance, about the fact that the ?nancial statement did not list any value associated with either the Essential Consultants Account or the Account: did not add any value for you[r] two operating entities Michael D. Cohen Associates 30 2017.03.02 ao?In' or ?about?May 2017r-met?with?C?iohen-at Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 132 of 201 POC [sic] and Essential Consultants LLC. Please advise whether or not these should be disclosed and what value.? c. On or about October 6, 2017, Cohen called -3y telephone?which is re?ected on toll records for Cohen?s cellphone?and told - in sum and substance, not to include Essential Consultants or in the September 2017 Financial Statement because they had no value. On or about October 6, 2017, following the call with-Cohen, using the Cohen ?[l]ooks good-tomeLCohen-neverdirected -to make any changes to his cash position as listed in the September 2017 Financial Statement. In a letter dated October 6, 2017, addressed to - Cohen stated, have revieWed the attached statement of ?nancial condition and ?nd it to be correct and consistent with the representations that I made to your firm. The attached is an accurate re?ection of my assets, liabilities and net worth (de?cit) as of September 30, 2017.? Attached to that letter was the September 2017 Financial Statement, which, as noted abette, was then transmitted to Sterling in connection with the proposed taxi medallion transaction between Sterling, Cohen, and 21. Based on my review of a report of an interview with Sterling Employee-?1, I have learned that Cohen did not disclose his income stream from Essential Consultants to Sterling Employee] or, to his knowledge, anyone else at Sterling. According to Sterling Employee?1, knowledge of such an income stream would have affected Sterling?s demands during the negotiations, particularly with respect to the amount of a principal paydown of Cohen?s debt. Cohen Understated His Available Cash 22. In addition to withholding the existence of his Essential Consultants income from Sterling and Melrose, it appears that Cohen also substantially understated his available cash and cash canivalents in his ?nancial disclosures. Speci?cally, I know from my review of the September 3 1 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 133 of 201 2017 Financial Statement that Cohen provided to Sterling that Cohen represented that he had $1,250,000 in cash as of September 30, 2017. I also know that on or about January 30, 2018, in a telephone call with Sterling Employee-3, and on February 1, 2018, in an email to Sterling Employee-3, Cohen represented that he did not have more than $1,250,000 in cash. But, from my review of a summary of bank records that were scheduled by forensic accountants, I have learned that Cohen had approximately $5,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2017. A Wish??ns of . equivalents. Specifically, from my review of the account schedule and bank records, Ihavc learned the following: a. Cohen. has three checking andjor savings accounts at Capital One Bank, one of which is in his wife?s name. As of September 30, 2017?, Cohen had $1,105,680.35 in his savings account, and $1,262,982.29 in total in the three accounts at Capital One Bank. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had a total of $1 ,3 89,245.78 in these accourits. b. Cohen has three accounts at Morgan Stanley in his name. As of September 30, 2017, the combined total in cash and cash equivalents in those three accounts was $1,270,600.41. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had $1,284.996.13 in these accounts. c. As of September 30, 2017, Cohen had $260,689.18 in an account at Signature Bank. As of Februaryr 1, 2018, Cohen had $261,517.55 in this account. d. In addition to the Essential Consultants Account and thC&A Account at First Republic, Cohen also had two joint checking accounts with Laura Cohen at First Republic. In total, as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had at least $1,876,209.27 in total in his four accounts at First Republic. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen had $3,332,992.95 in these accounts. 32 emanate . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 134 of 201 e. Cohen has an account at Bethpage Credit Union with $25,931.39 in it as of September 30, 2017. f. As of September 30, 2017, Cohen had $17,542.54 in accounts at Sterling. g. Cohen has two accounts at TD Bank?one in his name and one held jointly with his wife. Cohen also has a safety deposit box at TD Bankaubj ect Premises?3. The safety deposit box was opened on December 13, 2017 in the names of Michael and Laura Cohen. -?h.?Irrtota1; as?of September 30,7201i?Gehen had-at his aceounts?-? at Capital One Bank, City National Bank, Signature Bank, Sterling Bank, Bethpage Credit Union, First Republic, and Morgan Stanley. As of February 1, 2018, Cohen bad $6,263,732.59 in his accounts at Capital One Bank, City National Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic, and Morgan Stanley.? 23. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen?s written and oral representations to Sterling and Melrose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 were false, and that Cohen withheld information regarding approximately $5 million in hands ?'om Sterling and Melrose in order to secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee-2, and my review of reports of interviews with Sterling Employee-1 and two Melrose employees, it is my understanding that that Sterling and Melrose would view Cohen?s understating of his assets as material to its decision whether to renegotiate Cohen?s medallion loans and on what terms, or to its decision whether approve of the transfer of these loans to - 19 Based on my review of the account schedules described above, I know that, as of the date of this af?davit, the account balances for TD Bank have not yet been included in the schedule for either date and the account balances for Sterling National Bank and Bethpage Credit Union have not yet been included in the schedule for February 1, 2018. Thus, to the extent that these accounts have positive balances, Cohen?s total balances in fact were even higher on these dates. 33 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 135 of 201 Cohen Has Unrenorted Interest Income 24. It appears that Cohen also bid from Sterling interest income that he was receiving in connection with a six million dollar loan he made to another individual. Speci?cally, I know from my review of the May 2017 Financial Statement and September 2017 Financial Statement that Cohen provided to Sterling that Cohen did not disclose that he had made a note receivable in the amount of approximately $6 million, or that he Was earning approximately $60,000 per month in loan. that were reviewed by another law enforcement agent, my review of property records and documents obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, and my participation in an interview with- I have learned the following: a. Based on my review of property records, I have learned that on or about March 12, 2012, Cohen agreed to lend _?tppr0ximately $2,000,000.20 It appears that the promissory note was unsecured by any real property. On or about April 28, 2014, Cohen and- amended the promissory note, and restructured the loan to increase the principal amount to approximately $5,000,000. Under ?ie terms of the amended promissory note, the loan was secured by_ apartment in Florida. 011 or about April 8, 2015, Cohen and -restated the promissory note to increase the principal amount to $6,000,000.11 b. Based on my review of a copy of the restated note, which Was obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that under the terms of the amended and restated learned from Game] that 31 The note that the loan is to husband 311d wife, jointly and severally. For ease of reference, I refer simply to? ?-1erein. 34 2017.00.02 ??er . .- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 136 of 201 promissory note, Cohen?s loan to _s an interest-only loan, and that the principal balance of the loan bears interest at an annual rate of 12.25 percent. I also know that the amended and restated promissory note includes a schedule of payments that require -to pay Cohen approximately $61,250 per month beginning in April 2015 and ending in April 2019. The note also requires that-epay the principal balance of $6,000,000 on April 28, 2019. c. Based on my review of bank records, I have learned that, consistent with the terms of the? amended?and?restated promissory - approximately $61,250 since April 2015. Speci?cally, based on my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, I have learned that from April 2015 to October 2015, Cohen received checks ?-om an entity called totaling $6 '1 ,25 0 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Bank.22 It appears from my review of bank records and public sources that :-is the owner of From my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, I have also learned that since October 2015, Cohen has received checks ?om an entity called 1? totaling $61,250 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Banlc. It appears from my review of bank records and public sources that -.s also the owner of 1- ?In total, it appears that Cohen receives approximately $735,000 per year in interest payments ?om - :31. Based on my review of Cohen ?s May 2017 and September 2017 Financial Statements, my review of his 2015 and 2016 tax returns obtained via subpoena and from the Cohen Email Warrants, and my participation in an interview with - I have learned that Cohen did 22 In April 2015, Cohen received a pro?rated payment. For all months thereafter, the total payment equaled $61,250, but _)tten made the payment in multiple checks. 35 2012.