From: To: Gary Bloxsome <1. > Cc: Daniel Cund • Jennifer Richardson Subject: RE: Sensitive Correspondence Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:20:04 +0000 lane-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg Gary, We write to follow up on our prior discussions. As discussed on our last call, our standard proffer agreement understandably has different provisions and protections than would result from a compelled interview pursuant to an MLAT request. It is often the case that individuals who want to voluntarily assist with our investigations do not require any protections, but nevertheless, when individuals we are seeking to interview do request certain protections as part of a voluntary interview, we ordinarily find that the proffer agreement language is appropriate and sufficient. Nevertheless, based on your queries, we would be prepared to include the following language in a proffer agreement governing a voluntary, live interview of your client: - Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with law enforcement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related civil action or asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government. We are not able to provide a broader grant of immunity with respect to statements made by your client during a voluntary interview. As we discussed on the phone, in a voluntary interview the individual being interviewed has the right to choose not to answer any particular question, has the right to consult with counsel at any time, and may explain the context or basis of answers to whatever extent necessary. Accordingly, and also considering the obvious problems with granting broad immunity to an interviewee for statements not yet made, we do not believe it would be necessary or appropriate to further diverge from our standard practice. We are also not aware of any treaty provision that would preclude prosecution fo