Case DOcument 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 1 of 269 A0 106 (Rev. 06/09) Application for a Search Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identij?) the person by name and address) Four Premises and TWO Electronic Devices, See Attached Af?davit and Riders I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search warrant and state under penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property (identify the person or describe the dingdbinariicanevices, See Attached Af?davit and Riders located in the . Southern District of New York there is now concealed (identi?) the person or describe the property to be seized): PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT AND RIDERS. The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(0) is (check one or more): [if evidence of a crime; if contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; [??property 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 O??ense Description 18 U.S.C. 371, 1005, 1014, Conspiracy, false bank entries, false statements to a ?nancial institution, 1343 and 1344, and wire fraud, bank fraud, and . 52 USC 30116 and 30109 iliegai campaign contributions The application is based on these facts: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT AND RIDER. Continued on the attached sheet. Cl Delayed notice of days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: is requested under 18 U.S.C. 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached Sheet. Printed home io'rxiti tl H?s Sworn to before me and signed in my presence. Date: 04/08/2018 7 ?inns; an, . . i y? Judge . City and state: Mam h; ease/t: B3 M?fgifii?ai?iJUdQe - .- . Case Document 48-1 A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described as (1) 502 Park Avenue, ?.\Iew York, New York 10022, (2) Michael Cohen?s 5 Of?ce at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, New York 10112, (3) Safe Deposit Box Located at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park 2 Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and (4) Filed 07/18/19 Page 2 of 269 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL Agent Af?davit in Support of Application for Search and Seizure Warrant 1728, New York, New York 10065, and Any 3 Closed Containers/Items Contained Therein, and the Electronic Devices Known and Described as (1) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number _and (2) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number Reference No. 201 8R00127 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.: deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Affiant 1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Ihave been a Special Agent with the FBI since 2009 In the course of my experience and training in these positions, I have participated 1n criminal investigations into federal offenses involving a Wide a1 ray of ?nancial crimes, including frauds on ?nancial institutions, as well as into offenses involving public corruption. I also have training and experience executing search warrants, including those involving electronic evidence. 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 2017.08.02 _Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn, Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 3 of 269 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 af?davit 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 af?davit is being submitted for the limited purpose of ?Tm"?mrT' We?stablishing?probab ISO 21115 it?doe ?al if the fact S?thaHrhaVB "16211116 during?the' 60111. 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 Premisesml 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- ?oor 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?1.1 Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises?l is Cohen? full-time residence. b. Subject Premises-Q is an of?ce 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 in?a, I have learned that on or about October 28, 2015, Cohen transferred Subject Premises-l into atrust. 3 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 4 of 269 is a 66-?oor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller IPlaza. 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 Premises-=3 is a safety deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019. Based on my review of records 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 1728 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 6lst 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 from January 8 to April 8, 2018.2 On or about January 29, 2018, Cohen sent an 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 Premises-4. In particular, on or about 2 Although the quoted price contemplated a three-month stay from anuaiy 8 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 5 of 269 April 8, 2018, law enforcement agents using a 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?l and Subject Device?2 (collectively, the ?Subject Devices?) are particularly described as: Based on my review of records maintained by I have learned that Subject Device-l is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained I have learned that Subject Device-1 is presently located in the Southern District of New York. b. Subject Device-2 is an Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number ased on my review of records maintained by I 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 information; 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 1728 appears to be a suite, whereas Room 1628 appears to be a standard room. 5 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 6 of 269 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, ??uits, and instrumentalities of entries); 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 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?Subject Offenses?). 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 ??om 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: 2017.08.02 rm.. Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page about July 18, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account -@grnail.com (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 _@grnai1.com (the ?Cohen iCloud Account? and the ?Cohen iCloud Warrant?). 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 Account4 and November 13, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Warrant?). 8. The SCO has since referred certain aspects of its investigation into Cohen to the USAO, which is working with the New York Field Office. As part of that referral, on or about February 8, 2018, the SCO provided the USAO with all non?privileged emails and other content information obtained pursuant to the First Cohen Gmail Warrant, Second Cohen Gmail Warrant, and Cohen Warrant. On or about March 7, 2018, the SCO provided the USAO 4 Based on my review of this warrant and the affidavit in support of it, I know that the warrant did not specify 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. 2017.03.02 ?01:5: Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 8 of 269 with all non-privileged content obtained pursuant to the Cohen iCloud Warrant.5 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, 2018, the USAO sought and obtained search warrants for emails in the Cohen Gmail Account and the Cohen Account, among other accounts, sent or received between November 14, 2017 and February 28, 2018 (the ?Third Cohen Gmail Warrant? subject to an ongoing review for privilege by an SDNY ?lter team.6 10. The emails search warrants described above are referred to collectively as the ?Cohen Email Warrants.? 11. On or about April 7, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained a warrant for prospective and historical cellphone location information for Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2. On or about April 8, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained authority to employ an electronic technique, commonly known as a ?trig ger?sh,? to determine the location of Subject Device-I 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 defraud 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, 201 8. 6 On or about February 28, 2018 and April 7, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained Rule 41 search warrants authorizing the search of emails and content obtained pursuant to previously issued warrants for additional subject offenses. 8 2017.08.02 -: Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 269 campaign contribution in October 2016 to then?presidential candidate Donald Trump. As noted, 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. 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 77777 approximately $22 million in debt he owed on taxi medallion loans from 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; failedto 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 _1cquisition 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 fraudulently induce the banks to relieve him of certain repayment obligations and personal guarantees that Cohen and his wife had signed. 14. Additionally, the investigation has revealed that shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Cohen made a payment of $130,000 from a limited liability corporation to Stephanie Clifford, an individual who is alleged to have had an extramarital affair with then?candidate Trump. This payment was made to Clifford in exchange for an agreement not to make any public disclosures about her alleged affair with Trump. As set forth below, there is 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 10 of 269 probable cause to believe that Cohen made this payment to Clifford for the purpose of in?uencing the presidential election, and therefore that the payment was an excessive in?kind contribution to the Trump campaign. 15. Based on my review of emails obtained ?om the Cohen Email Warrants, information 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 ~70 WG-- medallion debt, receive documents and/or conduct meetings related to his consulting work, receive documents and/or conduct meetings relating to his ?nances and assets, some of which, as noted above and as detailed ?irther herein, he has concealed ?om the banks in connection with the re?nancing of his taxi medallion debt, receive and send documents relating to his payment to Clifford, and house and operate electronic devices that were utilized in connection with, among other things, the taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s consulting work, and his payment to Clifford. 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 his payment to Clifford, as well as electronic devices containing such evidence, all of which constitute or contain evidence of the Subject Offenses, Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises=2 likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s consulting work, his ?nances, and his payment to Clifford, 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 Cohen?s payment to Clifford. Subject Premises-4 likely contains electronic 10 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 11 of 269 devices, including Subject Device-l 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 returns, and his payment to Clifford. 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 Subjects9 Commission of the Subject Offenses7 (1) Cohen ?s Statements to Sterling National Bank 16. 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 (?Melrose?), 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 and/or relieve himself ?'om their obligations, including the personal guarantees. As part of that effort, Cohen made a series of representations to Sterling and Meh'ose 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 of taxi medallions, as well as my palticipation in interviews with a Sterling executive vice-president (the ?Sterling Employee-1?) and two other 7 In 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?1 or Subject Device-2, although in certain limited instances Cohen used a landline or other phone. 11 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 12 of 269 Sterling employees (?Sterling Employee?2? and V?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).8 Cohen?s purchase of these New York taxi medallions was originally ?nanced by ?e 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 make his loan payments to Capital One. b. In early 2014, Cohen became a customer of Sterling when he sought to refmance a mortgage on a rental property that he owned. In or around April 2014, Cohen raised with Sterling the prospect of re?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 a result of the emergence of ride-sharing services, such as Uber?taxi 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 8 One of these companies, Mad Dog Cab Corp, was jointly owned by Sondra Cohen, who I believe is Cohen?s mother. 12 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 13 of 269 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 files?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 Cohen? entere dainto-lo anagreements 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 for 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?1. In total, Sterling agreed to lend approximately $22 million to the Cohens? companies. (1. 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 13 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 14 of 269 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 $77,190,000.10 From my review of a Sterling credit memorandum, dated September 29, 2014, I know that Sterling viewed the transaction tavorablybecause, accounting 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. Iknow 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 iirom 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 Cohenr? which according to the email and toll records for Cohen?s cellphone occurred on September 8, 10 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 $23,550,000, and a net worth of $75,870,000. 14 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 15 of 269 2015?during which Cohen told Sterling Employee-2, in sum and substance, about his cash ?ow 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 ?indieate[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? payments. g. From my review of records maintained by Sterling and my participation in an interview with?Sterlmg again on September 28, 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. 1 know from my review of records maintained by Sterling that between in or about September 2015 and November 2015, 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 I 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 8, 2017. h. I know from interviews with Sterling Employee?l 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 11 Based on my review of property records, I know that on or about October 28, 2015, around the time period when Sterling raised the possibility of Cohen posting his personal residence?w- Subject Premises- l?as collateral, Cohen transferred Subject Premises?1 into a trust. 15 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 16 of 269 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?l 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 know from my review of records maintained by Sterling, and my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?2, that as a _??Sterling 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 amoun i. Pursuant to the participation agreements between Sterling and Melrose, Sterling was required to secure Melrose?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 Melrose agree to the terms. On or about May 2, 2017, Sterling Employee?l 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 financial information from the parties. On or about June 7, 2017, Sterling 16 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 17 of 269 Employee-1 emailed Cohen to request an ?updated personal ?nancial statemen 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, Jef?ey Getzel, stating, in sum and substance, that wr??finfo?rmati?on? 111111677 statementrcame-??om- eohen?and?th athetzelrrhad notveen?rmeddts?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 $2,825,000. 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 investments, and his $11,000,000 personal residence.12 Based on my review of reports of law enforcement interviews of Sterling Employee-1, I have learned that Sterling Employee-1 reviewed 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?1, in sum and substance, that the May 2017 Financial Statement was accurate. 1. On or aboutAugust 16, 2017, Sterling Employee-1 emailed Cohen and 1- attaching a non?binding term sheet memorializing the potential transaction between 12 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, 1 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 value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 17 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 18 of 269 Sterling, Melrose, Cohen, and - The term sheet included a cover letter addressed to Cohen at Subject Premises-l. The parties negotiated the provisions of the term sheet and, on or about September 5, 2017, Sterling Employee-1 sent l_1nd Cohen a copy of the executed term sheet. According to the term sheet,_would borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Melrose, to be secured by the medallions that -7vas to acquire ??om Cohen. m. As partof the agreement, 13inprincipalehich?ien~1~mww_ 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 ?fty 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 $357,167 and $275,789, respectively, in the form of charge-offs. According to Sterling Employee- 1, Sterling was willing to divide therepayment of the outstanding principal balancew?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?l, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient liquidity to pay the hill 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. 11. Based on my review of emails sent by Sterling employees, I have learned that because the transaction between the parties was subject to full credit undeiwriting by Sterling and Melrose (as well as Melrose?s regulators at NCUA), in August and September 2017, Sterling 18 2017.08.02 - Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 19 of 269 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. I 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 2017 Financial Statement. A day later, on October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a statement of ?nancial condition, dated September A 0. Like the May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from Jeffrey Getzel, Cohen? accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that the information in the statement came from Cohen, and that Getzel had not con?rmed its accuracy or completeness. The September 2017 Financial Statement stated that Cohen had total assets of $33,430,000, 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, I know that this further decline in assets can be explained primarily by reported depreciation in the value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 14 Notably, the September 2017 Financial Statement valued each of Cohen?s thirty?two New York taxi medallions at approximately $180,187.50, which was considerably less than the $650,000 valuation ascribed to each medallion in the sheet. 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 20 of 269 time, he indicated was held by a trust).15 The September 2017 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 montlilyrloan?paym?ents on his 2, Cohen informed Sterling, in sum and substance, that he had insufficient 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 2017 Financial Statement, 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, 2017, 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 29, 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?1. Cohen did not make an immediate payment on the loans, but instead sent an email to Sterling Employee?1 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 Getzel, I know that in 2015, Cohen transferred his residence to a trust. He did not disclose that transaction to Getzel or Sterling until in or about September 2017. 20 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 21 of 269 stating that during the closing of the Cohen=- transaction, Cohen would ?bring all payments up to date as well as deposit the payoff differential.? Cohen 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 Comm-transaction, however, did not close. On or about January and? stated~thatiatethisw time there is no deal with Michael Cohen. Some of the numbers have changed and we are not prepared to go forward.? 7 3. 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--;lea1 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 Employee-3 spoke several times to Cohen on or about January 30, 2018 about paying down and/or restructuring Cohen?s outstanding taxi medallion loans. On 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. On 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 22 of 269 $20,500,000. Cohen also suggested revised interest payment amounts. The signature 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. 11. 011an 01 8; A and?pl?opo 36 77"" @ww I ?[p]ayment 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 .250m.? (Emphasis in original.) Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient ?nancial resources to post additional collateral or pre??ind 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 ?nancial 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 the 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 23 of 269 (ii) Cohen Made Materiel Misrepresentations About His Finances in Banks Cohen Concealed from Sterling and Melrose Cash Derived from Consulting Work 17. As set forth in detail below, despite multiple written and oral representations by Cohen to Sterling (and, by extension, Melrose?) that he had insuf?cient funds to pay down the principal balance of the medallion loans, make interest payments, or pay past-due amounts, it appears that between 2016 and the present, Cohen opened and maintained bank en. weave?we;? ankw in 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 (?First Republic Employee?2?), I have learned, among other things, the following: 16 Based on my review of a report of an interview conducted with an employee of Melrose, I have learned that, pursuant to the participation agreement between Sterling and Melrose, Cohen? 5? ?nancial statements and other records in Sterling?s possession were forwarded to Melrose so that Melrose could make a determination as to whether to approve of the Cohen; transaction. Based on my review of reports of interviews with Melrose employees, 1 also know that Cohen called employees at Melrose regarding the 23 2017.08.02 a Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 24 of 269 a. Cohen and his wife have been customers of First Republic since approximately June 2011. 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,17 his primary physical address is the address for Subject Premises-1. 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 Consultants Account?). Cohen was the only . account opening documents, the primary address for Essential Consultants LLC was the address for Subject Premises-1. When Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, First Republic Employee-1 conducted an in?person interview of Cohen. In response to a series of know-your- customer questions about the purpose of the accountw?the answers to which First Republic Employee-1 entered into a f01m18??Cohen 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 ?om his consulting business?which he said was not his main source of income?separate ?'om 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 17 Certain fmancial institutions are required to conduct such procedures pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. See 31 U.S.C. 5318; 31 CPR. 1020.220. 13 First Republic Employee-1 first ?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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 25 of 269 appear to have received?money in connection with real estate consulting work; in addition, the account has received substantial payments from foreign sources. c. I know from my review of First Republic bank 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 profile for the residential and commercial real?estate consulting services. Speci?cally, from my review following: i. Beginning on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen began receiving payments of $83,333 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, Switzerland that is controlled by Russian national Viktor Vekselberg. From January 2017 to August 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received seven payments totaling $583,332.98 from 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 financial subsidiary of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis International AG (?Novartis?). Between April 2017 and February 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received eleven wire payments from a Swiss bank account held in the name of Novartis, each in the amount of $99,980, for atotal of $1,099,780. Beginning in or about April 2017, 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 26 of 269 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 ?'om In total, 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 from which the money was sent is Korea Aerospace W??e?w produces and sells fixed?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 Kazkommertsbank, a Kazakhstani bank. The listed account holder at Kazkommertsbank was a second Kazakhstani bank named BTA Bank, A0. A message accompanying the wire payment indicated that the payment was a consulting fee as per Inv DD May 10, 2017 consulting agreement DD 08 05 2017 CNTR 7 08/05/2017.? vi. In total, from 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 anualy 10, 2018, 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 Associates, PC. (the Accoun 26 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 27 of 269 Cohen was the only authorized signatory on the account. According to account opening documents, the primary address for Account was the address for Subject Premises?1. Among other things, the Account received ten wire transfers and one check from an account in the name of Squire Patton Boggs, a law ?rm. 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 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 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 ?'om the Cohen Gmail Account, the Cohen Account, and public sources, I have learned the following: a. On or about April 28, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with KAI. 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 Premises?2. 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 27 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 28 of 269 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 ect~PremisesLm 2. In the email, Cohen attached a document purp01ting to be a ?Consulting Agreement? between BTA Bank and Essential Consultants dated as of about May 8, 2017. 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 BTA Bank, and that BTA Bank would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand US Dollars,? disbursed through payments of $150,000. On or about May 10, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an employee of BTA Bank, and attached to the email an invoice to BTA 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.? 0. 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 Services desires [Essential Consultants]?s assistance and advice.? The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises- 1. The contract calls for ?to pay the Consultant for his services . . . a consulting fee of Fifty 28 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 29 of 269 Thousand ($50,000) Dollars . . . per month.? Based on my review of reports of intelviews 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 Care Act in [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 Novartis employees, I 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 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 30 of 269 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 Getzel (as noted above, Cohen?s accountant at the time), my participation in an interview with Getzel, and my review of notes and I have learned the following: aT?In? Cohenwate Sub ectePremises-az?iAt - the meeting, Cohen told Getzel, in sum and substance, that he had set up a law practice called Michael D. Cohen Associates RC, and a consulting company called Essential Consultants LLC. Cohen told Getzel, in sum and substance, that he expected to earn $75,000 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. b. In or about October 2017, if not earlier, Getzel was preparing a personal fmancial statement for Cohen. On or about October 6, 2017, Getzel sent an email to Cohen in which Getzel wrote that ?[a]ttached is a draft of the new PFS as of September 30, 2017? and attached a draft of the September 2017 Financial Statement. The draft statement re?ected that as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had only $1,250,000 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 of approximately $45,630,000, leaving him purportedly over $12 million in debt. In thesame email, Getzel questioned Cohen, in sum and substance, about the fact that the financial 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 31 of 269 POC [sic] and Essential Consultants LLC. Please advise whether or not these should be disclosed and what value.? On or about October 6, 2017, Cohen called Getzel by telephone?which is re?ected on toll records for Cohen?s cellphone?and told Getzel, 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 Getzel, Cohen, using the Cohen Account, to (jetzel?s directed Getzel 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 Getzel, Cohen stated, have reviewed the attached statement of ?nancial condition and it to be correct and consistent with the representations that I made to your ?rm. 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 above, 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 ?'om Essential Consultants to Sterling Employee?l 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 ?om Sterling and Melrose, it appears that Cohen also substantially understated his available cash and cash equivalents in his fmancial disclosures. Speci?cally, I know ?om my review of the September 31 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 32 of 269 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, 1 have learned that Cohen had approximately $5,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2017. Additionally, as of ?F?bruary it, equivalents. Speci?cally, ?om my review of the account schedule and bank records, I have learned the following: a. Cohen has three checking and/or 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 accounts. 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 February 1, 2018, Cohen had $261,517.55 in this account. d. In addition to the Essential Consultants Account and 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 ?It! - Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 33 of 269 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 Bank?Subject Premises?3. The safety deposit box was opened on December 13, 2017 in the names of Michael and Laura Cohen. 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 had $6,268,732.59 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 Meh'ose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 were false, and that Cohen withheld information regarding approximately $5 million in funds from 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 Meh'ose 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 those loans to - 19 Based on my review of the account schedules described above, Iknow 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 hf?In-totalg asofS eptemberS 0 8-rin7hisr accounts7777 7 7 7 7 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 34 of 269 Cohen Has Unreported Interest Income 24. It appears that Cohen also hid ?rom 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 o? a surmnalyeo?b ankrec 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 Getzel, 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 _?tpproximately $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 the terms of the amended promissory note, the loan was secured by_ apartment in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. On or about April 8, 2015, Cohen and -restated the promissory note to increase the principal amount to $6,000,000.21 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 ?1 learned from Getzel that 21 The note states that the loan IS to husband and w1fe, jointly and severally. For ease of reference, I refer simply to ?-1erein. 34 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 35 of 269 promissory note, Cohen?s loan to _s an interest~on1y 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 t11a1-'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 ?We?Fig the amende d?and?re statedrepromiss ory~ enoter- ,7 77-1?- 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 $61,250 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 1-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 from an entity called totaling $61,250 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Bank. 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 - d. 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 Getzel, 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 _)ften made the payment in multiple checks. 35 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 36 of 269 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 Getzel??his accountant?about the income, and Getzel only learned about the income because he began doing _taxes in 2017.23 25. . Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen?s representations to Sterling and Melrose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 were false, and that Cohen withheld information relating to the 1nterest incomeWh'em secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Cohen Had a Side Agreement With 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 pay an above?market price for Cohen?s taxi cab medallions, and in exchange, Cohen agreed to pay _tpproximately $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-l, 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?l to Cohen and - The term sheet listed Cohen?s address as the address for Subject Premises?l. According to the term sheet, _would borrow $20,000,000 ?om Sterling and Melrose, 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 37 of 269 Cohen. At a price of $20 million for thirty-two 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. b. Additionally, an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, describing the terms of the Cohan-transaction and the new loan to i?did not mention any payments from 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 2018, 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 -1greed 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 agreement?and never had a side agreementH?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 Getzel, and my participation in an interview 37 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 38 of 269 with Getzel, I have learned the following, in substance and in part, regarding the proposed side payment ??om Cohen to? a. On or about September 19, 2017, Getzel prepared a memorandum for Cohen entitled, ?Sale of NYC Medallion Entities and Debt Assumption? (the ?Getzel Memorandum?). The Getzel Memorandum summarized the proposed transaction between Cohen and in part, as follows: ?Michael and Laura Cohen will transfer ownership of their 13 NYC medallion entities to a Buyerkwho will-"assume their b?k?irl?debte?dnessmpon the debt portfolio of the 13 entities by $500,000 and a cash payment to the Buyer of b. According to Getzel, Cohen told him the parameters of the deal, including the payment of $3,800,000 to -but Getzel did not know where Cohen was going to obtain $3,800,000 to pay - As noted above, Cohen had more than $5,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 2017, but had only disclosed in his September 2017 Financial Statement that he had $1.25 million in cash. I 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 Sterling (and Melrose), I have seen no evidence that Sterling, Melrose, or any other financial institution involved in the potential deal with Cohen and -was aware of the planned $3.8 million side payment from Cohen te- The Illega? Campaign Contribution Scheme 29. The USAO and FBI are also investigating a criminal violation of campaign finance laws by Michael Cohen. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen made 24 The reference to thirteen medallions appears to be an error by Getzel. Cohen and his wife together owned sixteen corporations, which in turn owned 32 taxi medallions. 38 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 39 of 269 an excessive contribution to the presidential election campaign of then?candidate Donald Trump in the form of a $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, an individual who was rumored to have had an extramarital affair with Trump, in exchange for her agreement not to disclose that alleged affair. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that this payment was intended to keep Clifford ?om making public statements about the rumored affair on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, and thus constitutes a campaign contribution in excess of the applicable limit. 307.7 From my rev1ew a. In or around October 2011, there were rumors published on the gossip websites heDirty. com that Trump had had an extramarital affair with Clifford, an adult ?lm actress whose screen name is Stormy Daniels, in or around July 2006. In or about October 2011, Life (it Style Magazine, a tabloid sold in supermarkets, also published an article, based on the report in heDirty.com, alleging an affair had occurred between Trump and Clifford. Both Trump and Clifford, through their representatives, issued denials in response to the articles. b. Specifically, on or about October 11, 2011, Keith Davidson, who identi?ed himself as Clifford?s attorney, sent a cease and desist letter to heDirty.com, demanding that the article regarding Trump and Clifford be removed from the website. Additionally, on or about October 12, 2011, Cohen, who was then Executive Vice?President and Special Counsel to the Trump Organization, stated to News that ?[t]he totally untrue and ridiculous story . . . emanated from a sleazy and disgusting website. . . . The Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump will be bringing a lawsuit . . . [and] Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization would like to thank and commend Stormy Daniels and her attorneys for their honesty and swift actions.? 31. On or about June 16, 2015, Trump formally launched his 2016 presidential campaign. On or about May 4, 2016, Trump became the presumptive Republican Party nominee 39 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 40 of 269 for president, and on July 19, 2016, Trump of?cially became the nominee. Based on my review of public sources, I have learned that while it does not appear that Cohen had an official title as part of the Trump campaign, on multiple occasions. Cohen made public statements on behalf of Trump or his campaign. For instance, on or about August 18, 2016, Cohen appeared on CNN to defend Trump?s polling numbers. 32. On or about October 7, 2016, he Washington Post published online a video and accompanying audio-Vin which Trump rEterred to Women in terms? in a 2005 conversation with Billy Bush, who was then the host of Access Hollywood. The following day, on October 8, 2016, Trump appeared in a video in which he stated, among other things, ?I?ve said and done things I regret and words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don?t re?ect who I am. I said it. I was wrong and I apologize.? Based on my review of public sources, I also know that representatives of the Trump Campaign stated, in sum and substance, that the Access Hollywood comment was an old and isolated incident. 33. Based on my review of public sources, including an article published in Slate magazine by a reporter who interviewed Clifford, I have learned that around this same time, in or about October 2016, Clifford was in discussions with Good Morning America show and Slate magazine, among other media sources, to provide these media outlets with her statement about her alleged relationship with Trump. According to the article in Slate, which the author based on conversations with Clifford over the telephone and by text message, Clifford wanted to be paid for her story or be paid by Trump not to disclose her accusation. As Cohen summarized in a 2018 email obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants: ?In October 2016, I was contacted 40 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 41 of 269 by counsel for Ms. Clifford stating that news outlets, including ABC News, were pursuing the 2011 story of an alleged affair between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford.? 34. From my review of telephone toll records25 and information produced pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that in the days following the Access Hollywood video, Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages, and emails with Keith Davidson, who was then Clifford? attorney, David Pecker and Dylan Howard of American Media, andWHope- Hicks; who-wa57then? W, Wimw?m?wesn- press secretary for Tlump?s presidential campaign. Based on the timing of these calls, and the content of the text messages and emails, I believe that at least some of these communications concerned the need to prevent Clifford ?om going public, particularly in the wake of the Access Hollywood story. In particular, I have learned the following: a. On October 8, 2016, at approximately 7:20 pm, Cohen received a call from Hicks. Sixteen seconds into the call, Trump joined the call, and the call continued for over four minutes.27 Based on the toll records that the USAO has- obtained to date, I believe that this was the ?rst call 25 My attribution of certain telephone numbers to certain individuals as described in this affidavit is based on my review of the vCard (virtual contact ?le) and text messages obtained from Cohen?s telephone pursuant to the iCloud Warrant. 26 Pecker is President of AMI and, according to his own statements in public reports, a personal friend of Trump. Howard is the chief content officer of AMI, who according to public records reports directly to Pecker. 27 I believe that Trump joined the call between Cohen and Hicks based on my review of toll records. Speci?cally, I know that a call was initiated between Cohen?s telephone number and Trump?s telephone number at the same time the records indicate that Cohen was talking to Hicks. After the CohenuTrump call was initiated, it lasted the same period of time as the Cohen-Hicks call. Additionally, the toll records indicate a and then Trump?s telephone number, which, based on my training and experience, means that the call was either transferred to Trump, or that Trump was added to the call as a conference or three?way call participant. In addition, based on my conversations with an FBI agent who has interviewed Hicks, I have learned that Hicks stated, in substance, that to the best of her recollection, she did not learn about the allegations made by Clifford until early November 2016. Hicks was not specifically asked about this three?way call. 41 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 42 of 269 Cohen had received or made to Hicks in at least multiple weeks, and that Cohen and Trump spoke about once a month prior to this date speci?cally, prior to this call on October 8, 2016, Cohen and Trump had spoken once in May, once in June, once in July, zero times in August, and twice in September. b. Approximately ten minutes after the call ended, Hicks and Cohen spoke again for about two minutes. David Peeker (as noted above, the President of American Media Inc., or AMI) and they connected for thi1ty seconds. Approximately four minutes later, Cohen called Pecker again and they spoke for more than a minute. Three minutes after ending his call with Pecker, Cohen received a call ?om Dylan Howard (as noted above, the Chief Content Of?cer of AMI), and they spoke for approximately a minute. According to toll records, it does not appear that Cohen and Howard spoke regularly prior to October 8, 2016, as it had been over a month since they had called each other. d. At 7:56 approximately eight minutes after his call with Howard ended, Cohen called Hicks and they connected for two minutes. At approximately the same time this call ended, Cohen received a call from Pecker, and they spoke for about two minutes. At 8:03 about three minutes after ending his call with Pecker, Cohen called Trump, and they spoke for nearly eight minutes. e. At 8:39 pm. and 8:57 Cohen received calls from Howard and spoke to him for about four and six minutes, respectively. At 9:13 about ten minutes after Cohen and Howard hung up from the second of these calls, Howard sent Cohen a text message that said: ?Keith will do it. Let?s reconvene tomorrow.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I 42 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 43 of 269 believe that when Howard wrote ?Keith,? he was referring to Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stephanie Clifford. At 3:31 now on October 9, 2016, Cohen sent Howard a text message in response that said: ?Thank you.? Eight minutes later, Cohen sent Howard atext message that said: ?Resolution Consultants LLC. is the name of the entity 1 formed a week ago. Whenever you wake, please call my cell.? f. The following day, on October 10, 2016, at 10:58 am, Howard sent a text message to Cohen and Davidson, which business opportunity. Spoke to the client this AM and they?re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.? At 12:25 pm, Davidson sent Cohen atext message that stated: ?Michael if we are ever going to close this deal In my opinion, it needs to be today. Keith.? Davidson and Cohen then spoke by phone for about three minutes. Based on my participation in this investigation, I believe that when Howard wrote that the ?client? was ?con?rmed to proceed with the opportunity,? he was referring to Clifford?s agreement in principle to accept money from Cohen in exchange for her agreement not to discuss any prior affair with then-candidate Trump.28 g. Based on my review of records obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that on or about October 10, 2016, Clifford and Davidson appear to have signed a ?side letter agreement? that stated it was an exhibit to a ?con?dential settlement agreement and mutual release? between ?Peggy Peterson? and ?David Dennison.? The purpose of the document, 28 As set forth below, AMI was also involved in a payment to model Karen McDougal. However, because these communications were in close temporal proximity to the events involving the negotiation of a payment to Clifford, the execution of the agreement with Clifford, and the payment of money to Clifford, I believe that these communications were related to Clifford. Additionally, based on my review of public statements by McDougal, I have learned that she negotiated an agreement with AMI several months prior to these communications between Cohen and Pecker, Howard, and Davidson; 43 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 44 of 269 according to the agreement, was to de?ne the ?true name and identity? of persons named by pseudonym in ?con?dential settlement agreement and mutual release.? The side letter agreement specifies the identity of ?Peggy Peterson? to be Clifford, but the space for ?Dennison?s? identity is blank. The agreement also includes a signature page for ?Peterson,? ?Dennison,? and their attorneys. The signature page is signed by ?Peterson? and his attorney, Davidson, but the document is unsigned by ?Dennison? and his attorney. Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe that DEVids?on agreement? in order to facilitate the Closing of a deal between Davidson?s client and Cohen or his client on October 10, 2016. 35. It appears that on October 13, 2016, and the days that followed, Cohen took steps to complete a transaction with Davidson, including attempting to open an account from which Cohen could transfer funds to Davidson. Speci?cally, from my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, records maintained by First Republic, as well as my participation in interviews with First Republic employees, I have learned the following: a. On the?morning of October 13, 2016, at 8:54 am, Cohen sent Pecker atext message that stated: need to talk to you.? At 9:06 am, Pecker sent a text message to Cohen that stated, called please call me back.? The tolls between Cohen and Pecker do not Show a telephone call between 8:54 am. and 9:06 am. However, based on my review of text messages, I have learned that Cohen and Pecker communicate with each other over Signal, which is an communications cellphone application that allows users to send text messages and make calls. 44 2017.08.02 .: um! Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 45 of 269 b. At 9:23 Cohen sent an email that stated ?call me? to First Republic Employee? 2. The email attached documents from the Secretary of State of Delaware indicating that Cohen had formed a limited liability company called ?Resolution Consultants on September 30, 2016. As noted above, ?Resolution Consultants? is the name of the entity that Cohen had told Howard he had formed recently after Howard said Davidson would ?do it.? At 10:44 am, Cohen called First Republic Employee-2 and told him, in sum and substance, that he needed an account in the name of ?ResolutiOn Consultants? - - -- on the checks written out of the account. Later that day, another employee at First Republic emailed Cohen account opening paperwork to complete. Cohen returned the account opening documents partially completed, but failed to provide a copy of his driver? 5 license or passport, and did not respond to the employee?s question of how he wanted to fund the account. As a result, the account was never opened. 6. On October 17, 2016, Cohen incorporated Essential Consultants LLC in Delaware. That same day, he filed paperwork to dissolve Resolution Consultants LLC. 36. Despite these steps taken by Cohen, it appears that the negotiation between Cohen and Davidson was not progressing sufficiently fast enough for Davidson or his client, Clifford, and they threatened to go public with Clifford?s allegations just days before the presidential election. Speci?cally, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, and public sources, I know the following: a. According to an article in The Washington Post, which quoted emails sent from Cohen?s email account hosted by the Trump Organization, on October 17, 2016, Davidson emailed Cohen and threatened to cancel the aforementioned ?settlement agreement2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 46 of 269 if Cohen did not complete the transaction.29 According to the article, Davidson sent Cohen a second email later in the day that stated in part, ?Please be advised that my client deems her settlement agreement canceled and void.? At 4:00 pm. that day, Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for over ?ve minutes. b. Cohen?s 4:00 pm. call with Davidson and/or Davidson?s threats to cancel the ?settlement agreemen appear to have touched off a ?urry of communications about the settlement agreement and whether i. At 4:43 Howard sent Cohen a text message that stated: ?I?m told they?re going with DailyMail. Are you aware?? One minute later, Cohen responded: ?Call me.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I understand Howard?s text to mean that he heard that Clifford was going to take her story of an extramarital affair with Trump to the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper. ii. At 4:45 Howard called Cohen and they spoke for over two minutes. Moments later, Davidson and Cohen spoke for about two minutes. At 5:03 Cohen attempted to call Trump, but the call only lasted eight seconds. This was Cohen?s ?rst call after he spoke with Davidson. iv. At 5:25 Cohen texted Howard, stating: v. At 6:44 pm, Howard responded to Cohen?s text, stating: ?Not taking my calls.? Cohen responded one minute later: ?You?re kidding. Who are you trying to reach?? Howard responded one minute later: ?The ?agent.?? Based on my involvement in this 29 Due to the partially covert nature of the investigation to this date, the USAO has not requested documents ?om the Trump Organization or Davidson, and thus does not possess the email referenced in this article. . 46 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 47 of 269 investigation, I understand Howard?s text messages to mean that he attempted to contact Davidson about the matter involving Clifford, but that Davidson was not taking Howard?s calls. vi. At 6:49 pm, Cohen called Howard and they spoke for nearly four minutes. 0. The following day, on October 18, 2016, heSmokingGun. com, a website that publishes legal documents and mugshots, published an article called: ?Donald Trump and the Porn Superstar,? which alleged that Trump had an extramarital affair with Clifford. However, the article noted that Clifford had declined to comment-IN .. 37. On or about October 25, 2016, the communications between Cohen, Davidson, Howard and Pecker picked up again, apparently concerning a transaction involving Clifford. Speci?cally, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the COhen Email Warrants and iCloud Wan'ant, as well as my review of public sources, I have learned the following: a. On October 25, 2016, at 6:09 Howard sent Cohen a text message stating: ?Keith calling you urgently. We have to coordinate something on the matter he?s calling you about or its [sic] could look awfully bad for everyone.? One minute later, Davidson sent Cohen a text message stating ?Call me.? Cohen and Davidson called each other several times over the next half hour but appear not to have connected. At 6:42 pm, Cohen and Davidson spoke for about eight minutes. At 7:11 pm, they spoke for another two minutes. b. The next morning, on or about October 26, 2016, at 8:26 am, Cohen called Trump and spoke to him for approximately three minutes. At 8:34 am, Cohen called Trump again and connected for a minute and a half. c. At approximately 9:04 a.m.??1ess than thirty minutes after speaking with Trump?? Cohen sent two emails to the person who had incorporated Resolution Consultants and Essential Consultants for him, and stated ?can you send me asap the ?ling receipt? and then, in the second 47 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 48 of 269 email, ?for Essential Consultants That person responded with the filing receipt two minutes later at 9:06 am. and with the certi?cation of formation 23 minutes later, at 9:27 am. d. Shortly after that, Cohen contacted First Republic Employee-2 and told him, in sum and substance, that he decided not to open an account in the name of ?Resolution Consulting? and instead would be opening a real estate consulting comp any in the name of ?Essential Consultants.? Cohen told First Republic Employee-2 that he was at Trump Tower, and wanted to go to a First Republic branch across the street to open the. account, so Republic Employee?1, a preferred banker at that branch, assist Cohen. At 11:00 am, First Republic Employee-1 called Cohen. I know from my participation in an interview with First Republic Employee?1, that around the time of the call he Went to Cohen?s of?ce in Trump Tower?? on the same ?oor as the Trump Organizationwand went through account opening questions, including know your customer questions, with Cohen. In response to a series of know?your? customer questions about the purpose of the account??the answers to which First Republic Employee-l entered into a form?Cohen 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. Based on my review of records obtained ?om First Republic, it appears that this account (the ?Essential Consultants Account?) was created at a time between 11:00 am. and 1:00 pm. e. At 1:47 Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for approximately two minutes. At approximately 1:49 Davidson emailed Cohen wiring instructions for an attorney client trust account at City National Bank. f. After the Essential Consultants Account was opened on October 26, 2016, Cohen transferred $131,000 from a home equity line of credit that Cohen had at First Republic to the 48 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 49 of 269 Essential Consultants Account. Following the transfer, at approximately 4:15 pm. on October 26, 2016, First Republic Employee-2?s assistant emailed Cohen at his Trump Organization email address to tell him that the funds had been deposited into the Essential Consultants Account. Cohen forwarded that email to the Cohen Gmail Account and then forwarded it to Davidson. g. At 6:37 pm, Cohen asked Pecker by text message, ?Can we speak? Important.? Cohen called Pecker at 6:49 pm. and connected for thirty seconds. At 6:57 p.n1., Cohen sent Howard a text message, stating: ?Please call me. and connected for about thirty seconds. At 7:06 p.n1., Cohen called Pecker again and they Spoke for nearly thirteen minutes. At 7:24 pm, Howard sent a text message to Cohen that: ?He said he?d call me back in 20 minutes. I told him what you are asking for his [sic] reasonable. I?ll get it sorted.? Approximately an hour later, at 8:23 pm, Howard told Cohen by text message to ?check your Gmail for email from my private account.? In an email sent at 8:23 pm. by Howard to Cohen and Davidson, with the subject line ?Con?rmation,? Howard stated, ?Thank you both for chatting with me earlier. Continuing agreement on: Executed agreement, hand?signed by Keith?s client and returned via overnight or same?day FedEx to Michael, - Change of agreement to re?ect the correct LLC, Transfer of funds on Thursday AM to be held in escrow until receipt of agreement.? After receiving that email, at approximately 8:27 pm, Cohen asked Howard by text message, ?Can you and David [Pecker] give me a call.? Howard responded: ?David is not around I think. I?ll call.? At 8:28 pm, Howard called Cohen and they spoke for three minutes. 3 8. On October 27, 2016, Cohen made a payment to Davidson of $130,000?with the funds intended for Clifford?for the purpose of securing her ongoing silence with respect to the allegations that she had an extramarital affair with Trump. Speci?cally, based on my review of 49 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 50 of 269 toll records, bank records, and information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned the following: a. At 9:47 Cohen sent Davidson an email, stating: ?Keith, kindly con?rm that the wire received today, October 27, 2016 shall be held by you in your attorney?s trust account until such time as directed for release by me, in writing. Additionally, please ensure that all papelwork contains the correct name of Essential Consultants LLC. I thank you in advance for your assistance and look forward to hearing from you later.? b. At approitimately 10:01 according to records provided by First Republic Bank, Cohen completed paperwork to wire $130,000 ?om the Essential Consultants Account-? which had been funded a day prior from Cohen?s home equity line of credit?~40 the attorney client trust account at City National Bank that Davidson had speci?ed in the wiring instructions he sent to Cohen. The wire transfer was made sho1tly thereafter. c. At 10:02 Davidson responded to Cohen?s email from 9:47 stating: con?rm that I will work in good faith that no funds shall be disbursed unless until the plaintiff personally signs all necessary settlement paperwork, (the form of which will match the prior agreement). The settlement docs will name the correct corporation, (Essential Consultants LLC). Plaintiff? signature will be notarized and returned to you via FedEx. Only after you receive FedEx will I disburse. Fair?? d. At 10:50 First Republic Employee?1 sent Cohen an email con?rming that the payment had been sent and providing him with the wire number. 39. On October 28, 2016, and the days that followed, Cohen ?nalized the transaction with Davidson. Speci?cally, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, public sources, and bank records, I know the following: 50 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 51 of 269 a. On October 28, 2016, at 11:48 Cohen spoke to Trump for approximately ?ve minutes. Beginning at 1:21 Cohen attempted a series of phone calls to Davidson, Pecker, and Howard throughout the day, although it appears he may only have connected with Howard. b. Later that day, at approximately 7:01 Davidson stated to Cohen by text message that ?all is AOK. I should have signed, notarized does on Monday. You should have them on Tuesday.? Cohen thanked him and said hope we are good.? Davidson responded, assure you. We are very good.? Howard also texted Cohen at 7308 ?KEitlT Ejavi?dson?fsays? we are good.? Cohen then responded to Howard and ?Excellen to Davidson. At approximately 10:30 Cohen spoke to Hicks for three minutes. 0. On October 31, 2016, Cohen called Howard at 8:22 pm. and they spoke for over three minutes. At 8:32 Cohen received text messages from both Howard and Davidson. Howard said: ?You?ll have paperwork tomorrow says Davidson said: ?We are AOK. You will be receiving a package tomorrow.? Cohen responded ?Thank you? to Howard and ?Thanks Keith. Will call you then? to Davidson. From my involvement in this investigation, I believe Davidson was referring to a signed nondisclosure agreement when he told Cohen that he would receive a package. d. Based on my review of court ?lings that became public in 2018, I have learned that on or about October 28, 2016, LLC and/or David Dennison? entered into a ?con?dential settlement agreement and mutual release? with ?Peggy Peterson,? pursuant to which ?Peterson? agreed not to disclose certain ?con?dential information pertaining to [Dennison]? in exchange for $130,000. The agreement provided that would wire the funds to ?Peterson? s? attorney, who would then transfer funds to ?Peterson.? Cohen signed the agreement on behalf of 51 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 52 of 269 The agreement stated that the address for which was later referred to in the agreement as ?Essential Consultants, was Cohen?s residence. e. Consistent with the ?con?dential Settlement agreement and mutual release,? on or about November 1, 2016, Davidson transferred $96,645 from his attorney client trust account at City National Bank to a bank account in Clifford?s name. The Wire had the annotation ?net settlement.? On the same day, at approximately 9:48 am. Davidson sent Cohen a text message with a picture of a FedEx delivery con?rmation, stating that at approximately 9:09 am. a package shipped by Davidson the previous day had arrived for Cohen at his Trump Organization address. On the same day, at approximately 6:14 pm, Davidson sent Cohen an email with an audio ?le attached and said ?Give this a lesson [sic] and then call me.? The audio attachment was titled ?Stormy.mp3? and was a ?ve?minute recording of Davidson interviewing Clifford about recent public allegations made by an adult ?lm star named Jessica Drake regarding her alleged past affair with Trump; in the recording, Clifford explained the reasons she believed that Drake was not credible. Less than an hour later, at approximately 7:05 pm, Cohen called Trump, but it appears that they did not connect. Cohen then called a telephone number belonging to Kellyanne Conway, who at the time was Trump?s campaign manager. They did not connect. At approximately 7:44 pm, however, Cohen received a return call from Conway, which lasted for approximately six minutes. 40. On November 4, 2016, just three days after the Clifford transaction was completed and just four days before the presidential election, the Wall Street Journal published an article alleging that the National Enquirer had ?Shielded Donald Trump? ??om allegations by Playboy model Karen McDougal that she and-Trump had an affair. The article alleged that AMI had agreed to pay McDougal to bury her story. McDougal, like Clifford, had been represented by Davidson. 52 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 53 of 269 Based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the Cohen EmailWarrants and iCloud Warrant, and public sources, it appears that Cohen spoke frequently to Davidson, Howard, Pecker, and Hicks around the time of this article?s publication?just days before Election Day?about the importance of preventing the McDougal and Clifford stories from gaining national traction. Speci?cally, I have learned the following: a. Between 4:30 and 8:00 pm. on November 4, Cohen communicated several times ""W?ivith approEi?n?ElY4T49'?mTC6hen sent Howard a text message with a screenshot of an email forwarded to him by another Trump Organization lawyer. The forwarded email was from a Wall Street Journal reporter, and asked for comment from Trump andlor the campaign on the story. Cohen also spoke with Hicks several times, including shortly before and/or after calls with Pecker, Howard and Davidson. Indeed, at approximately 7:33 using different cellphones subscribed to him, Cohen appears to have been talking to Davidson and Hicks at the same time. b. At approximately 8:51 pm, Cohen sent Howard a message, stating: ?She?s being really difficult with giving Keith a statement. Basically went into hiding and unreachable.? One minute later, Howard responded: ?I?ll ask him again. We just need her to disappear.? Cohen responded, ?She definitely disappeared but refuses to give a statement and Keith cannot push her.? At approximately 8:55 pm, Howard responded to Cohen?s text: ?g?Let?s let the dust settle. We don?t want to push her over the edge. She?s on side at present and we have a solid position and a plausible position that she is rightfully employed as a columnist.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe Cohen and Howard were referring to Karen McDougal when they were discussing ?she? and ?her.? Additionally, I believe Howard?s statement that ?we have . . . a 53 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 54 of 269 plausible position that she is right?tlly employed as a columnist? was a reference to the fact that AMI had given McDougal payments for her role as a purported columnist for the company. 0. At approximately 8:58 pm. on November 4, 2016, Howard attempted to reassure Cohen about the effect of the forthcoming Wall Street Journal article, texting, think it?ll be ok pal. I think it?ll fade into the distance.? Cohen responded, ?He?s pissed.? Howard wrote back, ?I?m pissed! You?re pissed. Pecker is pissed. Keith is pissed. Not much we can do.? Based on my involvement int-this investigation, libelieve Cohen was referring to "Trump when he stated ?he? pissed.? Cohen asked Howard at approximately 9:00 p.111. how the Wall Street Journal could publish its article if ?eve1yone denies.? Howard responded, ?Because there is the payment from It looks suspicious at best.? d. At approximately 9:03 pm, Hicks called Cohen and they spoke for two minutes. At approximately 9:11 pm, Cohen called Howard and spoke to him for five minutes. At approximately 9:15 Hicks called Cohen and they spoke for nearly seven minutes. Again, Cohen used different phones for these two calls, such that he appears to have been on both calls for about a minute of overlap. At approximately 9:32 pm, Cohen texted Pecker, ?The boss just tried calling you. Are you free?? A minute later, Cohen texted Howard, ?Is there a way to ?nd David quickly?? e. At approximately 9:50 pm, the Wall Street Journal alticle was published online. Howard and Hicks both sent web links for the article to Cohen. Over the next half hour, Cohen and Howard exchanged several text messages commenting on how the story came across. The next morning on November 5, 2016, at approximately 7:35 am, Cohen texted Hicks, ?So farI see only 6 stories. Getting little to no traction.? Hicks responded, ?Same. Keep prayingll It?s working!? Cohen wrote back, ?Even CNN not talking about it. No one believes it and if necessary, I have a 54 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 55 of 269 statement by Storm denying everything and contradictingthe other porn stars statement. I wouldn?t use it now or even discuss with him as no one is talking about this or cares!? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe Cohen was referring to the above-referenced recorded audio statement by Clifford that he obtained from Davidson, and was stating that such a statement could be used to in?uence potential'negative media relating to Trump, but was unnecessary at that time. Based on a text message from Hicks to Cohen, I believe that later that morning, Pecker spoke to Trump. 41. On or about November 8, 2016, Trump won the election for President of the United States. 42. On or about January 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal ?rst reported that Cohen arranged a payment to Clifford. On or about January 22, 2018, Common Cause, a government watchdog group, ?led a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging that Cohen had violated campaign ?nance laws by making the payment to Clifford. Based on my review public sources following that report, as well as emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned the following: a. On or about January 23, 2018, the day after Common Cause ?led its complaint, Cohen began emailing himself drafts of statements describing his payment to Clifford. Additionally, on January 23, 2018, Cohen emailed the following draft of that statement to an individual who appears to be writing a book on Cohen?s behalf: In October 2016, I was contacted by counsel for Ms. Clifford stating that news outlets, including ABC news, were pursuing the 2011 story of an alleged affair between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford. Despite the fact that both parties had already denied the allegation, as Mr. Trump?s longtime special counsel and protector, I took it upon myself to match the offer and keep the story from breaking. I knew the allegation to be false, but I am also a realist who understands that just because something is false doesn ?t mean that it doesn?t create harm and damage. I could not allow this to 55 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 56 of 269 occur. I negotiated a non?disclosure agreement with Ms. Clifford?s counsel and tendered the funds. I did this through my Delaware LLC and transferred personal funds to cover the agreement. I was not reimbursed any monies from Mr. Trump, the Trump Organization, any third party or the Presidential campaign. At no point did I ever advise Mr. Trump of my communications or actions regarding this agreement. As outlandish and unusual as this may appear, the Trumps have been like family to me for over a decade. It?s what you do for family. (Emphasis added.) Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe that the above email is an acknowledgement that the allegation of the affair had existed for some time . .the 2011 story. . but that Cohen was motivated to ?keep the story ?om breaking? again in October'2016. b. On or about February 13, 2018, Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times that ?Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford. The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.? Cohen declined to answer follow~up questions including whether Trump had been aware of the payment, why Cohen made the payment, or whether similar payments had been made to other people. c. On or about February 14, 2018, Cohen was asked by The New York Times whether Trump had reimbursed him, whether he and Trump had made any arrangement at the time of the payment, or whether he had made payments to other women. Cohen stated in response, can?t get into any of tha On or about February 14, 2018, Cohen also stated to The Washington Post that: ?In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.? 43. On or about March 9, 2018, Cohen stated to ABC News that ?the funds were taken from my home equity line and transferred internally to my LLC account in the same bank.? 56 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 57 of 269 44. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen committed violations of the Campaign Finance Offenses by making an in?kind contribution to Trump or the Trump campaign in the form of a $130,000 payment to Clifford on the eve of the election. Indeed, while he denies having given an unlawful contribution, in his own statements Cohen has admitted that he paid $130,000 of his ?personal funds? to Clifford and that the payment occurred less than two weeks before the election, as Trump was facing negative media allegations about his behavior toward women, even tho?glf'allegati?ors of ?aniaffairrbemeeanrump-andw Clifford existed since 2011. In addition, the communication records set forth above make evident that Cohen communicated with members of the Trump campaign about his negotiation with Clifford?s attorney and the need to preclude Clifford from making a statement that would have re?ected negatively on the candidate in advance of the forthcoming election. 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 ?'uits 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-1 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 payment to Clifford. Additionally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-S contains evidence of Cohen?s assets and his payment to Clifford. Finally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?4, in which Cohen is temporarily residing, contains electronic 57 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 58 of 269 devices, including Subject Device-l and Subject Device-2, which, in turn, contain evidence of the Subject Offenses, such as evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and his payment to Clifford. 46. First, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen lives and operates his businesses, at least in part, at Subject Premises?1. Specifically, from my review of property records, I know that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own (in trust) Subject Premises?l. From my review of Cohen?s tax r?etums, fknow he from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know 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?1 as the address for Essential Consultants and Michael D. Cohen Associates, PC. For example, the certificates of incorporation and account opening documents at First Republic for both entities list their addresses as the address for Subject Premises-l. See supra 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 19(0). 47. There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-1 is likely to contain instrumentalities, evidence, and ?uits 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: 58 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 59 of 269 a. According to records maintained by Sterling, the address for all of Cohen?staxi medallion is the address for Subject Premises-1. See supra 16(0). Additionally, the medallion loan documents indicate that any mailings related to the loans should be sent to Subject Premises-1. 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 taxi medallion 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 16(q), to Subject Premises-1. Accordingly, Subject Premises~1 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 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 ?'om Sterling via subpoena), the fact that they may be found in Subject Premises-1 will be relevant to Cohen? possession or knowledge of the documents. c. From my review of recOrds maintained by First Republic, I know that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises?l as the mailing addresses for the Essential Consultants Account and Account. See supra 18(b), 18(6). Accordingly, it is likely that Subject 59 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 60 of 269 Premises-l 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 know?your-customer process, any notes made by Cohen when he was opening the accounts, wire transfer records, and canceled checks. 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 funds 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-l 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?1 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 {l 16(e), he disclosed $10,000,000 in ?investments in overseas entities.?30 The value of these investments was omitted from subsequent ?nancial statements. However, for the reasons outlined above, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen omitted the value of those investments from his 2017 3? Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?3, 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 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 61 of 269 ?nancial statements in order to understate his assets. As Subject Premises?1 is Cohen?s primary residence and he uses Subject Premises-1 as the mailing address for bank records, there is probable cause to believe that account statements for unknown 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, Iknow that the address Cohen provided to for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject supra 1119(6)? believe that Subject Premises-l will contain evidence concerning the operation of Essential Consultants or money that Cohen received, through Essential Consultants, ?om Additionally, because Cohen used the address for Subject Premises-l for at least one consulting arrangement involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?l may contain recordsof other consulting arrangements that Cohen, through Essential Consultants, has with other individuals or entities. g. Based on my review of records maintained by Getzel? accounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that Getzel? accounting ?rm sent documents to Subject Premises-l and used the address for Subject Premises-=1 as the address listed on Cohen?s personal and corporate tax returns. See supra 11 16(n). For instance, on or about October 6, 2017, an employee at Getzel?s 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 be found in Subject Premises?l. h. Based on my review of bank records and publiclynavailable documents, Iknow that Cohen used $130,000 ?om a home equity line of credit on Subject Premises-l to pay Clifford. I also know that on the settlement and nondisclosure agreement between ?Peggy Peterson? and C, 61 2017.03.02 Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 62 of 269 the address for Essential Consultants is Subject Premises-1.. Accordingly, Subject Premises?l is likely to contain evidence of the Campaign Finance Offenses, including settlement and nondisclosure agreements, payment records, written and email correspondence, and records pertaining to the home equity line of credit. i. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, I know that Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a MacBook Pro to access his iCloud account. Based on my review Apple pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, I know that electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises-l to, among other things, place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?l 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 Warrants, 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 family are temporarily residing at Subject Premises?4 in the Loew?s Regency Hotel, which is approximately two blocks from Subject Premises?l. However, based on my review of a work order sent to Cohen?s email by a contractor, I understand that the ?rst phase of the work order called for the contractor to ?Pack Remove all items furnishings in Living Room, Kitchen, Sons Room Dining Room? and store them off-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 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 63 of 269 all documents or evidence responsive to the warrant out of Subject 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?2 contains certain electronic devices. Speci?cally, ?om my review of the ?strategic alliance agreemen between Squire Patton Boggs and Cohen, and my rev1ew of the press of?ce at Subject Premises?2. See supra 18(d), 19(e). Indeed, Ihave learned that pursuant to Cohen?s agreement with the law ?rm, he has ?dedicated and segregated of?ce space? in Squire Patton Boggs? 5 of?ces on the 23rd ?oor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, and that the space is ?physically separate? ?om the ?rm?s of?ces and has ?locked doors and its own locked ?le cabinets.? See supra {l 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 know from my participation in an interview with Getzel, 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 Getzel, when Getzel saw Cohen at Subject Premises-2, he had two cellular telephones in Subject Premises-2. I also know ?om my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants that Cohen uses the address for Subject Premises-:2 in the signature block 31 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 from Subject Premises?l 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 Premiseswl. 63 2017.08.02 [Tl-ll Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 64 of 269 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 14, 2018, that Cohen was interviewed by the magazine in Subject Premises-2 in or about February 2018. 49. Thereis?almrobablec?a?useto 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 2018 about a modi?cation to his existing loan from Sterling, Cohen listed his address in his email as the address for Subject Premises-2. See supra 16(t), 16(u). 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 BTA for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises-2. See supra 111] 19(a), 19(b). 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, ?om KAI and ETA, 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 arrangements through Essential Consultants, and agreements 64 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 65 of 269 relating to those 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 Premises?2 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 Getzel?s accounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen EmailmWarrants, as well as my Getzel, I have learned that Getzel visited Subject Premises-2 to meet with Cohen about his taxes. See supra 1] 20(a). At that meeting, Getzel discussed 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 Getzel. 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 ?nances will be found in Subject Premises-2. d. Based on my participation in an interview with Getzel, I 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. 6. 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 of payments?at the business? identi?ed location. I am not aware of any addresses 65 2017.08.02 0m. Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 66 of 269 associated with Essential Consultants other than Subject Premises?l and Subject Premises-2. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-l and Subject Premises-2 will contain business records for Essential Consultants. 50. Third, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 is likely to contain instrun1entalities, 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 2017, as Cohen was receiving subStantlal 1ncome from consulting 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 of value and/or 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. b. In addition, based on my review of records produced by TD Bank, I know that Cohen has accessed the vault in which Subject Premises-3 is stored on two occasions. The first such occasion was on November 10, 2017. Cohen signed into the vault at approximately 5:35 and out of vault at approximately 5:39 on that date.32 Based on my review of toll records, I know that Cohen?s ?rst call after he signed out of the safety deposit box approximately 45 minutes later was to Keith Davidson. Speci?cally, at 6:25 pm. Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for less than a minute; three minutes later, Davidson called Cohen back and they spoke for approximately 32 The entry in the bank? log book does not specify whether this is AM. or P.M. However, I infer that it is P.M., because it is unlikely that the bank would have been open 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 67 of 269 22 minutes. The second such occasion was on February 2, 2018, which is during the time period numerous media reports about Cohen?s payment to Clifford were being published, and is one day after it appears that Cohen?s family moved into Subject Premises?4, as set forth above. The timing of Cohen?s two visits to the vault one shortly before a call to Keith Davidson and the other around the time that Cohen came under media scrutiny in connection with the payment to Davidson?s client gives rise to probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?3 will contain evidence of the - Camp aign Finance Offenses, such as do'Cuments Davidson and the payment to Clifford, including documents or evidence that Cohen did not want to leave in his apartment where construction workers would be present.33 51. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and cell phone location information, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Premises- 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: a. As described above, it appears that Cohen moved to Subject Premises-4 on or about February 1, 2018, at which time numerous media reports about Cohen?s involvement in the payment to Clifford were being published. See supra During this time same period, Cohen was frequently corresponding with the media and sent himself and others statements about his involvement in the payment to Clifford. See supra Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating to the Clifford payment with him to Subject Premises-4, in order to reference and consult them in connection with these statements. 3'3 As noted above, Subject Premises?3 is approximately ?ve inches by ten inches. Accordingly, I do not believe that it would fit 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 68 of 269 ?1 b. As described above, at the time Cohen moved to Subject Premises?4, he was also in the midst of ongoing negotiations with Sterling regarding the re?nancing of his medallion debts. For example, on January 30, 2018, 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 supra 16(u). Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating to his ongoing negoti?ions to reference and consult them in connection?with these negotiations. c. As described above, Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a MacBook Pro to access his iCloud account, and these electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises?1 Cohens? permanent residence to place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. See supra 1H1 47(i). Although Cohen? 5 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, and/or 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, 2018). 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 68 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 69 of 269 the Essential Consultants Account, with his accountant regarding his ?nances, and with individuals, such as Davidson, Howard and Pecker, involved in the $130,000 payment to Clifford. 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?1 and Subject Device?2 his cellphones will likely also be within Subject Premisesn4. If Cohen is not within Subject Premises-4mat that moment, the devices will?likely'beon'hisperson, 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-l and Subject Device?2, in the event that those devices are not located within Subj ectPremises?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-1, 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). Specifically, based on my review of information produced- pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, the iCloud Warrant, and subpoenas, as well as pen register data, I submit that there is probable cause that Subject Premises-d contains an Apple iPad Mini, a MacBook Pro, and has, at various times, contained Apple cellphones; similarly, there is probable cause that Subject Premises-2 contains a computer and has, at various times, contained Apple 69 2017.08.02 . Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 70 of 269 cellphones. These devices are likely to include evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses for the following reasons: a. As described throughout this affidavit, Cohen used email to send and receive communications related to the Subject Offenses. In particular, Cohen used email to send and receive communications with Sterling, First Republic, Getzel, the entities to which he is providing consulting services, Davidson, and Howard, among others. While some of these emails have obfalned via subpoenas and semch?wanmts, I know from my training that individuals can and do delete emails from their Intemet-based inboxes but retain copies of those emails on their hard drives. I also know that individuals often have multiple email accounts, some of which may not be known 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-l, Subject Premises-2 and/or Subject Premises?4. b. Additionally, Subject Premises-l, Subject Premise?2 and Subject Premises?4 likely contain electronic copies of documents relevant to the Subject Offenses. Indeed, I know ??om 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 71 of 269 cash, consulting agreements with third parties, and documentation of his payment to Clifford, 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, I 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 probable cause to Believe that Colfe??s?el?'c'tronic device's contain evidence of banking activity, including the existence of bank accounts or assets that Cohen did not disclose to Sterling or Melrose. d. Fourth, ?om 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 Pecker using these applications. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s cellphones 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 co-conspirators, keep ?nancial 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 ?chats? with co?conspirators; email correspondence; contact information of conconspirators, 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 72 of 269 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,rbut instead remains on the hard drive, in ?slack Space,? until it is overwritten by new data that cannot be" stored elsewhere on the computer. Similarly, files 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. a In the event that a user changes computers, the user will typically transfer files from I 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, (JD-ROMS, or portable hard drives. 56. ?Based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit there is probable cause to believe that Cohen engaged in the Subject 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 fully 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, and/or taxi medallions. 72 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 73 of 269 0. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Cohen and/or entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including to _.nd/or entities associated with him. d. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/ or Melrose. 6. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essentialeonsultants or the 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 ?om Michael D. Cohen 85 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. h. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and_ and any payments by-Lo Cohen. i. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. j. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 73 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 74 of 269 k. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. I 1. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. in Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and] or agents or associates of the Tinmp Campaign about the Access H511ywbod ?tape and"?other publicity involving Trump? 5 relationship in the run up to the election. n. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 0. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. p. Communications with others, including ef?ey Getzel and/or 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 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; r. Evidence of Cohen?s intent, as it relates to theSubject foenses under investigation. I Procedures for Searching ESE A. Execution of Warrant for E31 5 7. 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 75 of 269 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: a 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. a Second, because computer data is particularly vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modi?cation or destruction, cemputer d?ices are ideally examined";in' abontroll'e?d 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. a 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. 0 Fourth, many factors can complicate and prolong recovery of data ?om 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 take considerable time 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 orcopied. 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 75 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 76 of 269 computers, to reduce the extent of any disruption of Squire Patton Boggs?s operations. If, after inspecting the seized computers off?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 ??om the Subject Premises and Subject Devices will be conducted pursuant to established screening procedures to ensure that the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation, including" attorneys for in a manner reasonably designed to protect any 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 offer their users the ability to unlock the device via the use of a fingerprint or thumbprint (collectively, ?fmgerprint?) 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 numeric 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 77 of 269 ?ngerprints to unlock the device by pressing the relevant f1nger(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 alphanumeric passcode or password, as well as aid-more secure way to protect the device?s contents. 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 8 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 (5) ?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 fingers of the user of the Subject Devices to the devices? Touch ID sensor, or hold the Subject Devices in ?'ont 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 2017.08.02 an! Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 78 of 269 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 ID. 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 I know that it is common for a user to unlocka Touch lD-enabled Apple device via the ?ngerprints on thumbs or index ?ngers. In the event that law enforcement is unable to unlock within the ?ve attempts permitted by Touch ID, this will simply result in the device requiring the entry of a password or passcode before it can be unlocked. 67. I also know 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. 68. Due to the foregoing, I request that the Court authorize law enforcement to press the ?ngers (including thumbs) of Cohen to the Touch ID sensors the Subject Devices, or hold the Subject Devices in ?ont 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. 7 8 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 79 of 269 C. Review of E81 69. Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) will rev1ew th ESch?tain?ed?tlErE'? for information responsive tothe warrant. 70. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to determine which ?les or other .1381 contain evidence or ?'uits of the Subject Offenses. Such techniques may include, for example: a 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); a 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); 0 ?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 was used. 3?4 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. 79 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 80 of 269 ?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 of ESI 72. If the Government determines that the to retrieve and preserve the data, and the devices themselves are not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(0), 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 instrumentality of the offense, (ii) a ??uit of the criminal activity, contraband, (iv) otherwise unlawfully possessed, or evidence of the Subject Offenses. 80 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 81 of 269 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 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 respectfully request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith be maintained under seal until the Court orders otherwise. Special Agent FBI 7 Sworn to before me on 8th day oprm 2018 59/ 9 9 . ,2 1*in Mfg/?eas? HON HENRV PUMP NI UNITED MAGIs ERATE IUDGE 81 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 82 of 269 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-=1 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?1?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Apartment -located inside the building at 5 02 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The building located at 502 Park Avenue is a 32??oor brick residential building. Subject Premises?1 is located on the the building. 11. Items to Be 5?ch A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses I The items to be seized from Subject Premises?1 are evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 371 (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)(l)(A)(l) (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. 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 ?om Michael D. Cohen 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 financial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or financial transactions between Cohen and?and/or entities controlled by the? 2 2017.08.02 .tm Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 83 of 269 and anypayments by Cohen from January 1, 2612 to. the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc, David Peeker, and/or Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/ or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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?1 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 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 84 of 269 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-1 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 the- con-ii gurationeofthe seized or~ copied?computer.. devicesronstoragemedia. 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 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 ESI 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: 2017.08.02 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); 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 85 of 269 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 HA and ILB 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. 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. 2017.08.02 5? Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 86 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched??Silly? eet Premises-2 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?2?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: An of?ce belonging to or assigned to Michael Cohen located on the 23rd floor of the building at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112, inside of the of?ces of the law ?rm Squire Patton Boggs. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a 66??oor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?2 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)(l)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(l) (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 ?L11d/ 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, ?om January 1, 2013 to the present. 2.. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and?311?" 01? entities ?mm by 6 2017.08.02 ?Fl Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 87 of 269 andanypaymems by-ro Cohen, ?omJanuary 1, 2612 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. Evidencaofcommunications betweenMichael Cohen and American Media, Inc, David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including ef?ey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, ??om 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 ?'om Subject Premises-2 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, any desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone belonging to Michael Cohen 7 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 88 of 269 or in his possession, 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?Q. 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. I 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 i concerning the con?guration of the seized or 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 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 file cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer believed to contain pertinent ?les); 9 opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; a scanning storage 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 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 89 of 269 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 ILB 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. 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. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 90 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-n3 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises-3?) are described as follows, and include all looked and closed containers found therein: A safe deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, marked as box it. The safe deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized ?om Subject Premises-3 are evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (falsebank entries), 1014 (false statements to a ?nancial institution), 1343 (wire ?aud), 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: . 1. Evidence relating to Michael Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, assets, and annual income, and income sources, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 2. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 4. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. 5. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 6. Evidence of communications with Donald and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 7. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 10 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 91 of 269 8. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of?the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 9. Any portable electronic storage device. B. Search of Seized Electronic Devices Probable cause exists to search any seized electronic storage device for the items set forth in Section above. C. Review of ESI Following seizure of any electronic storage device, 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 1381 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: a 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); 0 opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; a scanning storage 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 a reviewing metadata, system information, configuration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 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 from seized devices 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 11 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 92 of 269 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. 12 2017.03.02 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WIjP Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 93 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subj ect 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 1728 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 6lst Street. Subject Premises?4 is located on the 17th ?oor of the hotel. H. Items to Be Seiged Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized ??om 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 ind/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 13 2017.03.02 Case Document 481 Filed 07/18/19 Page 94 of 269 ?nd any payments by_to Cohen. from January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campalgn, Stephanie Clifford, and] or Karen McDougal. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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 l4 2017.08.02 Case Doc_ument 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 95 of 269 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 ?om 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, en01yption 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 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 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: a 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; 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, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information reflecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 15 2017.08.02 Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 96 of 269 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 HA 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. 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. 16 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 97 of 269 ATTACHREENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device-1 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-1?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number- During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject 7 Device?1, or hold Subject Device-1 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the ace 1D sensor, in order to gam access to the contents of any such device as warrant. II. Review of E81 011 the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 on Subject Device~1 for 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 anuaiy 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. . 0. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/ or Melrose. (1. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 17. 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 98 of 269 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 and any payments by Cohen, ?om January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. In Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 10. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jef?ey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, ?om 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. 18 2017.08.02 ?Pals: Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 99 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device-l is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device-1 is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(0), the Govemment will return Subject Device-4, upon request. 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 ?om the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 100 of 269 ATTACHIVIENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device-=2 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-2?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number- During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device-2, or hold Subject Device?2 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such device as authorlzed by this warrant. H. Review of ESI on the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 ESI contained on Subject Device?2 for 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 30lO9(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, ?om 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. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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 85 Associates. 20 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 101 of 269 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 Janualy 1, 2013 to the present. g- Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and _and/or entities controlled by and any payments by Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to we present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDou gal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 1n. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, from Janualy l, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a financial 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 financial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that financial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 21 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 102 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device-2 is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device-2 is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return Subject Device-2, upon request. 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. 22 2017.08.02 :Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 103 of 269 A0 106 (Rev. 06/09) Application for a Search Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identz'?l the person by name and address) Case NO. Four Premises and Two Electronic Devices, See Attached Affidavit and Riders APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT - I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search warrant and state under mam penaltyofperjuryjhat 1 have reason to believe that on the following person or property (identi?) the person or describe the pr 106L119) See Attached Affidavit and Riders located in the Southern District of New York there is now concealed (identify the person or describe the property to be seized): PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT AND RIDERS. The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(c) is (check one or more): l?f evidence of a crime; Sf contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; lifproperty 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 O?ense Description 18 U.S.C. 371, 1005, 1014, Conspiracy, false bank entries, false statements to a financial institution, 1343 and 1344, and wire fraud, bankfraud, and 52 USC 30116 and 30109 illegal campaign contributions The application is based on these facts: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AND REDER. [if Continued on the attached sheet. Delayed notice of days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: is requested under 18 U.S.C. 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet. Printed name and title Sworn to before me and signed in my presence. Date: 04/08/2018 ant?y 6 ?s signature City and state: CW K, 7, Hon. Henry B. Pitman, U.S. Magistrate Judge I I Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 104 of 269 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United 3 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL States of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described 2 Agent Af?davit in Support of as (1) 502 Park Avenue ?\lew Application for Search and Seizure York, New York 10022, (2) Michael Cohen? Warrant Office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New 3 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 (4) Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1728, New York, New York 10065, and Any 3 Closed Containers/Items Contained Therein, and the Electronic Devices Known and Described as (1) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number and (2) an Apple iPhone with Phone Number? Reference No. 2018R00127 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) 33.: Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Af?ant 1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since 2009. In the course of my experience and training in these positions, I have participated in criminal investigations into federal offenses involving a wide array of financial crimes, including frauds on financial institutions, as well as into offenses involving public corruption. I also have training and experience executing search warrants, including those involving electronic evidence. 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 105 of 269 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 af?davit 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 af?davit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that-1 have teamed?d?iffg?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? ?oor brick residential building. Subject Premises-1 is located on the-floor 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-1.1 Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises?1 is Cohen?s full-time residence. b. Subject Premises-2 is an of?ce 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 in?a, I have learned that on or. about October 28, 2015, Cohen transferred Subject Premises?1 into a trust. 3 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 106 of 269 is a 66??oor of?ce building thatspans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rookefeller 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 Premises-3 is a safety deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019. Based on my review of records maintained by TD 13351:,1 have learned that the safety deposit box 1S approximately?veiin?chesb ten inches in size, and is marked as box- The safety deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. (1.. Subject Premises-4 is Room 1728 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 6lst 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 from January 8 to April 8, 2018.2 On or about January 29, 2018, Cohen sent an 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 Premises?4. In particular, on or about 2 Although the quoted price contemplated a three-month stay from January 8 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 107 of 269 April 8, 2018, law enforcement agents using a ?triggerfish? 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: a. Subject Device-1 is an Apple iPhone service?d by - Based on my review of records maintained by 1 have learned that Subject Device-l is subscribed to Michael Cohen. Based on my review of cellphone location information maintained by 1 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 I 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. 0. Based on my training, experience, and research, and from consulting the manufacturer?s and service providers? advertisements and product technical specifications 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 information; 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 1728 appears to be a suite, whereas Room 1628 appears to be a standard room. 5 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 108 of.269 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. 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 18 use 1005 (false bank institution), 1343 (wire fraud), and 1344 (bank fraud) (collectively, the ?Bank Fraud Offenses?), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(l)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Campaign Finance Offenses?), and 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it pertains to the other- Subject Offenses) (collectively, the ?Subject Offenses?). D. Prior Applications 6. The FBI and the United States Attorney?s Office 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 Office 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: 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 109 of 269 a. On or about July 18, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account (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 -@gmail.com (the ?Cohen iCloud Account? and the ?Cohen iCloud Warrant?). c. On or about November 13, 27017, the FBI sought and?obtained?a?se'ar?chv* warrant for emails in the Cohen Gmail Account sent or received between June 1, 2015 and November 13, 2017 (the ?Second Cohen Gmail Warrant?). I d. On or about November 13, 2017, the FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for emails in the account (the ?Cohen or received between the opening of the Cohen Account4 and November 13, 2017 (the ?First Cohen Warran A 8. The SCO has since referred 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 SCO provided the USAO with all non-privileged emails and other content information obtained pursuant to the First Cohen Gmail Warrant, Second Cohen Gmail Warrant, and Cohen Warrant. On or about March 7, 2018, the SCO provided the USAO 4 Based on my review of this warrant and the af?davit in support of it, I know that the warrant did not specify 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. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 110 of 269 with all non?privileged content obtained pursuant to the Cohen iCloud Warrant.5 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, 2018, the USAO sought and obtained search warrants for emails in the Cohen Gmail 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 ?Second Cohen IVIDCPC content produced pursuant"to"the?sewarrantsisr subject to an ongoing review for privilege by an SDNY ?lter team.6 10. The emails search warrants described above are referred to collectively as the ?Cohen Email Warrants.? 11. On or about April 7, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained a warrant for prospective and historical cellphone location information for Subject Device?1 and Subject I Device?2. On or about April 8, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained authority to employ an electronic technique, commonly known as a ?trigger?sh,? to determine the location of Subject Device-1 and Subject Device-2. II. Probable Cause A. Overview 12. The United States Attorney? 5 Of?ce for the Southern District of New York and FBI are investigating, among other things, schemes by Target Subject Michael Cohen to defraud 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. 6 On or about February 28, 2018 and April 7, 2018, the USAO and FBI sought and obtained Rule 41 search warrants authorizing the search of emails and content obtained pursuant to previously issued warrants for additional subject offenses. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 111 of 269 campaign contribution in October 2016 to then?presidential candidate Donald Trump?. As noted, 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. 13. The investigation has revealed that Cohen has made affirmative misrepresentations in and omitted material information from financial statements and other disclosures that Cohen provided to ?multiple banks in connection with a transaction intendedw?to relieve Cohen of approximately $22 million in debt he owed on taxi medallion loans from the banks. As set forth in detail below, in these financial 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) significantly 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- acquisition 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 fraudulently induce the banks to relieve him of certain repayment obligations and personal guarantees that Cohen and his wife had signed. 14: Additionally, the investigation has revealed that shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Cohen made a payment of $130,000 from a limited liability corporation to Stephanie Clifford, an individual who is alleged to have had an extramarital affair with then?candidate Trump. This paymentwas made to Clifford in exchange for an agreement not to make any public disclosures about her alleged affair with Trump. As set forth below, there is 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 112 of 269 probable cause to believe that Cohen made this payment to Clifford for the purpose of in?uencing the presidential election, and therefore that the payment was an excessive in?kind contribution to the Trump campaign. 15. Based on my review of emails obtained from the Cohen Email Warrants, information 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 I Premises to receive documents related to the transactionwintendewidto relieve Cohen of his taxi medallion debt, receive documents and/or conduct meetings related to his consulting work, (0) receive documents and/or conduct meetings relating to his ?nances and assets, some of which, as noted above and as detailed further herein, he has concealed from the banks in connection with the re?nancing of his taxi medallion debt, receive and send documents relating to his payment to Clifford, and (6) house and operate electronic devices that were utilized in connection with, among other things, the taxi medallion transaction, Cohen? consulting work, and his payment to Clifford. Speci?cally, as described below, Subject Premises-1 likely contains evidence concerning Cohen?s taxi medallion loans, his negotiations with banks, his personal ?nances, his consulting work, his tax returns, and his payment to Clifford, as well as electronic devices containing such evidence, all of which constitute or contain evidence of the Subject Offenses. Additionally, as described below, Subject Premises?2 likely contains evidence relating to Cohen?s consulting work, his ?nances, and his payment to Clifford, 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 Cohen?s payment to Clifford. Subject Premises?4 likely contains electronic 10 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 113 of 269 devices, including Subject Device?l and Subject DeviCe?Z, 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 returns, and his payment to Clifford. 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 Offenses7 b?raud'SEheme Cohen ?3 Statements to Sterling National Bank 16. 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 (?Melrose?), 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 wealiened and the medallions lost value, Cohen sought to renegotiate the terms of those loans and] or 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 of taxi medallions, as well as my participation in interviews with a Sterling executive vice-president (the ?Sterling Employee?1?) and two other 7 In 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-l or Subject Devicen2. 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 20170302 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 114 of 269 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).8 Cohen?s purchase of these New York taxi medallions was originally ?nanced by 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 make 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 of re?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 industry~?as a result of the emergence of ride-sharing services, such as Uber?taxi 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?l, borrowers typically cashed out the increase in the loan amOunt 8 One of these companies, Mad Dog Cab Corp., was jointly owned by Sondra Cohen, who I believe is Cohen?s mother. 12 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 115 of 269 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 ?lese?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 ?om the transaction. c. Based on my review of records maintained by Sterling, 1 have learned that on or about December 8, 2014, each ofCohen? Sixteen taxi medallion LEGS 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 for each of the LLCs was the address for Subject Premises?l. 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 Melrose, which had a business principally focused on taxi medallion loans, is now in conservatorship by the National Credit'Union Administration 13 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 116 of 269 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 $77,190,000.10 From my review of a Sterling credit memorandum, dated September 29, 2014, I know that Sterling viewed the transaction favorably because,iaccounting f6r'loan payments, cash ?oWs from the?me?dalli?oiis 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. 1 know 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 Cohenm? which according to the email and toll records for Cohen?s cellphone occurred on September 8, 10 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 $23,550,000, and a net worth of $75,870,000. 14 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 117 of 269 2015?during which Cohen told Sterling Employee?2, in sum and substance, about his cash ?ow 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 again on September 28, 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 2015, 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 sufficient 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 8, 2017. h. I know from interviews with Sterling Employee-1 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 Fred Weingarten, who would agree to 11 Based on my review of property records, I know that on or about October 28, 2015, around the time period when Sterling raised the possibility of Cohen posting his personal residence?? Subject Premises?l?as collateral, Cohen transferred Subject Premises?1 into a trust. 15 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 118 of 269 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?1 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 $21,3 7 6,000. I know from my review of records maintained by Sterling, and my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?2, that as a condition of the transfer of the medallion loans?4andbecause Sterling was unfamiliarwith'I??m?w -?Sterling 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?1, 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.? 1. Pursuant to the participation agreements between Sterling and Melrose, Sterling was required to secure Melrose?s agreement to participate in the transfer of the taxi medallion debt from 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 Melrose agree to the terms. On or about May 2, 2017, Sterling Employee-1 told that Melrose 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 119 of 269 Employee-1 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?l 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, Jeffrey Getzel, stating, in sum and substance, that the information in the statement-loame from Cohen and that Getzel?lia?d not con?rmedits 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 $2,825,000. 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 investments, and his $11,000,000 personal residence.12 k. Based on my review of reports of law enforcement interviews of Sterling Employee-1, 1 have learned that Sterling Employee-1 reviewed 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?1, in sum and substance, that the May 2017 Financial Statement was accurate. 1. On or about August 16, 2017, Sterling Employee-l emailed Cohen and Allen Weingarten, attaching a non?binding term sheet memorializing the potential transaction between 12 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, I know that the precipitous decline in assets ?om his 2014 ?nancial statement to his 2017 ?nancial statements can be explained primarily by reported depreciation in the value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 17 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 120 of 269 Sterling, Melrose, Cohen, anc'_ 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 i_and Cohen a copy of the executed term sheet. According to the term sheet, l_0uld borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Melrose, to be secured by the medallions that _vas to acquire from Cohen. m. As part of the agreement," according to the term sheet, $1?,2?65?,9?1?3?in principal (which 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 ?fty 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 $357,167 and $275,789, 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-l 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 hadany outstanding obligations to Sterling or Melrose. 11. Based on my review of emails sent by Sterling employees, I have learned that because the transaction between the parties was subject to full credit underwriting by Sterling and Melrose (as well as Melrose?s regulators at NCUA), in August and September 2017, Sterling 18 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 121 of 269 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 2017 Financial Statement. A day later, on October 6, 2017, Cohen emailed Sterling Employee-2 a statement of ?nancial condition, dated September 30, 20.17 (thel?September 2017 Financial Statement?). 0. Like the May 2017 Financial Statement, the September 2017 Financial Statement included a cover letter from Jeffrey Getzel, Cohen? accountant, stating, in sum and substance, that the information in the statement came from Cohen, and that Getzel had not con?rmed its accuracy or completeness. The September 2017 Financial Statement stated that Cohen had total assets of $33,430,000, total liabilities of $45,630,000, and a negative net worth of $12,200,000.? 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 thej?rst 13 Based on my review of Cohen?s ?nancial statements, I know that this further decline in assets can be explained primarily by reported depreciation in the value of Cohen?s real estate assets and medallion investments. 14 Notably, the September 2017 Financial Statement valued each of Cohen?s thirty~two New York taxi medallions at approximately $180,187.50, which was considerably less than the $650,000 valuation ascribed to each medallion in the Cohen-Weingarten term sheet. 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 122 of 269 time, he indicated was held by a trust)? The September 2017 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 reallestate 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 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 2017 Financial Statement, 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 was favorable for the bank that is, that ?_would be a better borrower than Cohen. q. On or about December 26, 2017, 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 29, 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-1. Cohen did not make an immediate payment on the loans, but instead sent an e-mail to Sterling Employee-1 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 Getzel, I know that in 2015, Cohen transferred his residence to a trust. He did not disclose that transaction to Getzel or Sterling until in or about September 2017. 20 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 123 of 269 stating that during the closing of the Cohen would ?bring all payments up to date as well as deposit the payoff differential.? Cohen also requested by email on January 24, 2018, that at the closing of the Cohen?J- 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?l-transaction, however, did not close. On or about January 29, 2018, the - attorney emailed attorneys for Sterl1ng and stated?th'at??afthi?s?tim ?vmw?r there is no deal with Michael Cohen. Some of the numbers have changed and we are not prepared to go forward.? 3. 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--deal 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 Employee-3 spoke several times to Cohen on or about January 30, 2018 about paying down and/or restructuring Cohen?s outstanding taxi medallion loans. On 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. On the call, in the course of reviewing the failed Cohen- transaction, Sterling Employee?3 questioned Cohen about the price -Jas 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 124 of 269 $20,500,000. Cohen also suggested revised interest payment amounts. The signature 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. ?[p]ayment 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 $1.25 0m.? (Emphasis in original.) Cohen also stated, in sum and substance, that he had insuf?cient ?nancial resources to post additional collateral or pre?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 ?nancial position. In particular, according to Sterling Employee?3, Cohen and Sterling have an agreement in principal to restructure Cohenis 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 the 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 2017.08.02 . Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 125 of 269 (ii) Cohen Made Material Misrepresentations About His Finances to Banks Cohen Concealed from Sterling and Melrose Cash Derived ?rom Consulting Work 17. As set forth in detail below, despite multiple written and oral representations by Cohen to Sterling (and, by extension, Melrose?) that he had insuf?cient funds to pay down the principal balance of the medallion loans, make payments, or pay past?due amounts, it appears that between 2016 and the present, Cohen opened and maintained bank accounts at First 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 meetthe 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 (?First Republic I have learned, among other things, the following: ?3 Based on my review of a report of an interview conducted with an employee of Melrose, I have learned that, pursuant to the participation agreement between Sterling and Melrose, Cohen? 3 ?nancial statements and other records in Sterling?s possession were forwarded to Melrose so that Melrose could make a determination as to whether to approve of the Cohen-? transaction. Based on my review of reports of interviews with Melrose employees, I also know that Cohen called emplOyees at Melrose regarding the Cohen??_transaction. 23 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 126 of 269 a. Cohen and his wife have been customers of First Republic since approximately June 2011. 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 Cohenfi his primary physical address is the address for Subject Premises?1. 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 Consultants IAcco-un Cohen Was the only authoriiEdsignatory "on the account. According to account opening documents, the primary address for Essential Consultants LLC was the address for Subject Premises-1. When Cohen opened the Essential Consultants Account, First Republic Employee-1 conducted an in?person interview of Cohen. In response to a series of know-your? customer questions about the purpose of the account?the answers to which First Republic Employee?1 entered into a formlg?Cohen 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?eseparate 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 17 Certain ?nancial institutions are required to conduct such procedures pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. See 31 U.S.C. 5318; 31 C.F.R. 1020.220. 18 First Republic Employee-1 ?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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 127 of 269 appear to have receivedw?money in connection with real estate consulting work; in addition, the account has received substantial payments from foreign sources. c. I know from my review of First Republic bank 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 profile for the residential and commercial real?estate consulting services. Specifically, from my review of the Essential Consultants Account schedule ?a?d?lblic sources, I"know the following: i. Beginning on or about January 31, 2017, Cohen began receiving payments of $83,33 3 into the Essential Consultants Account from an entity called Columbus Nova LLC. According to public sources, Columbus Nova is an investment management firm controlled by Renova Group, an industrial holding company based in Zurich, Switzerland that is controlled by Russian national Viktor Vekselberg. From January 2017 to August 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received seven payments totaling $583,332.98 from 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'lnternational AG (?Novartis?). Between April 2017 and February 2018, the Essential Consultants Account received eleven wire payments from a Swiss bank account held in the name of Novartis, each in the amount of $99,980, for a total of $1,099,780. Beginning in or about April 2017, 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 20170802 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 128 of 269 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, 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 from which the money was (EKAIEQW produces and sells fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter aircraft, and satellites to the United States Department of Defense, ameng other customers. v. On or about May 22, 2017, the Essential Consultants Account received a $150,000 deposit from an account at Kazkommertsbank, a Kazakhstani bank. The listed account holder at Kazkommertsbank was a second Kazakhstani 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 DD 08 05 2017 CNTR 08/05/2017.? vi. Intotal, from 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, 2018, 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 Associates, PC. (the Account?). 