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 137 of 201 not disclose this interest income he was receiving from -to Sterling or Melrose, or list it on his tax returns. I have also learned that while this interest income is taxable, Cohen did not tell -?his accountant?about the income, and -only learned about the income because he began doing _taxes in 2013".23 25. - Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen?s representations to Sterling and Mehose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 Were false, and that Cohen Manon relating to the interest incom?ehe is receiving from order to secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Cohen Had a Side Agreement was 26. As set forth in detail below, during the course of Cohen?s negotiations to sell his interest in taxi medallions and the associated debt to Cohen not only misrepresented his ?nancial position to Sterling, but also failed to disclose a side agreement he had negotiated with_; it appears that '_.greed to pa}r an above?market price for Cohen?s taxi cab medallions, and in exchange, Cohen agreed to pay _Lpprosjmately $3 .8 million in cash. Speci?cally, from my review of documents produced pursuant to a subpoena by Sterling, and my participation in interviews with Sterling Employee?1, Sterling Employee-2, and Sterling Employee?3, I have learned, among other things, the following: a. On or about September 5, 2017, an executed term sheet was circulated by Sterling Employee-1 to Cohen and - The term sheet listed Cohen?s address as the address for Subject Premises?1. According to the term sheet, ?would borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Meliose, to be secured by the medallions that _was to acquire from 23 Accordingly, this interest income-#which should have been reported as such on Cohen?s tax returns?is included herein in calculations of Cohen?s true cash position. 36 witness Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 138 of 201 Cohen. At a price of $20 million for thirty-tyre taxi medallions, the proposed transaction valued each medallion as worth $625,000. The term sheet also contemplated a $1,265,913 pay-down of the principal balance of the loan. The term sheet made no mention of a $3.8 million payment from Cohen to or any other form of payment or ?nancial transaction between the parties. 13. Additionally, an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, describing the terms of the Cohan-transaction and the new loan to '?did not mentidn any payments .The__ memorandum also noted that the ?loan amount of indicates a purchase price per medallion? but ?it is recognized that this is not in line with current market values.? Indeed, according to an internal Sterling memorandum dated February 5, 2018, in the month of January 201 8, taxi medallions sold for amounts ranging from $120,000 to $372,000. According to Sterling Employee-1 and Sterling Employee?2, they were never told that -a.greed to a purchase price of $625,000 in exchange for a lump sum payment from Cohen, or that Cohen would make any payment to - c. On or about January 30, 2018, Sterling Employee?3 asked Cohen whether Cohen had a side agreement with pay -a sum of money for entering into the medallion transaction. Sterling Employee-3 asked Cohen about such an arrangement because, according to Sterling Employee-3, the price that - was paying for each medallion appeared to be well above the market price. Cohen stated, in sum and substance, that he had no side agreementrand never had a side agreement??with - 27. While Cohen and_ did not disclose any payment from Cohen to _in communications with Sterling, it appears that such a payment was contemplated. Indeed, based on my review of records maintained by -and my participation in an interview 37 menace Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 139 of 201 with -I have learned the following, in substance and in part, regarding the proposed side payment from Cohen to? a. On or about September 19, 2017?,- prepared a memorandum for Cohen entitled, ?Sale of NYC Medallion Entities and Debt Assumption? (the The -Mernorandum summarized the proposed transaction between Cohen and in part, as follows: ?Michael and Laura Cohen will transfer ownership of their 13 NYC medallion snati?? is a Buyer We w?lmm?hei?r hank indebt?dnessmpon- the [enhanmpaying downthe. debt portfolio of the 13 entities by $500,000 and a cash payment to the Buyer of b. According to -Cohen told him the parameters of the deal, including the payment of $3,800,000 to - but-lid not know where Cohen was going to obtain - As noted above, Cohen had more than $5,000,000 in cash and $3,800,000 to pay cash equivalents as of September 2017., but had only disclosed in his September 2017 Financial Statement that he had $1.25 million in cash. 28. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling (as well as Melrose, the bank with the participating interest in the loans) and reports of interviews of representatives of Stetling other ?nancial institution (and Melrose), I have seen no evidence that Sterling. Melrose, or any involved in the potential deal with Cohen and -was aware of the planned $3.8 million side payment from Cohen to- The Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme 2? The reference to thirteen medallions appears to be an error by - Cohen and his wife together owned sixteen corporations, which in turn owned 32 taxi medallions. 38 amateur 1 an: ?em- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 140 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 141 of 201 I a 201103.02 Case . Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 142 of 201 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 143 of 201 21]] 7.03.912 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 144 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 145 of 201 2017.03.62 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 146 of 201 201?.0l02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 147 of 201 2011.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 148 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 149 of 201 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 150 of 201 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 151 of 201 201733.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 152 of 201 2017.08.92 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 153 of 201 201108.132 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 154 of 201 201103.132 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 155 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 156 of 201 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 157 of 201 291103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 158 of 201 C. Probable Cause Justifying Search of the Subject Premises and Subject Devices 45. Based on the foregoing, my review of records produced pursuant to subpoenas and the Cohen Email Warrants, and the iCloud Warrant, and my training and experience, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices have been used in ?lrtherance of the Subject Offenses and are likely to contain instrumentalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen permanently resides at Subject Premises-1 and, at least in part, works at both Subject Premises-i and Subject Premises-2, and that those locations contain evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and his Additionally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?3 contains evidence of Cohen?s assets and? Finally, 13131?? is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?4, in which Cohen is temporarily residing, contains electronic 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 159 of 201 devices, including Subject Device-1 and Subject Device?2, which, in turn, contain evidence of the Subject O??enses, such as evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and 46. First, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen lives and operates his businesses, at least in pelt, at Subject Premises-l. Speci?cally, from my review of property records, [know that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own (in trust) Subject Premises-d. From my review of Cohen?s tax?returns, I know he lists?lii?r?imarjr residence . from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I lmow that Cohen routinely refers to Subject Premises-1 as his home. For example, on or about September 28, 2017 and October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed individuals that his home address is the address for Subject Premises?l . I also know from my review of emails that Cohen receives package delivery noti?cations that list Cohen?s address as the address for Subject Premises-1- Cohen has also provided the address of Subject Premises?l as the address for Essential Consultants and Michael D. Cohen Associates, P.C- For example, the certi?cates of incorporation and account opening docmnents at First Republic for both entities list their addresses as the address for Subject Premises-l. See supra '?il 18(b), 18(d). The consulting agreement between Essential Consultants and also indicated the address for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises? 1. See supra 1i 19(c). 47. There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 is likely to contain evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, from my review of emails produced pursuant to subpoena and the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, as well as my training and experience, I know the following: 53 2017.03.02 Ml" Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 160 of 201 a. According to records maintained by Sterling, the address for all of Cohen?staxi medallion .hLCs is the address for Subject Premises-1. See supra 1i 160:). Additionally, the medallion loan documents indicate that any mailings related to the loans should be sent to Subject Premises-l. See id. Based on my training and experience, as well as my review of public sources, I know that individuals keep records of properties and assets in which they have ownership interests. Accordingly, I submit that Subject Premises-1 likely contains evidence of Cohen?s ownership'of the taro medallioTISLCs,? the?revenue and-the? transaction with Sterling in 2014 to re-?nance the medallion loans that were then with Capital One Bank. b. From my review of records maintained by Sterling, I also know that Sterling addressed documents relating to the -transaction and Cohen?s attempts to modify the terms of the medallion loans to Subject Premises-1. For instance, Sterling addressed the transaction term sheet, see Supra 1] 16(1), and its demand letter and notice of default, see supra 1 16(q), to Subject Premises-1. Accordingly, Subject Premises?l likely contains evidence