It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Would it not be wise to wait to get specifics before we make absolute statements about his guilt?
No. It does not.
Your feelings or emotions are not necessarily indicative of what is true.
What evidence do you have with proper sources?
Again, you are coming from a place of ignorance
cannot state that someone is guilty without all the facts being laid out. As of now, the list you have may be completely true, but we will not know without more context.
What you posted is not information. It is accusation.
Michael Avenatti, porn star Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, released a seven-page dossier on Tuesday containing a list of payments purportedly made to Michael Cohen, the lawyer for President Donald Trump.
But there is one problem with the document: two of the allegedly “fraudulent” payments were made to men named Michael Cohen who have no affiliation with Trump.
Avenatti’s report includes a section listing “possible fraudulent and illegal financial transactions” involving Trump’s lawyer. One of the payments is a $4,250 wire transfer from a Malaysian company, Actuarial Partners, to a bank in Toronto.
The other is a $980 transfer from a Kenyan bank to Bank Hapoalim — the largest bank in Israel.
Zainal Kassim, a representative for Actuarial Partners, told The Daily Caller News Foundation Avenatti’s report is a case of mistaken identity. He forwarded an email the falsely accused Michael Cohen sent to Avenatti requesting the lawyer “correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly” there is no connection to Trump’s Michael Cohen.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcathdra
Whoa! Wait a sec! $4250 and $980 are well below the $10k SAR threshold! Is there a different threshold for foreign payments?
Because if not, the information did not come from SARs... it couldn't come from a single bank... The IRS likely wouldn't have information that detailed... is there a database somewhere of financial data we don't know about?
The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
The inspector general’s counsel, Rich Delmar, told The Hill that the office is looking into allegations that federally mandated reports filed about Cohen’s banking transactions were “improperly disseminated.”
News of the Treasury investigation, which is focused on the release of Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks that hosted accounts for Cohen, was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post.
Delmar told The Hill that the Treasury probe is based on a New York Times report from Tuesday that revealed that a shell company set up by Cohen received more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the
The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.
The inspector general’s counsel, Rich Delmar, said that the office is looking into allegations that Suspicious Activity Reports filed about Cohen’s banking transactions were “improperly disseminated,” according to the Post.
Avenatti on Tuesday went public with detailed claims about Cohen’s banking history, including allegations that he received $500,000 from a company controlled by a Russian oligarch in the months following the 2016 presidential election.
Avenatti refused to reveal his source for this information and said investigators should reveal the Suspicious Activity Reports filed on Cohen’s account.
A party to a lawsuit wants information from that company, and the party’s counsel decides to issue a subpoena to obtain it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (and analogous state-court rules) authorizes a party’s attorney to issue a subpoena without involving the court, thereby allowing the party to command the company to allow the inspection of property, produce documents, and/or provide testimony (at a hearing, deposition, or trial).
Seeks Disclosure of Protected Information: If the subpoena seeks information that is protected by privilege or other legally-recognized exception to compelled disclosure, the court must quash or modify the subpoena “if no exception or waiver applies[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).
Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-446.
(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-441.
(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. The Act's recordkeeping requirements do not alter . these considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank depositor in the bank's records of his account. Pp. 441-443.
(c) Issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate a defendant's rights, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 416 U. S. 53. Pp. 425 U. S. 444-445.
Page 425 U. S. 436
(d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process." That does not mean that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is used to obtain a depositor's bank records. Pp. 425 U. S. 445-446.