26 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 129 of 269 Cohen was the only authorized signatory on the account. According to account opening documents, the primary address for Account was the address for Subject Premises?1. Among other things, the Account received ten wire transfers and one check from an account in the name of Squire Patton Boggs, a law ?rm. 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 balance in the account as of January 2, 2018', was 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 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 have learned the following: a. On or about April 28, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an individual whom I believe is af?liated with KAI. 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 Premises?2. 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 27 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 130 of 269 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 ?Michael DiCohen Associates, and providE'dThe address fde?bject?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, 2017. 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 BTA Bank, and that BTA Bank would pay Essential Consultants ?a consulting fee of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand US Dollars,? disbursed through payments'of $150,000. On or about May 10, 2017, Cohen sent an email to an employee of BTA Bank, and attached to the email an invoice to BTA 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 Services desires [Essential Consultants]?s assistance and advice.? The agreement indicates that Essential Consultants had the address of Subject Premises? 1. The contract calls for ?to pay the Consultant for his services . . . a consulting fee of Fifty 28 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 131 of 269 Thousand ($50,000) Dollars . . . per mont 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 otheriissueswmutual-ly? 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 Novartis employees, I 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 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 132 of 269 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 Getiel (as noted above, Cohen?s accountant at the time), my participation in an interview with Getzel, and my review of notes ant?I have learned the following: meeting, Cohen told Getzel, in sum and substance, that he had set up a law practice called Michael D. Cohen Associates RC, and a consulting company called Essential Consultants LLC. Cohen told Getzel, in sum and substance, that he expected to earn $75,000 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. b. In or about October 2017, if not earlier, Getzel was preparing a personal ?nancial statement for Cohen. On or about October 6, 2017, Getzel sent an email to Cohen in which Getzel wrote that ?[a]ttached is a draftof the new PFS as of September 30, 2017? and attached a draft of the September 2017 Financial Statement. The draft statement re?ected that as of September 30, 2017, Cohen had only $1,250,000 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 of approximately $45,630,000, leaving him purportedly over $12 million in debt. In the same email, Getzel questioned 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 133 of 269 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 Getzel by telephone?which is re?ected on toll records for Cohen?s cellphone?and told Getzel, 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 Getzel, Cohen, using the Cohen Account, responded torGetzel?s email with the answer good to Getzel 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 Getzel, 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 ?rm. 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 above, 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?1 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 equivalents in his ?nancial disclosures. Speci?cally, I know from my review of the September . 31 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 134 of 269 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, Ihave learned that Cohen had approximately $5,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2017. Additionally,'as of mFEbruary h?a?d equivalents. Speci?cally, from my review of the account schedule and bank records, I have learned the following: a. Cohen has three checking and/or 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 $1,389,245.78 in these accounts. 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. 0. As of September 30, 2017, Cohen had $260,689.18 in an account at Signature Bank. As ofFebruary 1, 2018, Cohen had $261,517.55 in this account. d. In addition to the Essential Consultants Account and 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 135 of 269 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 heldjointly with his wife. Cohen also has a safety deposit box at TD Bank-?Subject Premises?3. The safety deposit box was opened on December 13, 2017 in the names of Michael and Laura Cohen. 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 had $6,268,732.59 in his accounts at Capital One Bank, City National Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic, and Morgan Stanley.19 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 funds from 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 those loans to - 19 Based on my review of the account schedules described above, I know that, as of the date of this affidavit, 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 136 of 269 Cohen Has Unreported Interest Income 24. It appears that Cohen also hid 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 4 f? a summafY'Ofb 77!; 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 Getzel, 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 ?approximately $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 the terms of the amended promissory note, the loan was secured b3- apartment in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. On or about April 8, 2015, Cohen and -:estated the promissory note to increase the principal amount to $6,000,000.21 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 ?1 learned from Getzel that 21 The note states that the loan is to_ husband and wife, jointly and severally. For ease of reference, I refer simply to herein. 34 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 137 Of 269 promissory note, Cohen?s loan to 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 -7epay 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 note, approximately $61,250 since April 2015. Speci?cally, based on my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, 1 have learned that from April 2015 to October 2015, Cohen received checks from an entity callec? totaling $61,250 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One ank.22 It appears from my review of bank records and public sources tha1- is the owner of From my review of records maintained by Capital One Bank, 1 have also learned that since October 2015, Cohen has received checks from an entity called totaling $61,250 per month, which he deposited into his personal bank account at Capital One Bank. It appears from my review of bank records and public sources that- is also the owner of I 4? In total, it appears that Cohen receives approximately $735,000 per year in interest payments from - d. 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 Getzel, I have learned that Cohen did 29? In April 2015, Cohen received a pro?rated payment. For all months thereafter, the total payment equaled $61,250, but - often made the payment in multiple checks. 35 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 138 of 269 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 Getzel?his accountant?about the income, and Getzel only learned about the income because he began doing 255-. axes in 2017 23 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it appears that Cohen representations to Sterling and Melrose that he did not have more than $1,250,000 were false, and that Cohen withheld information relating to the interest income he is receiving from l-n order to secure favorable terms in his renegotiation of his medallion loan. Cohen Had a Side Agreement Wit]- 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 misrepresentedhis financial position to Sterling, but also failed to disclose a side agreement he had negotiated with- it appears that-agreed to pay an above-market price for Cohen?s taxi cab medallions, and in exchange, Cohen agreed to pay '-1pproxin1ately $5.8 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-l, Sterling Employee?2, and Sterling Employee?3, I have learned, among other things, the following: 0 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-l. According to the term sheet,_1 would borrow $20,000,000 from Sterling and Melrose, 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 139 of 269 Cohen. At a price of $20 million for thirty-two 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 financial transaction between the parties. b. Additionally, an internal Sterling credit memorandum, dated October 4, 2017, describing the terms of the Cohen-transaction and the new loan to did not mention any payments from Cohen-to _i?ol?ding a 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 2018, taxi medallions sold for amounts ranging from $120,000 to $372,000. According to Sterling Employee-l and Sterling Employee?2, they were never told tha?_agreed 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-to 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 agreement?wand 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 Getzel, and my participation in an interview 37 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 140 of 269 with Getzel, 1 have learned the following, in substance and in part, regarding the proposed side payment from Cohen to a. On or about September 19, 2017, Getzel prepared a memorandum for Cohen entitled, ?Sale of NYC Medallion Entities and Debt Assumption? (the ?Getzel Memorandum?). The Getzel Memorandum summarized the proposed transaction between Cohen and- in part, as follows: ?Michael and Laura Cohen will transfer ownership of their 13 NYC medallion entities to a Buyer who will-assume- their b'a?lE'lndebtedness, upon debt portfolio of the 13 entities by $500,000 and a cash payment to the Buyer of b. According to Getzel, Cohen told-him the parameters of the deal, including the payment of $3,800,000 to -but Getzel did not know where Cohen was going to obtain $3,800,000 to pay - As noted above, Cohen had more than $5,000,000 in cash and 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 Sterling (and Melrose), 1 have seen no evidence that Sterling, Melrose, or any other financial institution involved in the potential deal with Cohen and-was aware of the planned $3.8 million side payment from Cohen to i The Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme 29. The USAO and FBI are also investigating a criminal violation of campaign finance laws by Michael Cohen. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen made 24 The reference to thirteen medallions appears to be an error by Getzel. Cohen and his wife together owned sixteen corporations, which in turn owned 32 taxi medallions. . 38 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 ?Filed 07/18/19 Page 141 of 269 an excessive in-kind contribution to the presidential election. campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump in the form of a $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, an individual who was rumored to have had an extramarital affair with Trump, in exchange for her agreement not to disclose that alleged affair. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that this payment was intended to keep Clifford from making public statements about the rumored affair on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, and thus constitutes a campaign contribution in excess of the applicable limit. 30. ?i From my a. In or around October 2011, there were rumors published on the gossip websites heDz'rty. com that Trump had had an extramarital affair with Clifford, an adult film actress whose screen name is Stormy Daniels, in or around July 2006. In or about October 2011, Life Style Magazine, a tabloid sold in supermarkets, also published an article, based on the report in heDz?rty. com, alleging an affair had occurred between Trump and Clifford. Both Trump and Clifford, through their representatives, issued denials in response to the articles. b. Speci?cally, on or about October 11, 2011, Keith Davidson, who identi?ed himself as Clifford?s attorney, sent a cease and desist letter to TheDz?rty. com, demanding that the article regarding Trump and Clifford be removed from the website. Additionally, on or about October 12, 2011, Cohen, who was then Executive Vice?President and Special Counsel to the Trump Organization, stated to News that ?[t]he totally untrue and ridiculous story . . . emanated from a sleazy and disgusting website. . . . The Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump will be bringing a lawsuit . . . [and] Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization would like to thank and commend Stormy Daniels and her attorneys for their honesty and swift actions.? 31. On or about June 16, 2015, Trump formally launched his 2016 presidential campaign. On or about May 4, 2016, Trump became the presumptive Republican Party nominee 39 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 142 of 269 for president, and on July 19, 2016, Trump of?cially became the nominee. Based on my review of public sources, I have learned that while it does not appear that Cohen had an of?cial title as part of the Trump campaign, on multiple occasions Cohen made public statements on behalf of Trump or his campaign. For instance, on or about August 18, 2016, Cohen appeared on CNN to defend Trump?s polling numbers. I 32. On or about October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published online a video and anying audio terms? in a 2005 conversation with Billy Bush, who was then the host of Access Hollywood. The following day, on October 8, 2016, Trump appeared in a video in which he stated, among other 7 things, ?I?ve said and done things I regret and words released today on this more than a decade old video are one rof them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don?t re?ect who I am. I said it. I was wrong and I apologize.? Based on my review of public sources, I also know that representatives of the Trump Campaign stated, in sum and substance, that the Access Hollywood comment was an old and isolated incident. 33. Based on my review of public sources, including an article published in Slate magazine by a reporter who interviewed Clifford, I have learned that around this same time, in or about October 2016, Clifford was in discussions with Good Morning America show and Slate magazine, among other media sources, to provide these media outlets with her statement about her alleged relationship with Trump. According to the article in Slate, which the author based on conversations with Clifford over the telephone and by text message, Clifford wanted to be paid for her story or be paid by Trump not to disclose her accusation. As Cohen summarized in a 2018 email obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants: ?In October 2016, I was contacted 40 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 143 of 269 by counsel for Ms. Clifford stating that news outlets, including ABC News, were pursuing the 2011 story of an alleged affair between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford.? 34. From my review of telephone toll records:25 and information produced pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that in the days following the Access Hollywood video, Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages, and emails with Keith 1 Davidson, who was then Clifford?s attorney, David Pecker and Dylan Howard of American Media, Inc7 - press secretary for Trump?s presidential campaign. Based on the timing of these calls, and the content of the text messages and emails, I believe that at least some of these communications concerned the need to prevent Clifford from going public, particularly in the wake of the Access Hollywood story. In particular, I have learned the following: a. On October 8, 2016, at approximately 7:20 pm, Cohen received a call from Hicks. Sixteen seconds into the call, Trump joined the call, and the call continued for over four minutes.27 Based on the toll records that the USAO has obtained to date, I believe that this was the ?rst call 25 My attribution of certain telephone numbers to certain individuals as described in this affidavit is based on my review of the vCard (virtual contact file) and text messages obtained from Cohen?s telephone pursuant to the iCloud_ Warrant. 26 Pecker is President of AMI and, according to his own statements in public reports, a personal friend of Trump. Howard is the chief content o?icer of AMI, who according to public records reports directly to Pecker. 27 I believe that Trump joined the call between Cohen and Hicks based on my review of toll records. Specifically, I know that a call was initiated between Cohen?s telephone number and Trump?s telephone number at the same time the records indicate that Cohen was talking to Hicks. After the Cohen-Trump call was initiated, it lasted the same period of time as the Cohen?Hicks call. Additionally, the toll records indicate a and then Trump?s telephone number, which, based on my training and experience, means that the call was either transferred to Trump, or that Trump was added to the call as a conference or three-way call participant. In addition, based on my conversations with an FBI agent who has interviewed Hicks, I have learned that Hicks stated, in substance, that to the best of her recollection, she did not learn about the allegations made by Clifford until early November 2016. Hicks was not specifically asked about this three-way call. 41 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 144 of 269 Cohen had received or made to Hicks in at least multiple weeks, and that Cohen and Trump spoke about once a month prior to this date speci?cally, prior to this call on October 8, 2016, Cohen and Trump had spoken once in May, once in June, once in July, zero times in August, and twice in September. b. Approximately ten minutes after the call ended, Hicks and Cohen spoke again for about two minutes. c. At 7:39 David Pecker (as noted above, the President of American Media Inc., or AMI) and they connected for thirty seconds. Approximately four minutes later, Cohen called Pecker again and they spoke for more than a minute. Three minutes after ending his call with Pecker, Cohen received a call from Dylan Howard (as noted above, the Chief Content Of?cer of AMI), and they spoke for approximately a minute. According to toll records, it does not appear that Cohen and Howard spoke regularly prior to October 8, 2016, as it had been over a month since they had called each other. I d. At 7:56 pm, approximately eight minutes after his call with Howard ended, Cohen called Hicks and they connected for two minutes. At approximately the same time this call ended, Cohen received a call from Pecker, and they spoke for about two minutes. At 8:03 pm, about three minutes after ending his call with Pecker, Cohen called Trump, and they spoke for nearly eight minutes. A 6. At 8:39 pm. and 8:57 pm, Cohen received calls from Howard and spoke to him for about four and six minutes, respectively. At 9:13 pm, about ten minutes after Cohen and Howard hung up from the second of these calls, Howard sent Cohen a text message that said: ?Keith will do it. Let?s reconvene tomorrow.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I 42 20170302 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 145 of 269 believe that when Howard wrote ?Keith,? he was referring to Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stephanie Clifford. At 3 :31 now on October 9, 2016, Cohen sent Howard a text message in response that said: ?Thank you.? Eight minutes later, Cohen sent Howard a text message that said: ?Resolution Consultants LLC. is the name of the entity I formed a week ago. Whenever you wake, please call my cell.? f. The following day, on October 10, 2016, at 10:58 am, Howard sent a text message to Cohen and Davidson, which stated: ?KeitthiEhE?I: connecting you both in regards totth?at?w business opportunity. Spoke to the client this AM and they?re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.? At 12:25 pm, Davidson sent Cohen a text message that stated: ?Michael if we are ever going to close this deal In my opinion, it needs to be today. Keit Davidson and Cohen then spoke by phone for about three minutes. Based on my participation in this investigation, I believe that when Howard wrote that the ?client? was ?con?rmed to proceed with the opportunity,? he was referring to Clifford?s agreement in principle to accept money from Cohen in exchange for her agreement not to discuss any prior affair with then-candidate Trurnp.28 g. Based on my review of records obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that on or about October 10, 2016, Clifford and Davidson appear to have signed a ?side letter agreement? that stated it was an exhibit to a ?confidential settlement agreement and mutual release? between ?Peggy Peterson? and ?David Dennison.? The purpose of the document, 28 As set forth below, AMI was also involved in a payment to model Karen McDougal. However, because these communications were in close temporal proximity to the events involving the negotiation of a payment to Clifford, the execution of the agreement with Clifford, and the payment of money to Clifford, I believe that these communications were related to Clifford. Additionally, based on my review of public statements by McDougal, I have learned that she negotiated an agreement with AMI several months prior to these'communications between Cohen and Pecker, Howard, and Davidson. 43 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 146 of 269 according to the agreement, was to de?ne the ?true name and identity? of persons named by pseudonym in ?confidential settlement agreement and mutual release.? The side letter agreement specifies the identity of ?Peggy Peterson? to be Clifford, but the space for ?Dennison?s? identity is blank. The agreement also includes a signature page for ?Peterson,? ?Dennison,? and their attorneys. The signature page is signed by ?Peterson? and his attorney, Davidson, but the document is unsigned by ?Dennison? and his attorney. Based on my involvement in this I order to facilitate the closing of a deal between Davidson?s client and Cohen or his client on October 10, 2016. 35. It appears that on October 13, 2016, and the days that followed, Cohen took steps to complete a transaction with Davidson, including attempting to open an account from which Cohen could transfer funds to Davidson. Speci?cally, from my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, records maintained by First Republic, as well as my participation in interviews with First Republic employees, I have learned the following: a. On the morning of October 13, 2016, at 8:54 am, Cohen sent Pecker a text message that stated:??1 need to talk to you.? At 9:06 am, Pecker sent a text message to Cohen that stated, called please call me back.? The tolls between Cohen and Pecker do not show a telephone call between 8:54 am. and 9:06 am. However, based on my review of text messages, I have learned that Cohen and Pecker communicate with each other over Signal, which is an communications cellphone application that allows users to send text messages and make calls. 44 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 147 of 269 b. At 9 :23 Cohen sent an email that stated ?call me? to First Republic Employee- 2. The email attached documents from the Secretary of State of Delaware indicating that Cohen had formed a limited liability company called ?Resolution Consultants on September 30, 2016. As noted above, ?Resolution Consultants? is the name of the entity that Cohen had told Howard he had formed recently after Howard said Davidson would ?do it.? At 10:44 Cohen called First Republic Employee?2 and told him, in sum and substance, that he needed an account- - -- did ,notrwant; anaddress on the checks written out of the account. Later that day, another employee at First Republic emailed Cohen account opening paperwork to complete. Cohen returned the account opening documents partially completed, but failed to provide a copy of his driver?s license or passport, and did not respond to the employee?s question of how he wanted to fund the account. As a result, the account was never opened. c. On October 17, 2016, Cohen incorporated Essential Consultants LLC in Delaware. That same day, he ?led paperwork to dissolve Resolution Consultants LLC. 36. Despite these steps taken by Cohen, it appears that the negotiation between Cohen and Davidson was not progressing suf?ciently fast enough for Davidson or his client, Clifford, and they threatened to go public with Clifford?s allegations just days before the presidential election. Speci?cally, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, and public sources, I know the following: a. According to an article in The Washington Post, which quoted emails sent from Cohen?s email account hosted by the Trump Organization, on October 17, 2016, Davidson emailed Cohen and threatened to cancel the aforementioned ?settlement agreement? by the end of the day ~45 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 148 of 269 if Cohen did not complete the transaction.29 According to the article, Davidson sent Cohen a second email later in the day that stated in part, ?Please be advised that my client deems her settlement agreement canceled and void.? At 4:00 pm. that day, Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for over five minutes. b. Cohen?s 4:00 pm. call with Davidson and/or Davidson?s threats to cancel the ?settlement agreement? appear to have touched off a ?urry of communications about the settlement agreement and Whether Clifford would go public. Specl?'cally: i. At 4:43 Howard sent Cohen a text message that stated: ?I?m told they?re going with DailyMail. Are you aware?? One minute later, Cohen responded: ?Call me.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I understand Howard?s text to mean?that he heard that Clifford was going to take her story of an extramarital affair with Trump to the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper. ii. At 4:45 Howard called Cohen and they spoke for over two minutes. Moments later, Davidson and Cohen spoke for about two minutes. At 5:03 pm, Cohen attempted to call Trump, but the call only lasted eight seconds. This was Cohen?s ?rst call after he spoke with Davidson. iv. At 5:25 Cohen texted Howard, stating: v. At 6:44 Howard responded to Cohen?s text, stating: ?Not taking my calls.? Cohen responded one minute later: ?You?re kidding. Who are you trying to reach?? 573 Howard responded one minute later: ?The 6agent. Based on my involvement in this 29 Due to the partially covert nature of the investigation to this date, the USAO has not requested documents from the Trump Organization or Davidson, and thus does not possess the email referenced in this article. 46 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 149 of 269 investigation, I understand Howard? 3 text messages to mean that he attempted to contact Davidson about the matter involving Clifford, but that Davidson was not taking Howard?s calls. vi. At 6:49 pm, Cohen called Howard and they spoke for nearly four minutes. c. The following day, on October 18, .2016, heSmokingGun. com, a website that publishes legal documents and mugshots, published an article called: ?Donald Trump and the Porn Superstar,? which alleged that Trump had an extramarital affair with Clifford. However, the article noted that Clifford had declined to comment. 37. On or about October 25, 2016, the communications between Cohen, Davidson, Howard and Pecker picked up again, apparently concerning a transaction involving Clifford. Specifically, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, as well as my review of public sources, I have learned the following: a. On October 25, 2016, at 6:09 pm, Howard sent Cohen a text message stating: ?Keith calling you urgently. We have to coordinate something on the matter he?s calling you about or its [sic] could look awfully bad for everyone.? One minute later, Davidson sent Cohen a text message stating ?Call me.? Cohen and Davidson called each other several times over the next half hour but appear not to have connected. At 6:42 pm, Cohen and Davidson spoke for about eight minutes. At 7:11 pm, they spoke for another two minutes. b. The next morning, on or about October 26, 2016, at 8:26 am, Cohen called Trump and spoke to him for approximately three minutes. At 8:34 am, Cohen called Trump again and connected for a minute and a half. c. At approximately 9:04 a.m.~less than thirty minutes after speaking with Trump? Cohen sent two emails to the person who had incorporated Resolution Consultants and Essential Consultants for him, and stated ?can you send measap the filing receipt? and then, in the second 47 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 150 of 269 email, ?for Essential Consultants That person responded with the ?ling receipt two minutes later, at 9:06 am. and with the certi?cation of formation 23 minutes later, at 9:27 am. (1. Shortly after that, Cohen contacted First Republic Employee-2 and told him, in sum and substance, that he decided not to open an account in the name of ?Resolution Consulting? and instead would be opening a real estate consulting company in the name of ?Essential Consultants.? Cohen told First Republic Employee-2 that he was at Trump Tower, and wanted to go to a First Republic branch'across the street to open the account, so Republic Employee?1, a preferred banker at that branch, assist Cohen. At 11:00 am, First Republic Employee?1 called Cohen. 1 know from my participation in an interview with First Republic Employee?1, that around the time of the call he went to Cohen?s of?ce in Trump Tower?H on the same floor as the Trump Organization?and went through account opening questions, including know your customer questions, with Cohen. In response to a series of know-your- customer questions about the purpose of the account?the answers to which First Republic Employee?1 entered into a form?u?Cohen 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. Basedon my review of records obtained from First Republic, it appears that this account (the ?Essential Consultants Account?) was created at a time between 11:00 am. and 1:00 pm. e. At 1:47 Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for approximately two minutes. At approximately 1:49 Davidson emailed Cohen wiring instructions for an attorney client trust account at City National Bank. f. After the Essential ConsultantsAccount was opened on October 26, 2016, Cohen transferred $131,000 from a home equity line of credit that Cohen had at First Republic to the 48 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 151 of 269 Essential Consultants Account. Following the transfer, at approximately 4: 15 pm. on October 26, 2016, First Republic Employee-2?s assistant emailed Cohen at his Trump Organization email address to tell him that the funds. had been deposited into the Essential Consultants Account. Cohen forwarded that email to the Cohen Gmail Account and then forwarded it to Davidson. g. At 6:37 pm, Cohen asked Pecker by text message, ?Can we speak? Importan Cohen called Pecker at 6:49 pm. and connected for thirty seconds. At 6:57 pm, Cohen sent Howard a text message, statinglzu ?Please call me. and connected for about thirty seconds. At 7:06 pm, Cohen called Pecker again and they spoke for nearly thirteen minutes. At 7:24 pm, Howard sent a text message to Cohen that: ?He said he?d call me back in 20 minutes. I told him what you are asking for his [sic] reasonable. I?ll get it sorted.? Approximately an hour later, at 8:23 pm, Howard told Cohen by text message to ?check your Gmail for email from my private account.? In an email sent at 8:23 pm. by Howard to Cohen and Davidson, with the subject line ?Confirmation,? Howard stated, ?Thank you both for chatting with me earlier. Confirming agreement on: - Executed agreement, hand-signed by Keith?s client and returned via overnight or same?day FedEx to Michael, - Change of agreement to re?ect the correct LLC, Transfer of funds on Thursday AM to be held in escrow until receipt of agreemen After receiving that email, at approximately 8:27 pm, Cohen asked Howard by text message, ?Can you and David [Pecker] give me a call.? Howard responded: ?David is not around I think. I?ll call.? At 8:28 pm, Howard called Cohen and they spoke for three minutes. I 38. On October 27, 2016, Cohen made a payment to Davidson of $130,000?with the funds intended for Clifford?for the purpose of securing her ongoing silence with respect to the allegations that she had an extramarital affair with Trump. Speci?cally, based on my review of 49 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 152 of 269 toll records, bank records, and information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, 1 have learned the following: a. At 9:47 am, Cohen sent Davidson .an email, stating: ?Keith, kindly con?rm that the wire received today, October 27, 2016 shall be held by you in your attorney?s trust account until such time as directed for release by me, in writing. Additionally, please ensure that all paperwork contains the correct name of Essential Consultants LLC. 1 thank you in advance for I your assistance and look from you later.? b. At approximately 10:01 am, according to records provided by First Republic Bank, Cohen completed paperwork to wire $130,000 from the Essential Consultants Account?? which had been funded a day prior from Cohen.? 3 home equity line of credit?to the attorney client trust account at City National Bank that Davidson had speci?ed in the wiring instructions he sent to Cohen. The wire transfer was made shortly thereafter. c. At 10:02 am, Davidson responded to Cohen?s email from 9:47 stating: con?rm that I will work in good faith that no funds shall be disbursed unless until the plaintiff personally signs all necessary settlement paperwork, (the form of which will match the prior agreement). The settlement docs will name the correct corporation, (Essential Consultants LLC). Plaintiff signature will be notarized and returned to you via FedEx. Only after you receive FedEx will I disburse. Fair?? d. At 10:50 am, First Republic Employee?1 sent Cohen an email con?rming that the payment had been sent and providing him with the wire number. 