concerning the -transaction and Cohen?s negotiations with Sterling. Some of those records?such as records relating to a payment from Cohen to --?were concealed from Sterling and cannot be obtained via subpoena to Sterling. Additionally, even where documents were sent to Cohen by Sterling (and therefore are available from Sterling via subpoena), the fact that they may be found in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to Cohen?s possession or knowledge of the documents. c. From my review of records maintained by First Republic, I lmow that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises-l as the mailing addresses for the Essential Consultants Account and MDCELA Account. See supra 111 18(b), 18(e). Accordingly, it is likely that Subject 59 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 161 of 201 Premises-1 contains records relating to the Essential Consultants Account and Account, including, among other things, account opening documents, bank statements, documents provided as part of the lmow-your?customer process, any notes made by Cohen when he was opening the accounts, wire transfer records, and canceled cheeks. Even where these records can be obtained from First Republic, the fact that they may be found in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to, among other things, Cohen?s ownership of the accounts, or his knowledge of transactions or the existence of ?nds in accounts. d. Based on my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, TD Bank, Morgan Stanley, City National Bank, Signature Bank, and Bethpage Credit Union, I know that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises-1 as the mailing for his accounts at each of these ?nancial institutions. Accordingly, it is likely that Subject Premises-l contains records relating to these accounts, including, among other things, bank statements that list account balances. The existence of these records in Subject Premises?l will be relevant to, among other things, Cohen?s ownership of the accounts and his knowledge of the balances in these accounts. e. Additionally, Cohen may have records of other bank accounts or assets that were not disclosed to Sterling and are not presently known by law enforcement. For example, as described above, Cohen has received interest income since 2015 that he has not disclosed to Sterling or paid taxes on. Also, on Cohen?s August 2014 Financial Statement, see supra ?i 16(e), he disclosed $10,000,000 in ?investments in overseas entities.?30 The value of these hivesn'nents was omitted from subsequent ?nancial statements. However, for the reasons outlined above, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen omitted the value of these investments from his 2017 3? Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?3, I have learned that Cohen told Sterling Employee?3 that the reference to ?investments in overseas entities? on his 2014 Financial Statement was to serve merely as a ?placeholder? for potential future investments. 60 2011mm Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 162 of 201 ?nancial statements in order to understate his assets. As Subject Premises-1 is Cohen?s primary residence and he uses Subject Premises-l as the mailing address for bank records, there is probable cause to believe that account statements for unloiown bank accounts or assets concealed ?'om Sterling are likely to be found in Subject Premises?1 . f. Based on my review of records maintained by and produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, Ilmow that the address Cohen provided to for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Bremises-IL"W is-probable- cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 will contain evidence concerning the operation of Essential Consultants or money that Cohen received, through Essential Consultants, from Additionally, because Cohen used the address for Subject Premises-1 for at least one consulting arrangement involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to belieue that Subject Premises-1 ma}r contain records of other consulting arrangements that Cohen, through Essential Consultants, has with other individuals or entities. g. Based on my review of records maintained lay-recounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that I-tccountin ?rm sent documents to Subject Premises-1 and used the address for Subject Premises?1 as the address listed on Cohen?s personal and corporate tax returns. See supra 1[ 1601). For instance, on or about October 6, 2017, an employee tit-accounting ?rm emailed Cohen that she had sent Cohen?s September 2017 Financial Statement by FedEx to Cohen?s attention. Accordingly, Cohen?s tax records are likely to he found in Subject Premises-1. h. Based on my review ofhauk records and publicly-available documents, I know that 61 201103.112 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 163 of 201 1. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, 1 know that Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a #MacBoolt Pro to access his iCloud account. Basal - Apple pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, I know that electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises?1 to, among other things, place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premisesd contains electronic devices, including certain Apple products, that for reasons discussed below are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. j. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email lWarrants, I understand that Subject Premises~1 recently sustained Water damage to certain parts of the premises, and that Cohen has engaged contractors to perform certain remediation work on the premises. In addition, as set forth above, I believe that Cohen and his famin are temporarily residing at Subject Premises?4 in the Loew?s Regency Hotel, which is approximately two blocks from Subject Premises-1. However, based on my review of a work order sent to Cohen?s email by a contractor, I understand diet the ?rst phase of the work order called for the contractor to ?Pack Sc Remove all items 3: ?nnishings in Living Room, Kitchen, Sons Room Dining Room? and store them elf-site. In addition, based on my review of drawings sent to Cohen by the contractor, it appears that the work. is primarily being done in these rooms. Thus, I believe that the construction ?-to the extent it is still ongoing Would not necessarily have caused Cohen to move 62 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 164 of 201 all documents or evidence responsive to the warrant out ofSubj ect Premises-l because it does not appear that work is being done to the portion of Subject Premises-1, such as a home of?ce or Cohen?s own room, where such documents or evidence would most likely be found.31 48. Second, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen uses Subject Premises-2 as of?ce space, and also that Subject Premises?3?. contains certain electronic devices. Speci?cally, ?'om my review of the ?strategic alliance agreement? between Squire Patton Boggs and Cohen, and?j?eview of'th??' press?relesse on Sq?i'?Patton?Bog?gs?s of?ce at Subject Premises-2. See supra 18(d), 19(e). Indeed, I have learned that pursuant to Cohen?s agreement with the law ?rm, he has ?dedicated and segregated office space" in Squire Patton Boggs?s of?ces on the 23rd ?oor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, and that the space is ?physically separate? from the ?rm?s of?ces and has ?locked doors and its own locked ?le cabinets.? See supra'? 19(e). Additionally, I know that under the terms of the agreement, Cohen agreed to ?arrange for [his] own computer server system that is not connected to [Squire Patton Boggs?s] computer network system.? I lmow from my participation in an interview with -who met Cohen at Subject Premises-2 in 2017, that Subject Premises-2 is an of?ce with a door, it appears to be used only by Cohen, and it contains, among other things, a computer and paper ?les. According to -when .saw Cohen at Subject Premises-2, he had two cellular telephones in Subject Premises??2. I also know from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants that Cohen uses the address for Subject Premises?2 in the signature block 3? As noted below, based on my training and experience, I believe that individuals who travel or stay in hotels for short-term periods commonly bring some items with them, such as portable electronic devices or sensitive items, meaning that Cohen has likely taken some evidence ?-om Subject Premises-1 to Subject Premises-4. Nevertheless, given the temporary nature of Cohen?s stay at Subject Premises-4 and the scope of the work being done at Subject Premises?1, I believe it is unlikely that Cohen has taken all evidence that would be subject to seizure out of Subject Premises-l. 63 201103.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 165 of 201 on his emails. Based on my review of notes of a call between Cohen and First Republic Employee? 2 (which notes were taken by another First Republic employee, who was participating in the call and taking notes), I know that, on or about November 15, 2017, Cohen told First Republic Employee-2 that he had a new of?ce at 30 Rock. Moreover, I know from an article in Vanity Fair published on or about February I4, 2013, that Cohen was interviewed by the magazine in Subject Premises-2 in or about February 2018. 49:" Tl?'?i?l?mbabl?aus?e to? believe that SubjectPremisesefi is?likelyto-contain instrumentalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Speci?cally, from my review of emails produced pursuant to subpoena and the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, as well as my training and experience, I know the following: a. According to records maintained by Sterling, when Cohen was emailing with Sterling Employee-3 in 2013 about a modi?cation to his existing loan ?om Sterling, Cohen listed his address in his email as the address for Subject Premises?2. See supra 'll 16(t), 1601). Accordingly, Subject Premises-2 likely contains evidence concerning Cohen?s loan modi?cation negotiations with Sterling. 