Fifth Amendment Prohibits Testimony Compelled by Foreign Sovereign
In their Second Circuit Review, Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp analyze a recent case where the court wrestled with the modern world's reliance on foreign governments to help investigate and develop cases but declined to allow the government's investigatory needs to outweigh defendants' constitutional rights.
August 29, 2017 at 02:05 PM
8 minute read
Can a defendant's testimony that was compelled by a foreign government be admitted at trial in the United States? In United States v. Allen,—F.3d—, 2017 WL 3040201 (2d Cir. July 19, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment bars the use of testimony by a criminal defendant that was compelled by a foreign power in the defendant's U.S. criminal trial and reversed the judgments of conviction against the defendants. In Allen, the panel wrestled with the modern world's reliance on foreign governments to help investigate and develop cases but declined to allow the government's investigatory needs to outweigh defendants' constitutional rights.
Background and Lower Court
Allen concerned alleged manipulation of London Interbank Offered Rates (LIBOR), a metric that is central to many complex financial transactions. LIBOR is calculated each day for each of the world's major currencies by the British Bankers Association, which relies on figures submitted by a panel of banks reflecting the interest rates at which they may borrow money from other banks. In 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a British enforcement agency, began a regulatory investigation of one panel bank, Rabobank, for its LIBOR submission practices. Rabobank submitted rates for the U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR and Japanese Yen (JPY) LIBOR. Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, two Rabobank employees involved in submitting Rabobank's daily rate to LIBOR, were interviewed by the FCA during its investigation. Their failure to comply with interview requests could have resulted in imprisonment. The FCA later initiated an action against Paul Robson, one of Allen's and Conti's co-workers, who was involved in Rabobank's JPY LIBOR submission process. Following the agency's ordinary practice, the FCA sent Robson the transcripts of Allen's and Conti's compelled interviews, which Robson read and annotated in preparation for a later meeting with the FCA. Soon thereafter, however, the FCA dropped its case against Robson in favor of allowing the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally prosecute him. After being indicted for wire fraud and entering into a plea agreement, Robson became a significant source of information for the DOJ to build its case against Allen and Conti.
In October 2014, Allen and Conti were indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and wire fraud. The government alleged that Allen and Conti helped Rabobank derivative traders who entered into interest rate swap agreements and were reliant upon the LIBOR being higher or lower on particular dates. Allen and Conti, the government alleged, were influenced by requests from derivative traders when making their LIBOR submissions and failed to make honest estimates of the bank's borrowing rates. The government offered evidence demonstrating requests for accommodations, such as an email that Conti received from a derivative trader, which said: “GONNA NEED A FRICKIN HIGH 6 MTH FIX TOMORROW IF OK WITH YOU… 5.42?” That day, the Rabobank submission for the USD LIBOR was 5.42. In support of the DOJ's position, Robson testified that he, too, accommodated the derivative traders while working on JPY LIBOR submissions.
Prior to the trial, Allen and Conti moved to dismiss their indictment or suppress Robson's testimony and all evidence derived from his testimony pursuant to Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). Under Kastigar, an individual can be compelled to testify for “use and derivative use” immunity, but the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the evidence presented at trial derives from a “wholly independent” source from the compelled testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Establishing the Prevailing Party; Failure To Comply With LLC Law; Takings Claim: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
GOP's National Gains Prompt NY Gov., AG, to Brace for Legal Battles Over Equal Rights Measure
Trending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250