39. On October 28, 2016, and the days that followed, Cohen ?nalized the transaction with Davidson. Speci?cally, based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, public sources, and bank records, I know the following: 50 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 153 of 269 a. On October 28, 2016, at 11:48 am, Cohen spoke to Trump for approximately five minutes. Beginning at 1:21 pm, Cohen attempted a series of phone calls to Davidson, Pecker, and Howard throughout the day, although it appears he may only have connected with Howard. b. Later that day, at approximately 7:01 pm, Davidson stated to Cohen by text message that ?all is AOK. I should have signed, notarized does on Monday. You should have them on Tuesday.? Cohen thanked him and said hope we are good.? Davidson responded, assure you. We are very good.? Howard also texted Cohen at 7:08 pm, ?Keith [Davidson] says . we are good.? Cohen then responded to Howard and ?Excellent? to Davidson. At approximately 10:30 pm, Cohen spoke to Hicks for three minutes. c. On October 31, 2016, Cohen called Howard at 8:22 pm. and they spoke for over three minutes. At 8:32 pm, Cohen received text messages from both Howard and Davidson. Howard said: ?You?ll have paperwork tomorrow says Davidson said: ?We are AOK. You will be receiving a package tomorrow.? Cohen responded ?Thank you? to Howard and ?Thanks Keith. Will call you then? to Davidson. From my involvement in this investigation, I believe Davidson was referring to a signed nondisclosure agreement when he told Cohen that he would receive a package. d. Based on my review of court ?lings that became public in 2018, I havelearned that on or about October 28, 2016, LLC and/or David Dennison? entered into a ?confidential settlement agreement and mutual release? with ?Peggy Peterson,? pursuant to which ?Peterson? agreed not to disclose certain ?confidential information pertaining to [Dennison]? in exchange for $130,000. The agreement provided that would wire the funds to ?Peterson? 5? attorney, who would then transfer funds to ?Peterson.? Cohen signed the agreement on behalf of 51 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 154 of 269 The agreement stated that the address for which was later referred to in the agreement as ?Essential Consultants, was Cohen?s residence. e. Consistent with the ?con?dential settlement agreement and mutual release,? on or about November 1, 2016, Davidson transferred $96,645 from his attorney client trust account at City National Bank to a bank account in Clifford?s name. The wire had the annotation ?net settlement.? On the same day, at approximately 9:48 am. Davidson sent Cohen a text message with a picture of a FedEx delivery confirmatlon, statlng that at apprOXimately 9109 shipped by Davidson the previous day had arrived for Cohen - at his Trump Organization address. On the same day, at approximately 6:14 pm, Davidson sent Cohen an email with an 1 audio file attached and said ?Give? this a lesson [sic] and then call me.? The audio attachment was titled ?Stormy.mp3? and was a five-minute recording of Davidson interviewing Clifford about recent public allegations made by an adult film star named Jessica Drake regarding her alleged past affair with Trump; in the recording, Clifford explained the reasons she believed that Drake was not credible. Less than an hour 1ater,?at approximately 7:05 pm, Cohen called Trump, but it appears that they did not connect. Cohen then called a telephone number belonging to Kel1yarme Conway, who at the time was Trump?s campaign manager. They did not connect. At approximately 7:44 pm, however, Cohen received a return call from Conway, which lasted for approximately six minutes. 40. On November 4, 2016, just three days after the Clifford transaction was completed and just four days before the presidential election, the Wall Street Journal published an article alleging that the National Enquirer had ?Shielded Donald Trump? from allegations by Playboy model Karen McDougal that she and Trump had an affair. The article alleged that AMI had agreed to pay McDougal to bury her story. McDougal, like Clifford, had been represented by Davidson. 52 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 155 of 269 Based on my review of toll records, information obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, and public sources, it appears that Cohen spoke frequently to Davidson, Howard, Pecker, and Hicks around the time of this article?s publication?just days before Election Day?about the importance of preventing the McDougal and Clifford stories from gaining national traction. Specifically, I have learned the following: a. Between 4:30 and 8:00 pm. on November 4, Cohen communicated several times with Howard, Pecker and Davidson. For instance, at approximately 4:49 pm, Cohen sent Howard a text message with a screenshot of an email forwarded to him by another Trump Organization lawyer. The forwarded email was from a Wall Street Journal reporter, and asked for comment from Trump and/or the campaign on the story. Cohen also spoke with Hicks several times, including shortly before and/or after calls with Pecker, Howard and Davidson. Indeed, at "approximately 7:33 pm, using two different cellphones subscribed to him, Cohen appears to have been talking to Davidson and Hicks at the same time. b. At approximately 8:51 pm, Cohen sent Howard a message, stating: ?She?s being really dif?cult with giving Keith a statement. Basically went into hiding and unreachable.? one minute later, Howard responded: ?I?ll ask him again. We just need her to disappear.? Cohen responded, ?She de?nitely disappeared but refuses to give a statement and Keith cannot push her.? At approximately 8 :55 pm, Howard responded to Cohen?s text: ?Let?s let the dust settle. We don?t want to push her over the edge. She? on side at present and we have a solid position and a plausible position that she is rightfully employed as a columnist.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe Cohen and Howard were referring to Karen McDougal when they were discussing ?she? and ?her.? Additionally, I believe Howard?s statement that ?we have. . . a 53 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 156 of 269 plausible position that she is rightfully employed as a columnist? was a reference to the fact that AMI had given McDougal payments for her role as a purported columnist for the company. 0. At approximately 8:58 pm. on November 4, 2016, Howard attempted to reassure Cohen about the effect of the forthcoming Wall Street Journal article, texting, think it?ll be ok pal. Ithink it?ll fade into the distance.? Cohen responded, ?He?s pissed.? Howard wrote back, ?I?m pissed! You?re pissed. Pecker is pissed. Keith is pissed. Not much we can do.? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe Cohen was referring to Trump when he stated ?he? pissed.? Cohen asked Howard at approximately 9:00 pm. how the Wall Street Journal could publish its article if ?evelyone denies.? Howard responded, ?Because there is the payment ??om AM. It looks suspicious at best.? d. At approximately 9:03 Hicks called Cohen and they spoke for two minutes. At approximately 9:11 Cohen called Howard and spoke to him for ?ve minutes. At approximately 9:15 Hicks called Cohen and they spoke for nearly seven minutes. Again, Cohen used different phones for these two Calls, such that he appears to have been on both calls for about a minute of overlap. At approximately 9:32 Cohen texted Pecker, ?The boss just tried calling you. Are you free?? A minute later, Cohen texted Howard, ?Is there a way to ?nd David quickly?? e. At approximately 9:50 the Wall Street Journal article was published online. Howard and Hicks both sent web links for the article to Cohen. Over the next half hour, Cohen and Howard exchanged several text messages commenting on how the story came across. The next morning on November 5, 2016, at approximately 7:35 am, Cohen texted Hicks, ?So farI see only 6 stories. Getting little to no traction.? Hicks responded, ?Same. Keep prayingll It?s working!? Cohen wrote back, ?Even CNN not talking about it. No one believes it and if necessary, I have a 54 20170302 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 157 of 269 statement by Storm denying everything and contradicting the other porn stars statement. I wouldn?t use it now or even discuss with him as no one is talking about this or cares!? Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe Cohen was referring to the above?referenced recorded audio statement by Clifford that he obtained ?'om Davidson, and was stating that such a statement could be used to in?uence potential negative media relating to Trump, but was unnecessary at that time. Based on a text message ?om Hicks to Cohen, I believe that later that morning, Pecker s; spokeitoilfrump. 41. On or about November 8, 2016, Trump won the election for President of the United States. 42. On or about January 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal ?rst reported that Cohen arranged a payment to Clifford. On or about January 22, 2018, Common Cause, a government watchdog group, ?led a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging that Cohen had violated campaign ?nance laws by making the payment to Clifford. Based on my review public sources following that report, as well as emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned the following: a. On or about January 23, 2018, the day after Common Cause ?led its complaint, Cohen began emailing himself drafts of statements describing his payment to Clifford. Additionally, on January 23, 2018, Cohen emailed the following draft of that statement to an individual who appears to be writing a book on Cohen?s behalf: In October 2016, I was contacted by counsel for Ms. Clifford stating that news outlets, including ABC news, were pursuing the 2011 story of an alleged affair between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clifford. Despite the fact that both parties had already denied the allegation, as MLTrump?s longtime special counsel and protector, I took it upon myself to match the offer and keep the story ?om breaking. I knew the allegation to be false, but I am also a realist who understands that just because something is false doesn ?t mean that it doesn?t create harm and damage. I could not allow this to 55 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 158 of 269 occur. I negotiated a non?disclosure agreement with Ms. Clifford?s counsel and tendered the funds. I did this through my Delaware LLC and transferred personal funds to cover the agreement. 1 was not reimbursed any monies from Mr. Trump, the Trump Organization, any third party or the Presidential campaign. At no point did 1 ever advise Mr. Trump of my communications or actions regarding this agreement. As outlandish and unusual as this may appear, the Trumps have been like family to me for over a decade. It?s what you do for family. (Emphasis added.) Based on my involvement in this investigation, I believe that the above email is an acknowledgement that the allegationof the affair had existed for some time 20]] stOry. . but that Cohen was motivated to ?keep the story from breaking? again in October 2016. b. On or about February 13, 2018, Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times that ?Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford. The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.? Cohen declined to answer follow?up questions including whether Trump had been aware of the payment, why Cohen made the payment, or whether similar payments had been made to other people. c. On or about February 14, 2018, Cohen was asked by The New York Times whether Trump had reimbursed him, whether he and Trump had made any arrangement at the time of the payment, or whether he had made payments to other women. Cohen stated in response, can?t get into any of that.? On or about February 14, 2018, Cohen also stated to The Washington Post that: ?In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.? 43. On or about March 9, 2018, Cohen stated to ABC News that ?the funds were taken from my home equity line and transferred internally to my LLC account in the same bank.? 56 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 159 of 269 44. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen committed violations of the Campaign Finance Offenses by making an in?kind contribution to Trump or the Trump campaign in the form of a $130,000 payment to Clifford on the eve of the election. Indeed, while he denies having given an unlawful contribution, in his own statements Cohen has admitted that he paid $130,000 of his ?personal funds? to Clifford and that the payment 7 occurred less than two weeks before the election, as Trump was facing negative media allegations about his behavior toward women, even though allegat1ons of an affa?if?between? Clifford existed since 2011. In addition, the communication records set forth above make evident that Cohen communicated with members of the Trump campaign about his negotiation with Clifford?s attorney and the need to preclude Clifford from making a statement that would have re?ected negatively on the candidate in advance of the forthcoming election. 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-l and, at least in part, works at both Subject Premises?l 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 payment to Clifford. Additionally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?3 contains evidence of Cohen?s assets and his payment to Clifford. Finally, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-4, in which Cohen is temporarily residing, contains electronic 57 20170302 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 160 of 269 devices, including Subject Device-l and Subject Device-2, which, in turn, contain evidence of the Subject Offenses, such as evidence relating to the Sterling taxi medallion transaction, Cohen?s assets, Cohen?s consulting work for Essential Consultants LLC, and his payment to Clifford. 46. First, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen lives and operates his businesses, at least in part, at Subject Premises?1. Speci?cally, from my review of property records, I know that Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen own (in trust) Subject Premises?1. From my review of eetiPremises?lfAdditionally, from my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know 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-1. 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-l. Cohen has also provided the address of Subject Premises-1 as the address for Essential Consultants and Michael D. Cohen Associates, PC. For example, the certi?cates of incorporation and account opening documents at First Republic for both entities list their addresses as the address for Subject Premises?1. See supra 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 11 19(c). 47. There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises~1 is likely to 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: 58 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 161 of 269 a. According to records maintained by Sterling, the address for all of Cohen?s taxi medallion LLCs is the address for Subject Premises-1. See supra 11 16(c). Additionally, the medallion loan documents indicate that any mailings related to the loans should be sent to Subject Premises-1. 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 ~77 transaction with Sterling in 2014 to re?finance 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 jj 16(1), and its demand letter and notice of default, see supra jj 16(q), to Subject Premises?1. Accordingly, Subject Premises-1 likely contains evidence concerning the -:ransaction 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?1 will be relevant to Cohen?s possession or knowledge of the documents. c. From my review of records maintained by First Republic, I know that Cohen provided the address for Subject Premises?1 as the mailing addresses for the Essential Consultants Account and Account. See supra 18(b), 18(e). Accordingly, it is likely that Subject 59 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 162 of 269 Premises-l 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 know-your-customer process, any notes made by Cohen when he was opening the accounts, wire transfer records, and canceled checks. 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 funds 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-l 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-1 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 16(e), he disclosed $10,000,000 in ?investments in overseas entities.?30 The value of these investments was omitted from subsequent ?nancial statements. However, for the reasons outlined above, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen omitted the value of those investments from his 2017 30 Based on my participation in an interview with Sterling Employee?3, 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 1763 of 269 ?nancial statements in order to understate his assets. As Subject Premises-l is Cohen?s primary residence and he uses Subject Premises?1 as the mailing address for bank records, there is probable cause to believe that account statements for unknown bank accounts or assets concealed from Sterling arellikely to be found in Subject Premises~1. f. Based on my review of records maintained, by and produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I know that the address Cohen provided to for Essential Consultants is the address for supra 1 there 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?l for at least one consulting arrangement involving Essential Consultants, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?l may 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 by Getzel?s accounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned. that Getzel?s accounting ?rm sent documents to Subject Premises?1 and used the address for Subject Premises-l as the address listed on Cohen?s personal and corporate tax returns. See supra 11 16(n). For instance, on or about October 6, 2017, an employee at Getzel?s 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 be found in Subject Premises?1. h. Based on my review of bank records and publicly-available documents, I know that Cohen used $130,000 from a home equity line of credit on Subject Premises?l to pay Clifford. I also know that on the settlement and nondisclosure agreement between ?Peggy Peterson? and 61 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 164 of 269 the address for Essential Consultants is Subject Premisesul. Accordingly, Subject Premises-l is likely to contain evidence of the Campaign Finance Offenses, including settlement and nondisclosure agreements, payment records, written and email correspondence, and records pertaining to the home equity line of credit. i. Based on my review of emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, I know that Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a Apple pursuant to the iCloud Warrant, I know that electronic devices linked to Cohen?s iCloud account were used at Subject Premises?l to, among other things, place telephone calls and backup ?les to Cohen?s iCloud account. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?l 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 Warrants, I understand that Subject Premises?l 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 family 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 that the ?rst phase of the work order called for the contractor to ?Pack Remove all items furnishings in Living Room, Kitchen, Sons Room Dining Room? and store them off?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 and;myareview? ofthe- pres s_releas an Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 165 of 269 all documents or evidence responsive to the warrant out of Subject 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?2 contains certain electronic devices. Speci?cally, from my review of the ?strategic alliance agreement? between Squire Patton Boggs and Cohen, of?ce at Subject Premises-2. See supra 18(d), 19(ej. Indeed, I have learned that pursuant to Cohen?s agreement with the law ?rm, he has ?dedicated and segregated of?ce space? in Squire Patton Boggs?s of?ces on the 23rd floor 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 11 19(6). 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 know from my participation in an interview with Getzel, 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 Getzel, when Getzel saw Cohen at Subject Premises~2, he had two cellular telephones in Subject Premises-2. II 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 31 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 from Subject Premises-l to Subject Premises~ 4. Nevertheless, given the temporary nature of Cohen 3 stay at Subject Premises-4 and the scope of the work being done at Subject Premises?1,1be11eve . it is unlikely that Cohen has taken all evidence that would be subject to seizure out of Subject Premises?l . 63 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 166 of 269 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 air published on or about February 14, 2018, that Cohen was interviewed by the magazine in Subject Premises?2 in or about February 2018. instrumentalities, evidence, and fruits of the Subject Offenses. Specifically, 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 2018 about a modi?cation to his existing, loan from Sterling, Cohen listed his address in his email as the address for Subject Premises?2. See supra fl 16(t), 16(u). 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 BTA for Essential Consultants is the address for Subject Premises?2. See supra 19(a), 19(b). 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 arrangements through Essential Consultants, and agreements 64 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 167 of 269 relating to those 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 Premises-2 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 Getzel?s accounting ?rm, and emails produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, as well as my participation in an intErview with Getzel, I have learned that Getzel visited Subject Premises?2 to meet with Cohen about his taxes. See supra jl 20(a). At that meeting, Getzel discussed 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 Getzel. 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 ?nances will be found in Subject Premises-2. d. Based on my participation in an interview with Getzel, I 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 of payments?at the business? identi?ed location. I am not aware of any addresses 65 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 168 of 269 associated with Essential Consultants other than Subject Premises-l and Subject Premises?2. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises?l and Subject Premises?2 will contain business records for Essential Consultants. 50. Third, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 is likely to contain instrumentalities, 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 2017, as Cohen was receiving substantial income from consulting to Sterling??Cohen opened the safety deposit box at TD Bank, which is Subject Premises?3. In light of the aforementioned evidence that then conceals assets, including assets at TD Bank, there is probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 contains ?nancial assets, objects of value and/or 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. b. In addition, based on my review of records produced by TD Bank, I know that Cohen has accessed the vault in which Subject Premises?3 is stored on two occasions. The ?rst such occasion was on November 10, 2017. Cohen signed into the vault at approximately 5:35 and out of vault at approximately 5:39 on that date};2 Based on my review of toll records, I know that Cohen?s ?rst call after he signed out of the safety deposit box approximately 45 minutes later - was to Keith Davidson. Speci?cally, at 6 :25 pm. Cohen called Davidson and they spoke for less than a minute; three minutes later, Davidson called Cohen back and they spoke for approximately 3?2 The entry in the bank?s log book does not specify whether this is or P.M. However, I infer that it is P.M., because it is unlikely that the bank would have been open at 5:35 and 5:39 am. 66 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 169 of 269 22 minutes. The second such occasion was on February 2, 2018, which is during the time period numerous media reports about Cohen?s payment to Clifford were being published, and is one day' after it appears that Cohen?s family moved into Subject Premises-4, as set forth above. The timing of Cohen?s two visits to the vault one shortly before a call to Keith Davidson and the other around . I the time that Cohen came under media scrutiny in connection with the payment to Davidson?s client gives rise to probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-3 will contain evidence of the Campaign Finance Cffenses, such as documents. relevant to Davidson and the payment to Clifford, including documents or evidence that Cohen did not want to leave in his apartment where construction workers would be present-9?3 51. Based on my review of emails obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and cell phone location information, I believe that Cohen is temporarily residing in Subject Premises- 4. See supra There is also probable cause to believe that Subject Premises-4 contains instrumentalities and evidence of the Subject Offenses, including, the following: a. As described above, it appears that Cohen moved to Subject Premises-4 on or about February 1, 2018, at which time numerous media reports about Cohen?s involvement in the payment to Clifford were being published. See supra During this time same period, Cohen was frequently corresponding with the media and sent himself and others statements about his involvement in the payment to Clifford. See supra Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating to the Clifford payment with him to Subject Premises-4, in order to reference and consult them in connection with these statements. 33 As noted above, Subject Premises?3 is approximately five inches by ten inches. Accordingly, I. do not believe that it would fit 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 fit in Subject Premises?3. 67 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 170 of 269 b. As described above, at the time Cohen moved to Subject Premises-4, he was also in the midst of ongoing negotiations with Sterling regarding the re?nancing of his medallion debts. For example, on January 30, 2018, 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 supra 111] 16(u). Thus, there is probable cause that Cohen took at least some documents and evidence relating consult them in connection with these negotiations. c. As described above, Cohen used at least one Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad Mini, and a MacBook 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 1N 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, and/or 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, 2018). As set forth above, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen 7 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 68 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 . Filed 07/18/19 Page 171 of 269 the Essential Consultants Account, with his accountant regarding his ?nances, and with individuals, such as Davidson, Howard and Pecker, involved in the $130,000 payment to Clifford. 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 will likely also be within Subject Premises?4. '4 if Cohen is not within Subject Premises-4 at that moment, th?'devices 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-l 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 ESI 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 Subj ectOffenses (and, as set forth above, that Subject Device-l and Subject Device?2 are themselves electronic devices that are likely to contain evidence of the Subject Offenses). Specifically, based on my review of information produced pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants, the iCloud Warrant, and subpoenas, as well as pen register data, I submit that there is probable cause that Subject Premises-l contains an Apple iPad Mini, a - MacBook Pro, and has, at various times, contained Apple cellphones; similarly, there is probable cause that Subject Premises-2 contains a computer and has, at various times, contained Apple 69 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 172 of 269 cellphones. These devices are likely to include evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses for the following reasons: a. As described throughout this affidavit, Cohen used email to send and receive communications related to the Subject Offenses. In particular, Cohen used email to send and receive communications with Sterling, First Republic, Getzel, the entities to which he is providing consulting services, Davidson, and Howard, among others. While some of these emails have that individuals can and do delete emails from their Internet-based inboxes but retain copies of those emails on their hard drives. I also know that individuals often have multiple email accounts, some of which may not be known 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. b. Additionally, Subject Premises-1, Subject Premise?2 and Subject Premises?4 likely 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 173 of 269 cash, consulting agreements with third parties, and documentation of his payment to Clifford, 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, I know that individuals who set up online banking often receive electronic notices concerning ?nancial transactions and, on occasion, save records of their financial transactions to their devices. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s??el?ectr?r?rdevi?ces contain evidence of banking activity, including the existence of bank accounts or assets that Cohen did not disclose to Sterling or Melrose. d. Fourth, from my review of records produced by Apple, 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 Pecker using these applications. Accordingly, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen?s cellphones 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 financial crimes commonly use computers to communicate with co?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 ?chats? with co-conspirators; email correspondence; contact information of co?conspirators, including telephone numbers, email addresses, and identifiers for instant messaging and social medial accounts; bank account numbers; and/or records of uses of funds. 71 2017.08.02 Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 174 of 269 55. Based on my training and experience, 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: I Electronic ?les can be stored on a hard drive for years at little or no cost andusers 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.dataucontained in the file does not actually disappear, but instead remains on the hard drive, in ?slack space,? .untilit is PX new?ata that cannot'be stored elsewhere on the computer. Similarly, ?les that have been viewed-on the Internet 7 7 are generally downloaded into a temporary Internet directory or ?cache,? which is only overwritten as the ?cache? fills 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 files 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, or portable hard drives. 56. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit there is probable cause to believe that Cohen engaged in the Subject 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 fully 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, and/or taxi medallions. 72 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 175 of 269 c. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Cohen and/or entities associated with him to transfer any interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including tc?and/or entities associated with him. d. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modify loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/or Melrose. e. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents that indicate the nature and purpose of payments made to or from Essential?Consultants or th?e??atu?re"t?? 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 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. h. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and? and any payments bj-to Cohen. i. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. A j. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or. associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 73 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 176 of 269 k. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/ or Karen ougal. 1. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. i m. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 11. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 0. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. p. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen? bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances; q. 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; r. Evidence of Cohen?s intent as it relates to the Subject Offenses 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 177 of 269 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: I 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. 0 Second, because computer data is particularly vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modi??ation 0r destmtion, are 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. a 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. 0 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 take considerable time 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 . 