13. Based on my review of records obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that the address Cohen provided to KAI and ETA for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises-2. See more 111i 19(a), 1903). Therefore, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 will contain evidence concerning the operation of Essential Consultants or money that Cohen received, through Essential Consultants, from KAI and BTA, among other entities with which Cohen had a consulting arrangement. Additionally, based on my review of emails sent in 2018 that were obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that Cohen continues to enter into consulting atrangements through Essential Consultants, and agreements 64 2017.03.02 I . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 166 of 201 .I ir-q 41. relating to these arrangements indicate that Essential Consultants is located at Subject Premises? 2. Additionally, because Cohen used the address for Subject Premises?2 for multiple consulting arrangements involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premisesrz may contain records of. other unknown consulting arrangements that Cohen has with i other individuals or entities. c. Based on my review of records maintained by -iccounting ?rm, and emails produced pmsmohen Email'WarrantsT as well'a?s'm'jr - - - have learned that -visited Subject Premises-2 to meet with Cohen about his taxes. See supra jl 20(a). At that meeting, -:liscussed with Cohen whether Cohen should disclose Essential Consultants on his personal ?nancial statement to banks. According, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 will contain evidence relating to Cohen?s taxes, or notes of his conversation with - Moreover, the fact that Cohen used Subject Premises?2 for a meeting regarding his personal ?nancial matters provides probable cause to believe that documents and information regarding his fmances will be found in Subject Premises-2. d. Based on my participation in an interview with .1 know that Cohen maintains a computer in Subject Premises-2. From my review of IP data produced pursuant to a subpoena and pen register to Google, it appears that Cohen is logging into his Grnail account from Subject Premises-2. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-2 contains electronic devices, that for reasons discussed below are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. e. Based upon my training and experience, I have learned that individuals who maintain businesses typically keep records relating to the business?such as contracts with clients and records ot?pajqnenta?at the business? identi?ed location. I am not aware of any addresses 65 2017.0an Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 167 of 201 associated with Essential Consultants other than Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premise-.34.. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 will contain business records for Essential Consultants. SD. Third, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 is to contain insmmientalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. In particular: a. As noted aboVe, Cohen has two bank accounts at TD Bank. In or about November 017, as Cohen Was recenung substantial ?c'o'nsu? l?W?lf??Which hedid'rtot?discl'ose?b to Sterling?Cohen opened the safety deposit box at TD Bank, which is Subject Premises-3. In light of the aforementioned evidence that Cohen conceals assets, including assets at TD Bank, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 contains ?nancial assets, objects ofvalue andfor documents relating to such assets or objects of value that Cohen likely did not disclose to Sterling. Indeed, based on my training and experience, I am aware that people often conceal valuable items in safety deposit boxes. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 will contain evidence of the Bank Fraud Offenses. 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 168 of 201 51. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuanttc the Cohen Email Warrants and cell phone location information, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Hemises? 4. See supra 111] There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-4 contains instrumentalities and evidence of the Subject Offenses, including, the following: 33 As noted above, Subject Premises-3 is approximately ?ve inches by ten inches. Accordingly, I do not believe that it would ?t a large volume of hard copy documents; however, a small number of hard-copy documents, or a large volume of documents contained on a ?ash drive or other portable storage device, would ?t in Subject Premises-3. 67 2017.03.02 1 -.- n??Ti Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 169 of 201 b. As described above, at the time Cohen moved to Subject Premises?4, he was also in the midst ofongoing negotiations with Sterling regarding the re?nancing of his medallion debts. For example, on January 30, 2013, Cohen had a phone call with Sterling Employee-3 about his ?nances and the proposed restructuring, and on February 1, 2018, Cohen sent an email to Sterling Employee?3 claiming that he did not have more than $1.25 million in cash. See Sierra 16(u). Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating Has a in cream rare?Brennan- consult them in connection with these negotiations. c. As described above, Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a MacBoolc Pro to access his iCloud account, and these electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises-l Cohens? permanent residence to place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. See supra 111] 47(i). Although Cohen?s stay at Subject Premises?:4 is temporary, based on my training and experience I know that individuals who travel or stay in hotels for short-term periods commonly bring portable electronic devices with them, such as cellular phones, tablets, or laptops. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises~4, where Cohen currently appears to be residing, contains electronic devices, including Subject Device-1, Subject Device-2, andfor certain Apple products, that for the reasons discussed herein are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. d. Moreover, as set forth above, based on cellphone location information I know that Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2 Were in the vicinity of Subject Premises-4 as recently as this morning (April 8, 2013). As set forth above there is probable cause to believe that Cohen used the Subject Devices in furtherance of the Subject Offenses, including to communicate with Sterling employees regarding the medallion transaction, with First Republic employees regarding 63 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 170 of 201 the Essential Consultants Account, with his accountant regarding his ?nances, and with 52. Although Cohen appears to be residing currently in Subject Premises?4, it is unknown whether Cohen will be physically present within. Subject Premises~4 at the moment the warrant sought herein are executed. If Cohen is within Subject Premises-4 at that moment, Subject Device?l and Subject Device-2 his cellphones A will likely also be within Subject Premises-4. IfCohen is not within Subject Premisesfat on his perso wherever he is located (which, based on location data for Subject Device-l and Subject Device-2 as recently as today, is likely to be in the Southern District of New York). As such, this warrant seeks separate authority to seize Subject Device] and Subject Device?2, in the event that those devices are not located within Subject Premises-4 (or another Subject Premises) at the moment the warrants sought herein are executed. D. Probable Cause Justifying Search of E81 53. Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-l, Subject Premises-2 and Subject Premises?4 contain electronic devices that are likely to contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses (and, as set forth above, that Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2 are themselves electronic devices that are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses). Speci?cally, based on my review of information produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, the iCloud Warrant, and subpoenas, as well as pen register data, 1 submit that there is probable cause that Subject Premises?l contains an Apple iPad Mini, 21 MacBook Pro, and has, at various times, contained Apple cellphones; similarly, there is probable cause that Subject Premisesa contains a computer and has, at various times, contained Apple 69 2017.03.92 T?jrv??I?qml- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 171 of 201 cellphones. These devices are likely to include evidence, fruits, and of the Subject Offenses for the following reasons: a. As described throughout this af?davit, Cohen used email to send and receive communications related to the Subject Offenses. In particular, Cohen used email to send and receive eonununications with Sterling, First Republic- the entities to which he is providing consulting services?among others. While some of these emails have ?al?dy?sse? seamen?ma subpoenas and?search'waT'Fant?s, I knew frurn' tbat individuals can and do delete emails from their Internet-based inboxes but retain copies of these emails on their hard drives. I also know that individuals often have multiple email accounts, some of which mayr not be lmown to law enforcement, and as a result electronic devices can be a unique repository of all emails relevant to certain Subject Offenses. Indeed, from my involvement in this investigation, I know that Cohen had an email account with the Trump Organization, but the USAO and FBI have not been able to obtain the contents of that account to date. Thus, emails relevant to the Subject Offenses are likely stored on electronic devices in Subject Premises-1, Subject Premises~2 and/or Subj eet Premises?4. 1). Additionally, Subject Premises-l, Subject Premise?2 and Subject Premises?4 liker contain electronic copies of documents relevant to the Subject Offenses. Indeed, I know from my training and experience that individuals often retain copies of important documents on their computers or other electronic devices capable of storing information, including cellphones (such as the Subject Devices) and tablets. Here, there are a number of documents that Cohen has likely retained that will be relevant to the Subject Offenses. For example, electronic devices may include documentation of Cohen?s true net worth, a listing of his assets, an accounting of his available 70 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 172 of 201 cash, consulting agreements with third parties, and among other evidence of the Subject Offenses. c. Third, I know from my review of emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants that Cohen sent up online banking with First Republic. Based on my training and experience, 1 know that individuals who set up online banking often receive electronic notices concerning ?nancial transactions and, on occasion, save records of their ?nancial transactions to their devices. Accordingly, there is {amiable cause to Relieve that?Cohen?s elect??c?devices contain evidence of banking activity, including the existence of bank accounts or assets that Cohen did not disclose to Sterling or Melrose. (1. Fourth, from my review of records produced by Apple, I know that Cohen communicates using text message as well as communications applications. These applications that Cohen has downloaded onto a phone include, but are not limited to, WhatsApp, Signal, and Dust. I know from my review of toll records and text messages that, in particular, Cohen communicated with -lsing these applications. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s cellphones 4 the Subject Devices will contain messages that are not otherwise accessible relating to the Subject Offenses. 54. Based on my training and experience, I know that individuals who engage in ?nancial crimes commonly use computers to communicate with rec-conspirators, keep financial lodgers, and retain fraudulent documents. As a result, they often store data on their computers related to their illegal activity, which can include logs of online or cellphone-based ?cha with co?conspirators; email correspondence; contact information of co-conspirators, including telephone numbers, email addresses, and identi?ers for instant messaging and social medial accounts; bank account numbers; andfor records of uses of funds. 71 201103.02 Ql?F'll Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 173 of 201 55. Based on my training andexperience, I also know that, where computers are used in furtherance of criminal activity, evidence of the criminal activity can often be found months or even years after it occurred. This is typically true because: 0 Electronic ?les can be stored on a hard drive for years at little or no cost and users thus have little incentive to delete data that may be useful to consult in the future. 0 Even when a user does choose to delete data, the data can often be recovered months or years later with the appropriate forensic tools. When a ?le is ?deleted? on a home computer, the data contained in the ?le does not actually disappear, but instead remains stored elsewhere on the computer. Similarly, ?les that have been viewed on the Internet are generally downloaded into a temporary Internet directory or ?cache,? which is only overwritten as the ?cache? ?lls up and is replaced with more recently viewed Internet pages. Thus, the ability to retrieve from a hard drive or other electronic storage media depends less on when the ?le was created or viewed than on a particular user?s operating system, storage capacity, and computer habits. - In the event that a user changes computers, the user will typically transfer ?les from the old computer to the new computer, so as not to lose data. In addition, users often keep backups of their data on electronic storage media such as thumb drives, ?ash memory cards, CD-ROMs, or portable hard drives. 56. Based on the foregoing, I respect?illy submit there is probable cause to believe that Cohen engaged in the Suhj ect Offenses, and that evidence of this criminal activity is likely to be found in the Subject Premises, on computers and electronic media found in the Subject Premises, and on the Subject Devices. In particular, there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of the Subject Offenses, as more described in Section II of Attachments A, B, C, D, and to the proposed warrants, including the following: a. Evidence necessary to establish the occupancy or ownership of the Subject Premises, including without limitation, utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes, addressed correspondence, bank statements, identi?cation documents, and keys. b. Evidence misting to Sterling, Melrose, andfor taxi medallions. 72 201108.02 on the hard drive, in ?slack?space,? until it is overwitten by new data teammat? be? -II- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 174 of 201 c. Evidence relating to. a plan, proposal, or agreement for Cohen audfor entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to _ndfor entities associated with him. d. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling andfor Melrose. e. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and?purp?e Ef??ments made semen?canteens or file nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. f. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen tit Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. g. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records. 11. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen. and_ and any payments try-:0 Cohen. 73 201108.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 175 of 201 p. Communications with others, including-andtor other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances; q. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial instiuition related to the intended pmpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial instimtion; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution; Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Suhiect b??enses under investigation. Procedures for Searching ESI A. Execution of Warrant for E81 57. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure provides that a warrant to search for and seize property ?may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or 74 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 176 of 201 copying of electronically stored information . . . for later review.? Consistent with Rule 41, this application requests authorization to seize any computer devices and storage media and transport them to an appropriate law enforcement facility for review. This is typically necessary for a number of reasons: 0 First, the volume of data on computer devices and storage media is often impractical for law enforcement personnel to review in its entirety at the search location. i Second, because computer data is particularly vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modi?cation inf?destruction, coi?piner de_vrces are ideally examined?i?conutolled environment, such as a law enforcement laboratory, where trained personnel, using specialized software, can make a forensic copy of the storage media that can be subsequently reviewed in a manner that does not change the underlying data. I Third, there are so many types of computer hardware and software in use today that it can be impossible to bring to the search site all of the necessary technical manuals and specialized personnel and equipment potentially required to safely access the underlying computer data. a? Fourth, many factors can complicate and prolong recovery of data from a computer device, including the increasingly common use of passwords, or other features or con?gurations designed to protect or conceal data on the computer, which often talte considerabletime and resources for forensic personnel to detect and resolve. 58. As discussed herein, Squire Patton Boggs is a functioning law ?rm that conducts legitimate business unrelated to Cohen?s commission of the Subject Offenses. Subject Premises- 2 is an of?ce located inside of Squire Patton Boggs?s New York of?ce. In order to execute the warrant in the most reasonable fashion, law enforcement personnel will attempt to investigate on the scene of what computers or storage media, if any, must be seized or copied, and what computers or storage media need not be seized or copied. Law enforcement personnel will speak with Squire Patton Boggs personnel on the scene as may be appropriate to determine which ?les and electronic devices within Subject Premises-2 belong to or were used by Cohen. While, based on the foregoing, it does not appear that Cohen shared electronic devices or a server with Squire Patton Boggs, where appropriate, law enforcement personnel will copy data, rather than physically seize i5 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 177 of 201 computers, to reduce the extent of any disruption of Squire Patton Boggs?s operations. If, after inspecting the seized computers elf?site, it is determined that some or all of this equipment is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the evidence, the Government will return it. 59. Additionally, because Cohen is an attorney, and claims to serve as a personal attorney for Trump, the review of evidence seized from the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will be conducted pursuant to established screening procedures to ensure that the law enforcement in a manner reasonany designed to protect an}r attorney?client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures will include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to review potentially privileged communications and determine which communications to release to the investigation and prosecution team. B. Accessing ESI on the Subject Devices 60. As described above, the Subject Devices are both Apple brand devices. 61. I know from my training and experience, as well as from information found in publicly available materials including those published by Apple, that some models of Apple devices such as iPhones and iPads o?'er their users the ability to unlock the device via the use of a ?ngerprint or thumbprint (collectively, ??nger-print?) in lieu of a numeric or alphanumeric passcode or password. This feature is called Touch ID. I also know that the Apple iPhone offers its users the ability to unlock the device via the use of facial recognition (through infrared and visible light scans) in lieu of a ntnneric or alphanumeric passcode or password. This feature is called Face ID. 62. If a user enables Touch ID on a given Apple device, he or she can register up to 5 ?ngerprints that can be used to unlock that device. The user can then use any of the registered 76 . 