75 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19' Page 178 of 269 computers, to reduce the extent of any disruption of Squire Patton Boggs?s operations. If, after inspecting the seized computers off-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 personnel involved in the investigation, including attorneys for the in a manner reasonably designed to protect any 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 offer their users the ability to unlock the device via the use of a ?ngerprint or thumbprint (collectively, ?fingerprint?) 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 numeric 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 fingerprints that can be used to unlock that device. The user can then use any of the registered 76 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 179 of 269 I ?ngerprints to unlOck the device by pressing the relevant finger(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 alphanumeric passcode or password, as wellas a more 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 8. 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 (5) five unsuccessful 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 fingerprints 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 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 180 of 269 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 ID. 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 Iknow that it is common for a user to unlock a Touch ID?enabled Apple device via the ?ngerprints on thumbs or index ?ngers. In the event that law enforcement is unable to unlock the within the ?ve attempts permitted by Touch ID, this will simply result in the device requiring the entry of a password or passcode before it can be unlocked. 67. I also know 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. 68. Due to the foregoing, I request that the Court authorize law enforcement to press the ?ngers'(including thumbs) of Cohen to the Touch ID 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. 78 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 181 of 269 C. Review of E81 69. Following seizure of any computer devices and storage media and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, attorneys for the government, attorney support staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) will review the E81 contained therein for information-responsive to thewarrant. 70. In conducting this review, law enforcement personnel may use various techniques to determine which files 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 files 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 files); - conducting a ?le-by-flle review by ?opening? or reading the first few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents (analogous to performing a cursory examination of each document in a file cabinet to determine its relevance); - ?scanning? storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted data or deliberately hidden files; and 0 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 - reviewing metadata, system information, configuration files, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 34 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 files, 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. 79 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 182 of 269 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 ESI from seized devices or storage media to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant. Return of ESI 72. If the Government determines that the to retrieve and preserve the data, and the devices themselves are not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(0), 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 instrumentality of the offense, (ii) a fruit of the criminal activity, contraband, (iv) otherwise unlawfully picssessed, or evidence of the Subject Offenses. 80 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 183 of 269 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 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 respectfully request that this af?davit and all papers submitted herewith be maintained under seal until the . E131 Sworn to before me on 8th day of April, 2018 Ht?t?y EN. HENRY B. PITMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 81 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 184 of 269 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-1 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?1?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Apartment-coated 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. 11. to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?1 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)(l)(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 tc?and/or entities associated with him. 0. 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. 6. 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. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and?1nd/or entities controlled by the 2 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 185 of 269 l, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen MCDougal. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie?W? Clifford, and/ or Karen ougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/ or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence, relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign finance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. o. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or finances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p. Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a financial 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 a1 ?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?l 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- 48:1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 186 of 269 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?l 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 ?~??~~W~W~Weoneerningthe 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 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: 2017.08.02 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); 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 187 of 269 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 HA and ILB 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. 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 ?filter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 188 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises?2 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?2?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all locked and closed containers found therein: An of?ce belonging to or assigned to Michael Cohen located on the 23rd ?oor of the building at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 101 12, inside of the of?ces of the law ?rm Squire Patton Boggs. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a 66-floor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. 11. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and of the Subj eCt Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?2 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 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. (1. 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. 6. 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. a. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and?and/or controlled by 6 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 189 of 269 and any payments by t_to Cohen: from January h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. in Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. . Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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?2 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, any desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone belonging to Michael Cohen 7 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 190 of 269 or in his possession, 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?2 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?C?opi'ed?computer- devicesorwstoragemedia. 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 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: - - 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; 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 reflecting how, when, and by whOm the computer was used. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 191 of 269 Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to search only for files, documents, Or other electronically stored information within the categories identified in Sections HA and ILB 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. 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. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 ?Page 192 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searchedeubject Premises?3 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?3?) are described as follows, and include all looked and closed containers found therein: A safe deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, marked as box II The safe deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises-3 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)(l)(A) and 30109(d)(l)(A)(1) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?Subject Offenses?), described as follows: 1. Evidence relating to Michael Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, assets, and annual income, and income sources, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 2. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. 3. - Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 4. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. 5. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 6. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/ or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 7. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 10 20170302 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 193 of 269 8. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 9. Any portable electronic storage device. B. Search of Seized Electronic Devices Probable cause exists to search any seized electronic storage device for the items set forth in Section above. C. . Review of ESI Following seizure of any electronic storage device, 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: - 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; - 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 reflecting how, when, and by whom the, computer was used. 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 HA and ILB of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the ESI from seized devices 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 11 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 194 of 269 When appropriate, the procedures shall include any attorney?client or other applicable privilege. from the investigative team, in order to address use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart potential privileges. 12 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 195 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searchedeubject 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 1728 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 6lst Street. Subject Premises?4 is located on the 17th ?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 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, 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 tranFRr anv interest in taxi medallions, and any associated debts or liabilities, to others, including tc nd/ 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. 9. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or financial transactions between Cohen and LI?ld/Ol? entities controlled by 13 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 196 of 269 and any payments by _to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including-any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Sept-ram Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign finance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or finances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. - p. Communications, records, documents, and other files re?ecting false representations to a financial 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 financial institution; the source of funds ?owing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any financial 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 0r smartphone 14 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 197 of 269 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 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 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: - 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 first 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 0' reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information reflecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 15 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 198 of 269 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 HA and ILB 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. 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. A 16 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 199 of 269 ATTACHMENT 1. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device?1 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-1?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number? During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device-1, or hold Subject Device?1 in front of Cohen? 5 face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such?evme as authorizetd?by'thiswarrant. II. Review of ESI on the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the EST and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 ESI contained on Subject Device?1 for 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. 7 (1. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 17 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 200 of 269 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. - 9. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and_ and/or entities controlled by? and any payments by t1-D Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. . 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. - 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. - 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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. 18 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 201 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device-1 is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device-l is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(0), the Government will return Subject Device?1, upon request. 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. 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 202 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device?2 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-2?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number? During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device-2, or hold Subject Device-2 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such II. Review-of ESI on the Subject Device . Law enforcement personnel-(including, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 on Subject Device?2 for 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)(l)(A) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(l) (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 ?nd/or entities associated with him. 0. 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, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 20 2017.08.02 . Case 1:18-cr-00602-yVHP Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 203 of 269 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. 9, Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen ant?W0r entities controlled by ?and any payments by' to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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 reflecting 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. 21 20170802 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 204 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device-2 is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device?2 is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return Subject Device?2, upon request. 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 ?filter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 22 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 205 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Wapant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identij?z the patron by name and address) Case 502 Park Avenue, Apartment - New York, New York 10022, and any ciosed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement of?cer A11 application by a fedeial law enforcement of?cer 01 an attorney for the goveinment requests the seaich of the following per son or p1 ope1ty located 1n the Southern District of New York (tdentij?l ritepens'on 01 describe the 11311111??" to be searched and give its location): . 502 Park Avenue Apartment .New York, New York 10022 and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment A The person 01' property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idemy?: the person or describe the property to be seizeaD: See Attachment A I ?nd that the 01 any 1ecolded testimony, establish probable cause to seen (111 and seize the person 01 pr.ope1ty . 1 II . YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on 01' before at: 55;? :9 31.1., I (Motto exceedl' any; Bi in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. at any time in the day 01 night as It tind reasonable cause has been establishedUnless delayed notice is authoiized below, you must give a copy of the wan ant and a 1ece1pt 161 the p1opeity taken to the petson ?orn whom, or from whose premises, the propelty was taken, or?1 cave the copy and at the place where the p1 opelty Was taken. I - . . The of?cer executing this warrant 01 an of?cer present dut mg the execution 1311119 walrant must prepare an I inventory as 1equi1ed by law and rettun this warrant and inventory to the Cieik of the Court. Upon its retuin, this warrant and invento1y should be ?led undei seal by the Clerk of the Court . U311 I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 S. C. (except f01 delay of trial), and autho1ize the of?cer executing this wairant to delay notice Ito the person who; or whose property will be searched 01 seized (check the appi'opr fate box) lijI days (notI to exceea . I ljuntil, the facts Just1fy1ng, tllIe- later'specif 0 date Date and time Issued: 1:1" gr 15/ dwiMA/y if?? {mfg Mm ?f 157? R917 I i . . i 31 ?tdge .s'SIgrmwe .City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henry B. P-ttman Us ll/iadistrate Judde Primed 1111111 and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 206 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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: Certification 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?lcer Signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 207 of 269 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-?1 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?1?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: Apartment-located inside the building at 502 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The building located at 502 Park Avenue is a 32??oor brick residential building. Subject Premises?1 is located on the -of the building. 11. Items to Be Seized The items to be seized from Subject Premises-1 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)(l)(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. 0. 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 retums, 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 ?md/or entities controlled by 1? 2 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 208 of 269 and any payments by 1, 2012 to the present. -to Cohen, ?'om January h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, andfor Dylanl-loward about Donald Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. . 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. In. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 13. 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, ?'om 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-?l 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 48-1 7 Filed 07/18/19 Page 209 of 269 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~1 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 of those persons with access to, control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. 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 ESI 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: a 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) a 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; 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, 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 210 of 269 Law enforcement personnel will make reasonable eff01ts to search only for ?les, documents, or other electronically stored information within the categories identi?ed in Sections HA and II.B 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. 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 ??om the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 211 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identify the person by name and address) Case No, 502 Park Avenue, Apartment- New York, New York 10022, and any closed containers/items contained therein See AttachmentA SEARCH AND SEIZURE-WARRANT To: I Any authorized law enforcement officer 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 (identify the person or describe the pronertv to be searched and give its location). 502 Park Avenue, Apartment -New York New York 10022, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment A The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (identify the person or describe the property to be seized): I See Attachment A .. I find that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before Li 3-3? 8 (not to exceed 14 days) if in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials I ?nd 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 OI (check the appropriate box) Elfor days (not to exceed 30). Duntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date and time issued: LK?B?i'lg f) Old-V1510 Judge?s signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henry B. Pitman. U.S. Madistrate Judde Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 212 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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 signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 213 of 269 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searchedeubject Premises-1 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?1?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: 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?of the building. II. Items to Be Seized The items to be seized from Subject Premises?1 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. 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 and?moor oo 2 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 214 of 269 ?ana any naynaann by -n Conan, nan Jannaay 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie nd/ or Karen McDougal. k; Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/ or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump 5 relationship 1n the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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?1 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 215 of 269 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-1 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 lo gin 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 of those persons with access to, control over, or ownership of the seized or copied computer devices or storage media. (3. 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: I 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; - 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 216 of 269 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 HA and EB 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. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designed to collect evidence ina 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. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 217 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New Yo1k In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property 10 be searched 01' identb?r tl1epe1'so11 by name and address) Michael Cohen?s Office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, New York 10112, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment season 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. (iv?al'ent?fi1 the person or describe the property to be searched and giva its location): Michael Cohen?s Office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, New York 10112, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (identity the person or describe the properly to be seizec?.? See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish plohable cause to sench nd 1331 ac the pe1 son or p1 operty I I YOU ARE COMNIANDED to execute this warrant on or before 5? T131 ?if, I 33?" (1101 to exceed. 14 da yr) if in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 p.111. Cl at any time in the day or night as I find leasonable cause has been established I, lI 1. Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must git/e a copy of the warr ant and a 1ece1 pt to} the pi?oneity taken to the pe1son flora whom, 01 from whose p1 causes the property was taken, 01 leave the Iccpy and 1ece1pt at the place where the pi opelty was taken . 2. The of?cet executing this warrant 01 an of?cel p1 esent dating the execution of the wanant must p1epa1e an inventmy as required by law and p1 1eturn this warrant and inventory to the Clerk of the Court. Upon its return, this wairant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. US MU I11 itial's I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 (except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched 01' seized (check the appropriate box) lijI? days (110110 exceed 30). ?until, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date and time issued: Pl t/ 11/: ?Meme; 1?13?? 1,4. .1 1 . 1 i 1.1V, 7,1 3,371, 115/53? I I I I I .IsI?ISIguat-we 7 II City and state: New York. NY Madistrate Judde . P1 fated manic 12111:! title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 218 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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: Certification I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was retumed along with the original warrant to the Court. Date: Executing o??r?cer ?s signature Primed name and lit/e Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 219 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched??Subject Premises?2 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premisesu2?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all locked and closed containers found therein: An of?ce belonging to or assigned to Michael Cohen located on the 23rd ?oor of the building at 3 0 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 101 12, inside of the of?ces of the law ?rm Squire Patton Boggs. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a 66-?oor of?ce building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. II, Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized ??om Subject Premises?2 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, ?'om January 1, 2013 to the present. b7. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement for Michael Cohen and/or entities associated with himto transfer any 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 8.: Associates, or evidence of the purpose of accounts opened in the name of Michael D. Cohen Associates. f. Evidence relating to Cohen?s net w01th, 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. 52. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and ?and/ or entities controlled by 6 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 220 of 269 and any payments by _to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Tlump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker. and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Tnunp Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen ougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications With others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or finances, from January 1, 2013 to the present. p; Communications, records, documents, and other ?les re?ecting false representations to a financial 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 financial 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-2 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, any desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone belonging to Michael Cohen 7 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 221 of 269 or in his possession, 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?2 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 lo gin 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 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 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: a 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); 9 opening or cursorily reading the first few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; a scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted files 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 a reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration files, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 222 of 269 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 ILB 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 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. 2017.08.02 l-Iil-l i Wt Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 223 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identi?z the person by name and address) 333 N0. Michael Cohen?s Office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, New York 10112, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment 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 (identy?y the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location): Michaei Cohen?s Of?ce at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, New York 10112, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idenn'?) the person or describe the property to be seizec?: See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before A 9? ?6 (not to exceed 14 days) El in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. The officer 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials I ?nd 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 SeaI'Ched seized (check the appropriate box) days (not to exceed 30). Cluntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Dateandtirneissued: L\'8'l5 7?574?1!? H?hxl?v A Judge is signature City and state: New York, NY Hon. Henry B. Pitman, U.S. Madistrate Judee Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 224 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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: xecu in 0 zcerssi aure Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 225 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises-2 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?2?) are described as follows, and include electronic devices, and all looked and closed containers found therein: An office belonging to or assigned to Michael Cohen located on the 23rd ?oor of the building at 3 0 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112, inside of the offices of the law firm Squire Patton Boggs. The building located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a 66-?oor office building that spans the entire block between Sixth Avenue and Rockefeller Plaza. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fruits, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?2 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 ?aud), 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 ?1nd/ or entities associ?ated'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 85 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 financial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. I g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and ?and/or entities controlled by? 6 2017.08.02 Case DocUment 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 226 of 269 and any payments by -to Cohen, from January h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal', or their agents or legal representatives including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements 1, 2012 to the present. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougaly k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications With others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/0r fmances, 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-2 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, any desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone or smartphone belonging to Michael Cohen 7 2017.08.02 1 . 1' Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 227 of 269 or in his possession, 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?2 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 lo gin 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 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/orthe 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; - 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 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 228 of 269 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 HA and ILB 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. 