201T.D3.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 178 of 201 ?ngerprints to unlock the device by pressing the relevant ?nger(s) to the device?s Touch ID sensor, which is found in the round button (often referred to as the ?home? button) found at the bottom center of the front of the device. If a user enables Face ID on a given Apple device, he or she can unlock the device by raising the iPhone to his or her face, or tapping the screen. In my training and experience, users of Apple devices that offer Touch ID or Face ID often enable it because it is considered to be a more convenient way to unlock the device than by entering a numeric or or assm?a?'a more secur?e?waymteat?dmsEntents. 63. In some circumstances, Touch ID or Face ID cannot be used to unlock a device that has either security feature enabled, and a passcode or password must be used instead. These circumstances include: (1) when the device has just been turned on or restarted; (2) when more than 48 hours has passed since the last time the device was unlocked; (3) when the passcode or password has not been entered in the last 6 days, and the device has not been unlocked via Touch ID in the last 3 hours or the device has not been unlocked via Face ID in the last 4 hours; (4) the device has received a remote lock command; or ?ve unsuccess?ll attempts to unlock the device via Touch ID or Face ID are made. 64. The passcodes or passwords that would unlock the Subject Devices are not known to law enforcement. Thus, it will likely be necessary to press the ?ngers of the user of the Subject Devices to the devices? Touch ID sensor, or hold the Subject Devices in front of the user's face to activate the Face ID sensor, in an attempt to unlock the devices for the purpose of executing the search authorized by this warrant. Attempting to unlock the releVant Apple devices via Touch ID with the use of the ?ngerprints of the user, or via Face ID by holding the device in front of the user?s face, is necessary because the goverrunent may not otherwise be able to access the data contained on those devices for the purpose of executing the search authorized by this warrant. 77 1017.03.02 ~1r - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 179 of 201 65. Based on these facts and my training and experience, it is likely that Cohen is the user of the Subject Devices, and thus that his ?ngerprints are among those that are able to unlock the Subject Devices via Touch ID or his face is able to unlock the Subject Devices via Face 1D. 66. Although I do not know which of a given user?s 10 ?ngerprints is capable of unlocking a particular device, based on my training and experience 1 know that it is common for a user to unlocks Touch ID-enabled Apple device via the ?ngerprints on thumbs or index ?ngers. ?In the eveh?t?t Isa Dairies above within the ?ve attempts permitted by Touch 1D, this will simply result in the device requiring the entry of a password or passcode before it can be unlocked. 67. I also [crew from my training and experience, and my review of publicly available materials published by Apple that Apple brand devices, such as the Subject Devices, have a feature that allows a user to erase the contents of the device remotely. By logging into the Internet, the user or any other individual who possesses the user?s account information can take steps to completely wipe the contents of the device, thereby destroying evidence of criminal conduct, along with any other information on the device. The only means to prevent this action is to disable the device?s ability to connect to the Internet immediately upon seizure, which requires either access to the device itself to alter the settings, or the use of specialized equipment that is not consistently available to law enforcement agents at every arrest. 63. Due to the foregoing, I. request that the Court authorize law enforcement to press the ?ngers (including thumbs) of Cohen to the Touch sensors the Subject Devices, or hold the Subject Devices in front of Cohen?s face, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the Subject Devices via Touch ID or Face ID in order to search the contents as authorized by this warrant. ?3 201103.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 180 of 201 C. Review of 69. Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media andfor the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement o?icers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, attorneys for the gorermnent, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government 'reviEr??he'ESIco?tai?d'the?i? for informatio?esponsive'to' the war-rant? 70. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to determine which ?les or other ESI contain evidence or fruits of the Subject Offenses. Such techniques may include, for example: 0 surveying directories or folders and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); 0 conducting a ?le-by-?le review by ?opening? or reading the ?rst few ?pages" of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents (analogous to performing a cursory examination of each document in a ?le cabinet to determine its relevance); a ?scanning" storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted data or deliberately hidden ?les; and . performing electronic keyword searches through all electronic storage areas to determine the existence and location of data potentially related to the subject matter of the investigation?; and a reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer 1was used. 3? Keyword searches alone are typically inadequate to detect all relevant data. For one thing, keyword searches work only for text data, yet many types of ?les, such as images and videos, do not store data as searchable text. Moreover, even as to text data, there may be information properly subject to seizure but that is not captured by a keyword search because the information does not contain the keywords being searched. ?all. 79 2017.03.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 181 of 201 71. Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to restrict their search to data falling within the categories of evidence speci?ed in the warrant. Depending on the circumstances, however, law enforcement personnel may need to conduct a complete review of all the E81 from seized devices or storage media to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. D. Return "it til: the necessmv??- to retrieve and preserve the data, and the devices themselves are not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return these items, upon request. Computer data that is or unreadable will not be returned unless law enforcement personnel have determined that the data is not an histrurnentality of the offense, (ii) a fruit of the criminal activity. contraband, (iv) otherwise unlawfully possessed, or evidence of the Subject Offenses. 30 2017.03.02 . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 182 of 201 IV. Conclusion and Ancillary Provisions 73. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request the court to issue a warrant to seize the items and information speci?ed in Attachments 111,13, 0; o, and to this affidavit and to the Search and Seizure Warrants In light of the con?dential nature of the continuing investigation, I respeot??ly request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith he maintained under seal until the Court orders othelwise. Special Agent FBI Sworn to before me on 3th day of April, 2018 Ht?? 3. (PH-nan Hon. HENRY B. PITMAN mango STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 31 2010.03.02 Case Document 43-2 -Filed 03/19/19 Page 183 of 201 A0 93 (BDNY Res. 05l10] Search and Seizure Warrant 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of {Brie?y describe tireprcpenjr to be searched? or Hemp? the person by Home and address) Case N0, Loewe Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 17?23. New York, New York 10005, and any closed contained therein, See Attachment - . - To: - Any authorised law enforcement of?cer I An app?da?o?bfd?s'derhllaw of the following person or property located in the Southern District of New York dispersion or describe the prepare}! to he senrchedcnd give its Jeanine): Loewe Regency Hotel. 540 Park Avenue, Room New York, New York 10065, and any closed containerelttems contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described ab use, is believed to conceal outgrew: as person or describe res property to be See Attachment I ?nd that the af?davitt?s), or any rec orded testhnony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. . YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before at [3 I (not re exceed l4 ohms) in the daytime 6 :00 aen. to 10 pm El at any time in the day or night as I ?nd reasonable cause has been established. Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property . taken to the person from whore, or ??orn whose premises, the propertjr was taken, or 1e are the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. The of?cer executing this warrant, or an o?lcer present during the execution of the Warrant, must prepare an inventory as required by law and rotten this warrant and inventor}r to the Clerk of the Court. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should he ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials I ?nd that immediate noti?cation ma},r have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 (except for delayr of trial), and authorize the of?cer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched 01? seized (clrechhe hex) Dior days {not to exceed 30). Sunni, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Dateandtimeissued: ?#343 733 Li! HrnC?? g- pliant-?L 1 Judge signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Hennr El. Plhnan. US. Maolstrate ductile - Printed Home ondr?ltle Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 184 of 201 AD 93 (Rev. Search and SeizumWarrant (Page 2) Return Case No; Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with: Inventory made in the presenee of Inventor}.r of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized: Certi?cation I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correot and was returned along with the original warrant to the Court. Date: Executing o?icar ?s signature Priirfednome and ri?e -.--.I l. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 185 of 201 ATTACHMENT 1) I. Premises to be Searched??nhject Premises-4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?ii?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all loci-zed and closed containers found therein: Room 1728 located inside the Lo ews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10055- The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and 61st Street. Subject _Preniises~?l- is located on the 17th ?oor of the hotel. - A, Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?4 are evidence; fruits, and irratonnentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy, as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false statements to a financial institution), 1343 (wire hand), and 1344 (bank ?end), and 52 U.S.C. and 30109(d)(l)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Meh'ose Credit Union, andfor taxi medallions, from Januaryr 1, 2013 to the present. b. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen andfor entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including tc_andfor entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modifyr loans that Cohen has with Sterling andfor Maltese. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any do cements that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or ?'om Essential Consultants or the nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen d: Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose ofpavments made to or ?om Michael D. Cohen 85 Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen dc Associates. -, Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personallyr or through entities,'inc1uding tart returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. relation to agreements, loans, andfor ?nancial transactions between andfor entities controlled by Cohen and 13 201103.132 awe-m "7-q'I' -- - - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 186 of 201 and any payments by -to Cohen, from January 1, AULL Lu Lin-r BLWUHEN o. Comrhnuications with others, including?ntdfor other accountants, - relating to Cohen?s bani: accounts, taxes, debts, ?nances, ?'om January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and ether ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial institution related to the intended ptn'pose of an account or loan at that ?nancial institution; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds flowing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. q. Evidence of Cohen? intent as it relates to the Subject Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized ?om Subject Premises?4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored information falling withhi the categories set forth in Section ILA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBooIc Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any .Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 14 emanate -- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19? Page 187 of 201 i belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, poltable hard drives, dislr drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the-copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized ?om Subject Premises-4 also include: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any solved or copied computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any. physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer o?ware?manuale er? othersmfermatien?n? concerning the con?guration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the BSI contained therein for information responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate information responsive to the warrant, including, for example: It surveying various ?le ?directories? and the individual files they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les}; opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such files in order to determine their precise contents; scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted ?les or deliberately hidden files; a performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and - reviewing metadata, system information, configuration files, registry data, and any I other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the compute: was used. 15 2017.03.02: - -. -- - Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 188 of 201 Lavv enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to search onlyT for ?les, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identi?ed in Sections ILA and 113 of this Attachment. However, law enfoinement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the 1381 from seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonably designed to protect any attornepclient or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to -- . 16 actress: - . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 189 of 201 IV. Conclusion and Ancillary Provisions I 3'3. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request the court to issue a Warrant to seize the items and information speci?ed in Attachments A, B, C, D, and]? to this af?davit and to the Search and Seizure Warrants. 74. - In light of the con?dential nature of the continuing investigation, I request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith be maintained under seal until the Court orders otherwise. Special Agent FBI Sworn to before me on 3th day Dprr?, 2013 87/ M: use as use MW UNIT-EH STATES MA GISTEATE JUDGE 31 201mmCase 1: 18- -cr- -OO-602 WHP Document 43- 2 Filed 03/19/19 Page-i? 190 of 201 was" was no 93 (sonv Rev. onto} Search and Seimre Warrant taxi? hi m- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York 18MAG 2968 Case No. In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe ine proper-g) to be searched or identi?) the person by name and address) Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1623, New York, New York 10065, and any dosed containers-items contained therein, See Attachment A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement officer An application by a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government requests the search of the following person or property located in the Southern District of New York (regain? the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location}: Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1623 {a suite encompassing rooms 1623, 1629, and 1630} (collectively, ?Room 1623"}, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containersiitems contained therein. See Attachment A The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal ?denir?! the person or describe the properhr to be seizeo?l: See Attachment A I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person. or property YOU ARE CDMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before if if, {not in erceeri is! time} I if in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 p.111. at any time in the day or night as 1 find reasonable cause has been established - - Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a'lreceipt; for the property taken to the person ?-om whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken, The Of?cer executing this warrant, or an of?cer present during the execution of the warrant, must prepare an inventory as required by law and return this warrant and inventory to the Clerk of the Court. El Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be filed under seal by the Clerk of the Court. El I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed In 18 U. ..C 2705 {except for delay of tool), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose pmperty, will be. searched 01? seized (check the appropriate box) Elfor days (no! in exceed 30} - Cluntii, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date tit . . "11 Date and time issued: if see/f3?, f? 2 ?le? ?We Migrant-tire. City and St?t?i New York. NY Hon. Henry B. Pitman U. S. magistrate Judoe Printed name and rifle Mela: '1 - - --1 .1. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 191 of 201 A0 93 (Rev. Search and Seizure Warrant {Page 2) Return Case No; Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with: Inventory made in the presence of Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized: Certi?cation i3. I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original warrant to the Court. Date: Executing o?eer '5 signature Printed Home and title r-Tn'vw- Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 192 of 201, ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?4?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Room 1628 (a suite encompassing rooms 1628, 1629, and 1630) (collectively, ?Room 1628?), located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and 61st Street. Subject Premises? 4 is located on the 16th ?oor of the hotel. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 are evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy, as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud), and 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Melrose Credit Union, and/or taxi medallions, from January 1, 2013 to the present. b. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen and/or entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to and/or entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/or Melrose. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essential Consultants or the nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. f. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and ?and/or entities controlled by 2 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 193 of 201 and any payments by_to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. 0. Communications with others, including?and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial institution related to the intended purpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial institution; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of funds ?owing into ?an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. q. Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Subject Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored information falling Within the categories set forth in Section ILA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBook Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 3 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 194 of 201 belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, portable hard drives, disk drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any seized or copied? computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer devices or storage media, including any hardware or software manuals or other information concerning the configuration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 3. Any evidence concerning theidentities or locations of those persons with access to, control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?Cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the E81 contained therein for information responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate information responsive to the warrant, including, for example: 0 surveying various ?le ?directories? and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outsideof a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); 0 opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; 0 scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted ?les or deliberately hidden ?les; 0 performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and 0 reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by Whom the computer was used. 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 195 of 201 Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to search only for files, documents, or other electronically stored information Within the categories identi?ed in Sections ILA and ILB of this Attachment. However, lav.?r enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the 1381 from seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonably designed to protect any attorney-client or other applicable privilege. lWhen appropriate, the procedures shall include use? of a designated ?filter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2017.03.02 I I . . .-.- . Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 196 of 201 AID 93 (S DNY Rev. 65! it) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y dascribe the property to be searched or identify the person by name and or?ressj Case No, Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1626, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containersiitems contained therein. See AttachmentA SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement of?cer An application by a federal law enforcement of?cer or an attorney for the government requests the search of the following person or property located in the Southern District of New York {identi?i the person or describe the prepare! to be searched and give its location): 1 Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1628 {a suite encompassing rooms 1626, 1629, and 1630} (collectively, ?Room 1628"}, New York. New York 10065, and any closed containersiitems contained therein, See Attachment A The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal defenc?z the person or describe the property to be seized): - See Attachment A I ?nd that the or an}r recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before Ll" i if? i? (eei to exceed i4 days) . in the daytime 6:any time in the day or night as [?nd reasonable cause has been established. Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. The of?cer executing this warrant, or an of?cer present during the execution of the warrant, must prepare an inventory as required by law and return this warrant and imie'ntor}r to the Clerk of the Court. Cl Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. . USMJ initiate I find that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 (except for delay of trial), and authorize the of?cer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched 01? (check the appropriate box) ij?l' days (not to exceed Duntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date and time issued: ul?'i ?Hing 7 i 3 f9! Hf?i?? E?f?i?ew Judge ?3 signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henrv B. Pitman. U.S. Maoistrate Judge Printed Home and ride -., Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 197 of 201 A0 93 (Rev. Search and Seizure Warrant {Page 2] Return Case No; Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with: Inventory made in the presence of Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s} seized: Certi?cation I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original warrant to the Court. . Date: Executing o?icer is signature Printed name and ri?e "111- .. 7-1 ."l1r" Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 198 of 201 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-4 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?4?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Room 1628 (a suite encompassing rooms 1628, 1629, and 1630) (collectively, ?Room 1628?), located inside the Loews Regency Hotel at 540 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The building is a luxury hotel located on Park Avenue and 61st Street. Subject Premises- 4 is located on the 16th floor of the hotel. 11. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?4 are evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy, as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud), and 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: a. Evidence relating to Sterling National Bank, Melrose Credit Union, and/or taxi medallions, from January 1, 2013 to the present. b. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen and/or entities associated with him to transfer anv interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to_1nd/or entities associated with him. c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/ or Melrose. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essential Consultants or the nature of any work done by Cohen or any other individuals in connection with Essential Consultants. e. Evidence of income to Michael D. Cohen Associates, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Michael D. Cohen Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. f. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, and annual income, income sources, and other assets, whether held personally or through entities, including tax returns, personal ?nancial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions" between Cohen and ?and/or entities controlled by 2 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 199 of 201 and any payments by? l, 2012 to the present. -to Cohen, from January o. Communications with others, including?andfor other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, andfor ?nances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a ?nancial institution related to the intended purpose of an account or loan at that ?nancial institution; the nature of any business or entity associated with an account at a ?nancial institution; the source of Funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. q. Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Subject Offenses under investigation. B. Search and Seizure of Electronically Stored Information The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also include any computer devices and storage media that may contain any electronically stored inibnnation falling within the categories set forth in Section ILA of this Attachment above, including, but not limited to, a MacBook Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone 3 201103.02 - -.-.1 . .. . .. Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 200 of 201 belonging to Michael Cohen or in his possession, an Apple iPad Mini, portable hard drives, disk drives, thumb drives, and personal digital assistants. In lieu of seizing any such computer devices or storage media, this warrant also authorizes the copying of such devices or media for later review. The items to be seized from Subject Premises-4 also incltide: 1. Any items or records needed to access the data stored on any seized or copied computer devices or storage media, including but not limited to any physical keys, devices, or records of login credentials, passwords, private keys, or similar information. 2. Any items or records that may facilitate a forensic examination of the computer devices or storage media, including any hardware or software manuals or other information concerning the con?guration of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 3. Any evidence concerning theidentities or locations of those persons with access to, control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement of?Cers and agents, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the E81 contained therein for information responsive to the warrant. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to locate information responsive to the warrant, including, for example: 0 surveying various ?le ?directories? and the individual ?les they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a ?le cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); 0 opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; 0 scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted ?les or deliberately hidden ?les; 0 performing key word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine whether occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation; and reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 2017.08.02 Case Document 43-2 Filed 03/19/19 Page 201 of 201 Law enforcement. personnel will make reasonable efforts to search only for ?les, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identi?ed in Sections ILA and MB of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the ESI from seized devices or storage media if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence in a manner reasonably designed to protect any attorney-client or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2G1 198.