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 ?filter team,? separate and apart from the investigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 2017.08.02 v. l; min-2 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 229 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/ 10) search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York Case No. In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be sear'ched or identi?r the person by name and adrh'ess) Safe Deposit Box-coated at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Att. SEARCH Ann smzu - To: Any auth01ized law enforcement of?cel An application by a federal law enforcement of?cer or an attorney for the government requests the search of the following person or propelty located in the Southern District of New York (identij?r thepeison 01 Here! the the proper 1:1) to be sear shed and give its location): Safe Deposit BO) -ocated at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park Avenue New York, New York 10019, and any closed containersntems contained therein See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idemyjr the person or describe the property to be seizeaD: See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before .51; f. (not to exceed 74 days) ?r in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. at any time in the day 01 night as I find reasonable cause has been established . 1 - Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the wanant and a- recelut for the p10perty taken to the pelson f1 0111 whom, 01 fiom whose p1 emises, the propelty was taken, oi leave the cop and receipt at the place whe1e the 111 operty was taken. f; 9 1 The officel executing this wan ant, 01 an of?cel present 111g the executron of. the wa1rant, must prepa1e an inventory as 1equi1 ed by law and p1 when this wan ant and inventmy to the Clark cf the 001111 Upon its leturn, this wanant and inventory should be ?led undel seal by the Clerl-r oftne Court El I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 (except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be? 7 searched 01' seized (check the appropriate 110:1) ljfor days 6101' to exceed 30). mi Chintil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date Date and tune 1ssued: 1? 1?35 WiEyW/E??vak 4; 3? 71am; City and state: New York. NY Hon Henrv Pitman Maoistrate Judne Printed name and title ?Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 230 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01109) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2) Return Case No.2 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 ?s signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 231 of 269. .. ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises?3 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises?3?) are described as follows, and include all locked and closed containers found therein: A safe deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New Y01lr; 10019, marked as box -The safe deposit box IS in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. 11. Items to Be Seized A. The items to be seized from Subject Premises-3 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: 1. Evidence 1elating to Michael Cohen 3 net Worth, available cash and cash equivalents, assets, and annual meome, and meome soulces, flom Januaryl, 2013 to the plesent. 2. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. 3. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 4. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Packer, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. 5. Evidence 1elating to Cohen?s lole 1n the Trump Campaign, and coo1dination 01 consultation with the Trump Campaign. 6. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 7. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 10 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 232 of 269 8. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 9. Any portable electronic storage device. B. Search of Seized Electronic Devices Probable cause exists to search any seized electronic storage device for the items set forth in Section above. C. Re?ew of ESI Fol-lo wing seizm?eefany 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: a 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); 9 opening or cursorily reading the ?rst few ?pages? of such ?les in order to determine their precise contents; a scanning storage 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 reviewing metadata, system information, con?guration ?les, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 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 11A and 11.13 of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the E81 frOm seized devices if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the walnut. 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 1 1' 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 233 of 269 any attorneywclient or other applicable privilege. When appropriate, the procedures shall include use of a designated ??lter team,? separate and apart from the ?lvestigative team, in order to address potential privileges. 12 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 234 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/ 10) search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or tdentz'?e the person by name and address) Case No, Safe Deposit Box i-_ocated at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Att. SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT Tom I 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 (identify the person or be the property to be searched andgive its location): Safe Deposit Box; Located at the TD Bank Branch at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal 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 COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before . (not to exceed 14 days) if inthe daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 whom, or ?om 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials I ?nd 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? seized (check the appropriate box) days (not to exceed 30). Cluntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Dateandtimeissued: 734 6 Vilma? Judge? signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henry B. Pitman, U.S, Madistrate Judde Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 235 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) Search and Seimre Warrant (Page 2) Return Case No.: Date and time warrant executed; Copy of warrant and inventory left with: Inventory made in the presience 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?s Signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 236 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Premises to be Searched?Subject Premises?3 The premises to be searched (?Subject Premises-3?) are described as follows, and include all looked and closed containers found therein: A safe deposit box located inside the TD Bank branch location at 500 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10019, marked as box -Fhe safe deposit box is in the name of Michael Cohen and Laura Cohen. II. Items to Be Seized -- - of theSubject Offenses The items to be seized from Subject Premises?3 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: 1. Evidence relating to Michael Cohen?s net worth, available cash and cash equivalents, assets, and annual income, and income sources, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 2. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. 3. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. 4. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. 5. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 6. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 7. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 10 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 237 of 269 8. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 9. Any portable electronic storage device. B. Search of Seized Electronic Devices Probable cause exists to search any seized electronic storage device for the items set forth in Section above. C. Review of ESI ,Following seizure of any electronic storage device, 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: - 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. 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 11B of this Attachment. However, law enforcement personnel are authorized to conduct a complete review of all the E81 frOm seized devices 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 11 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 238 of 269 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. 12 2017.08.02 We Case 1: 18- -cr r--00602 WHP Document 48- 1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 239 of 269- A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or ideniyjr the person by name and address) Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1728, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: 1 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 (identh?! the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location): Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1728, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment The person or propelty to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idenn? the person 01' describe the property to be seized): See Attachment I ?nd that the or any 1e001ded testimony, establish p1obab1e cause to search and same the pol son 01 pr.operly . . YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this Warrant on or before 719%; (1101111 exceed .14 daJeJW Ql in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 p.1n. Cl at any time in the day 01 night as' I tind reasonable cause 'hae been establishedUnless delayed notice is autho11zed below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a leceipt 1?01 the picnelty taken to the person flom whom, or ?om whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and. 1ecetpt at the place where the p1 operty was takenThe of?cer executing this wan?ant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant, 11111111 prepare an inventory as required by law and return this warrant and inventmy to the Clerk of the Court. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials Cl I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adve1se 1esult listed in 18 U. S. 2705 (except fol delay of ti ral), and autho1ize the officer executing this wan ant to delay notice to the p61 son who, 01 whose propeIty, will be searched 01' seized (clreckl?lre appropriate box) ?fel days (norm exceed 30) g, 1, :1 1 1 Eluntil, the facts justify'mg, the later speci?c date of . 1% 'W/f i 15.1 -. Date and time issued4&wa m; .r/W erdgar rsigvlralme ., )il' . - . 1 - \1l?f City and state: New York. NY Hon. HenryB. Pitmen Magistrate Jedoe Printedmme and title . 1 . Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 240 of 269 A093 (Rev. 01/09) 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 to the Court. Date: I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original warrant Executing a?cer ?5 Signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 241 of 269 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 1728 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 17th ?oor of the hotel. 11. Items to Be Seized 7 EVide?cesiFl??iis, and Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses i I 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)(l)(A)(l) (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 and/or entities associated with him. 0. 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 82; 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 13 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 242 of 269 and any payments by - Cohen, from January h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. 1, 2.012 110 me present; i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. 1c. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation With the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negatiVe publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. In. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign finance laws, campaign contribution reporting requh'ements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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 files 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 ?mds flowing into an account; or the purpose or nature of any financial transactions involving that ?nancial instimtion, from January 1, 2013 to the present. (1. 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 Machok Pro, any other desktop and laptop computers, any Apple iPhone or other cellphone er smartphone 14 2017.08.02 1 Lift? Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 243 of 269 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 lo gin 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 3. computer devices or storage media. 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 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: 2017.03.02 surveying various ?le ?directories? and the individual files 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 reading the first few ?pages? of such files in order to detennine 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 tothe subject matter of the investigation; and reviewing metadata, system information, cop?guration files, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 15 fills! Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 244 of 269 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 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. l6 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 245 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identi?) the person by name and address) Case No. Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1728, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT 7 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?J the person or describe the property to be searched and giVe its location): Loews Regency Hotel, 540 Park Avenue, Room 1728, New York, New York 10065, and any closed containers/items contained therein, See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (identz?: the person or describe the property to be seizeaD: See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before Li [3 (not to exceed 1 4 days) if in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJInitiats I ?nd 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? seized (check the appropriate box) ijOI' days (not to exceed 30). Eluntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date and time issued: Hfg?ig 7351i 61.11%. Judge? signature City and state: New York. NY Hon Henry Pitman U. S. Magistrate Judde Printed name and title Case 1:18i-cr-00602-WHP Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 246 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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 ?3 Signature Printed name and title Case Document 481 Filed 07/18/19 Page 247 of 269 ATTACHMENT 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 1728 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 6lst Street. Subject Premises?4 is located on the 17th ?oor of the hotel. II. Items to Be Seized A. Evidence, Fr?triis, 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)(l)(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 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. 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 82; 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 85 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 financial transactions between and/or entities controlled by 13 Cohen and 2017.08.02 i 13m Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 248 of 269 and any payments by -to Cohen, from January h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. 1, 2012 to the present. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or I agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McD?ougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or fmances, 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 0r smartphone 14 2017.03.02 Case Document ?48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 249 of 269 belong'ing?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 orstorage 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 and/or the creation of forensic image copies, law enforcement personnel (which may include, in addition to law enforcement officers 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: - 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); 0 opening or cursorily reading the first few ?pages? of such files in order to determine their precise contents; - scanning storage areas to discover and possibly recover recently deleted files 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 0 reviewing metadata, system information, configuration files, registry data, and any other information re?ecting how, when, and by whom the computer was used. 15 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 250 of 269 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 HA and KB 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. 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. 16 2017.08.02 ?Wm Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 251 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR for the Southern District of New York 0.8 In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or the person by name and address) Case 2969 An Apple iPhone with Phone Number? See Attachment SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT 1?0: Any antherized 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 (identf?l the person or describe the property to be searched rrive its location): An Apple iPhone with Phone Number! See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idem/95) 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 propeltyYOU ARE COMMANDED to execute warrant on or before n51, :27! ?7 if t? i - art-tarts ("mead Marys) El inthe daytime 6:any time in the day or h1g1 it hsfl? ?nd reasonablecauSe has been established. 1? - ?i Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy ofth? wa'n?antfrandgareceipt fer thetproperty taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, :o'l?leave? the copy. and treceipt at the place where the property was takenThe officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the executioh prepare an inventory as required by law and return this warrant and inventory to the Clerlgicf thelilu?urti Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk iot'th?e Court. USMJInitiaIs El 1 ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 (exoept 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' seized (check the appropriate box) ljfor days (not to exceed 30the facts justifyingtil?1., Date and tune lssued: 1?Judge btsignohtt'e Md: it i lib-1,; .l . City and state: New York. NY . Hon. Heme?; Pitlnant?ugs: Magistrateuudqe Print?edrrqiite title I Ml,? Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 252 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2) Return Case No.: I Date and time warrant executed: Copy of Wan'ant and inventory left with: Inventmy made in the presence of IttVentmy of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized: Certifica tiun I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original wan'ant to the Conlt. Date: Executing o?icer ?s sigmfure Printed name and title mutWW Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 253 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Device Suhj ect to Search and Seizure - Subject Device?1 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-1?) is . described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number Duling the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the fingerprints and/or of Michael Cohen onto the Touch 1D sensor of Subject Device-=1, or hold Subject Devicenl in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such device as authorized by this Warrant. II. Review of ESI on the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E81 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, attorneys for the government, attorney supp01t staff, agency personnel assisting the government in this investigation, and outside technical experts under government control) are authorized to review the E81 contained on Subject Device-1 for evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy as it peltains to the other Subject Offenses), 1005 (false bank entries), 1014 (false statements 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, and/or taxi medallions, from anuaiy 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 and/or entities associated with him; 0. Evidence relating to a plan, proposal, or agreement to modi?/ loans that Cohen has with Sterling and/or Melrose. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 17 2017.03.02 Case Document- 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 254 of 269 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 and/or entities controlled by . and any payments by_ to Cohen, from January Cohen and r, zurz: to me present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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. 18 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 255 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Deviceul is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Deviceul is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return Subject Device-l, upon request. 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 attorneynclien?t 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. 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 256 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/ 10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y deSCrz'be the property to be searched or identi?! the person by name and address) An Apple iPhone with Phone Number See Attachment Case No. - SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT To: Any authorized law enforcement of?cer I 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 (identi?l the person or describe the property to "M?mhM? "ive its location)! An Apple iPhone with Phone Number See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (identz? the person or describe the property to be seizeaD: See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property. YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before 1" IE (not to exceed 14 days) it in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials El 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? seized (check the appropriate box) days (not to exceed 30). Duntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date andtirne issued: 7ig-qp-W- pl, 6 (Pi-?il?eux Judge ?s signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henrv B. Pitman. U.S. Madistrate Judde Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 257 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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 of?cer ?5 signature Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 258 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device-1 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-1?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/ or of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device-1, or hold Subject Device?1 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such device as authorized by this warrant. II. Review of ESI on the SubjectDevice Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the ESI and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 ESI contained on Subject Device?1 for 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 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, 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 ?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. 0 d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 17 2017.08.02 1r 1: Film.- Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 259 of 269 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 md/ or entities controlled by and any payments by to Cohen, from January Cohen and l, 2012 to the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. m. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford 'or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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, ?om January 1, 2013 to the present. 18 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 260 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device?l is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device?1 is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), the Government will return Subject Device?1, upon request. 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. . 19 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 261 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Wattant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York in. 2 9 6 9 SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAREANT EX i In the Matter of the Search of (Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identi?l the person by name and address) An Apple phone with phone Number_ 3 See Attachment To: Any authorized law enfm cement oftice1 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 (fdenh? the person 01' describe the property to ?m Mm'c?mn' "ire its toe-afford: An Appie iPhone with Phone Number See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (idenh?) the person or describe the property 1'0 be 36172609! See Attachment I ?nd that the or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to seaich and; seiZe the person 01 property 47execute this warranton or before .. 1 - {not to exceea14 rings) it in the daytime 6:any time in the day or night as I ?nd re sonable cause has been established . . 4 .1 .3 . Unless delayed notice is auth01 lzed below you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt foI the pionelty taken to the pe1son f1 om whom 01 from whose premises, the pi operty was taken, 01 leave the copy and lecem at the place where the p1ope1'ty was taken. 1 - The of?cer executing this wan ant, 01 an of?cel present timing the execution of the wa11ant, must prepare an inventory as 1"equi1ed by law and p1 leturn this wanant and inventory to the Clerk of the Court. Upon its retutn, this wanant and inventory should be ?led undel seal by the Cleik of the Court. USA/[anftiais I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adveise result listed in 18 U. S. 2705 (except f01 delay of tiial), and auth01ize the of?cel executing this walrant to delay notice to the pelson who, or whose propeity, will be sealched 01? seized (check the 111;:chth late box) ifm days (not to exceed 30) 1 Cluntil, the facts justifying, the latei speci?c date at It?l, . . 3x 3; :3 Date and tune lssued: 7 if MW Ia/?a?im? ?i 41/191194? 1" /?ldgr? 4, City and state: New York. NY Hon. HenrvB Pitm?a'n? uis. Manlettate Judqe Printed name and [die Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 262 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure Subject Device?2 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device-2? is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/ or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device?2, or hold Subject Device-2 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such device as authorized by this warrant. II. Review of E81 011 the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement of?cers and agents, and depending on the nature of the E31 and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 on Subject Device-2 for evidence, fruits, and instiumentalities 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)(l)(A) and 30109(d)(l)(A)(l) (illegal campaign contributions) (the ?subj ect 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 ?md/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 or communications 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 or communications 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. 20 2017.03.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 263 of 269 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 1elating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between Cohen and?and/or entities cont1olled by and any payments by_to Cohen, from January 1, 2012 to the p1esent. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/ or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. 1n. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. 11. Evidence relating to Cohen?s knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel and/or other accountants, relating to Cohen?s bank accounts, taxes, debts, and/or ?nances, ?'om 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 pu1pose 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. 21 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 ?Page 264 of 269 If the Government determines that Subj eet Device-2 is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Deviceuz is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 the Government will return Subject Device-2, upon request. 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 0 potential privileges. 22 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 265 of 269 A0 93 (SDNY Rev. 05/10) Search and Seizure Warrant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York In the Matter of the Search of {Brie?y describe the property to be searched or identg'j?i the person by name and address) An Apple iPhone with Phone Number- See Attachment . SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT Case No. To: Any autho'rlzed'law entorcement?f?c er 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 (identz'jjz the person or describe the property to be "much? m've its location): An Apple iPhone with Phone Number See Attachment The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal (identl'jj) 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 COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before (not to exceed 14 days) if in the daytime 6:00 am. to 10 pm. 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 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. Upon its return, this warrant and inventory should be ?led under seal by the Clerk of the Court. USMJ Initials I ?nd that immediate noti?cation may have an adverse result listed in 18 U. S. 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 or seized (check the appropriate box) Elfo?r days (not to exceed 30). Cluntil, the facts justifying, the later speci?c date of Date and time issued: 7; $7an /4 8 ?l W?vx I?Judge signature City and state: New York. NY Hon. Henry B. Pltman. JudQe Printed name and title Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 266 of 269 A0 93 (Rev. 01/09) 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 Signature Printed name and title Case DoCument 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 267 of 269 ATTACHMENT I. Device Subject to Search and Seizure 4- Subject Device-2 The device that is the subject of this search and seizure warrant (?Subject Device?2?) is described as follows: An Apple iPhone serviced by with the telephone number During the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement personnel are authorized to depress the ?ngerprints and/ or thumbprints of Michael Cohen onto the Touch ID sensor of Subject Device?2, or hold Subject Device?2 in front of Cohen?s face to activate the Face ID sensor, in order to gain access to the contents of any such device as authorized by this warrant. II. Review of ESI on the Subject Device Law enforcement personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers and agents, and depending on the nature of the ESI and the status of the investigation and related proceedings, 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 ESI contained on Subject Device-2 for 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 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, 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. d. Evidence relating to Essential Consultants, LLC, including any documents or communications 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 or communications 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. 20 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 268 of 269 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, persona-l ?nancial statements, and bank records, from January 1, 2013 to the present. g. Evidence relating to agreements, loans, and/or ?nancial transactions between and/ or entities controlled by and any payments by '?to Cohen, from January Cohen and l, 110 the present. h. Evidence relating to payments to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, or their agents or legal representatives, including any nondisclosure agreements and related documents, and any communications related to such agreements. i. Evidence of communications involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal, or payments to Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. j. Evidence of communications between Michael Cohen and American Media, Inc., David Pecker, and/or Dylan Howard about Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, Stephanie Clifford, and/or Karen McDougal. k. Evidence relating to Cohen?s role in the Trump Campaign, and coordination or consultation with the Trump Campaign. 1. Evidence of communications with Donald Trump and/or agents or associates of the Trump Campaign about the Access Hollywood tape and other potential sources of negative publicity involving Trump?s relationship in the run up to the election. In. Evidence relating to any reimbursement or other promises made to Cohen for payment to Clifford or others in connection with the election. n. Evidence relating to Cohen? knowledge of the campaign ?nance laws, campaign contribution reporting requirements, and campaign contribution limits. 0. Communications with others, including Jeffrey Getzel 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 flowing into an account, or the purpose or nature of any ?nancial transactions involving that ?nancial institution, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 21 2017.08.02 Case Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/19 Page 269 of 269 If the Government determines that Subject Device?2 is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device, and that Subject Device-2 is not subject to seizure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(0), the Government Will return Subject Device-2, upon request. Additionally, review of the items described in this Attachment shall be conducted pursuant to established procedures designedto 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. 22 2017.08.02