EFTA01361046

From: Tammy McFadden Sent: 1/8/2016 11:33:20 AM To: Cherie Quigley Subject: RE: PRIME CASES - RETURNS/COMMENTS [CI Classification: Confidential See below responses highlighted in yellow From: Cherie Quigley Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 5:59 PM To: Tammy McFadden Subject: FW: PRIME CASES - RETURNS/COMMENTS [C] Classification: Confidential See below Cherie From: Tammy McFadden Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 4:45 PM To: Cherie Quigley Subject: RE: PRIME CASES - RETURNS/COMMENTS [C] Classification: Confidential Thank you for your email. Again, I am hoping it is coincidental, but I find the timing to be extremely ironic. Disagree - Case 129342 - MORGAN RIO INVESTMENTS L.P. - the profile was incorrect because you did not modify the base profiles correctly back in March 2015. Yesterday, I responded by forwarding email correspondences I sent to your attention back in March 2015 noting the discrepancy, and you advising base profiles had been properly modified. That is why I asked if there was some sort of system error. You confirmed no system error, and responded by sending an excel spreadsheet with the base profile amounts/counts and averages. Account 44122237 Base profile has been modified, Case summary revised - approved. Your comments at the end of the review stated "No changes in profile needed at this time — it appears the Profile was modified 6/18/2015. As of today, the base profile still reflects the incorrect in/out amounts, counts.". How do you state "No change in profile needed" yet indicate profile is incorrect but not change it??. Responses — I thought I was very clear with my responses to this question —? Case 129994 - JEFFREY EPSTEIN — based on your comments, it appears you want dollar amounts affixed to every transactions. I am confused, because you have reviewed and approved previous Epstein cases that did not list transaction amounts on each transaction, but you highlighted Epstein October's cases as if I omitted in error. The case was rejected due to lack of details not for the $$ amounts omitted. Since I was already rejecting it I added the $$ that you don't add, but should. I have not rejected in the past for not having the $$ amounts, but I will in the future. If that was the only issue it would not have been rejected. RESPONSES— I've always provided the grand total of the alerted amount(s) only in my write ups, and you have approved with no issues, but todoy, there is an issue This information should have been properly communicated. CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0049848 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00196032 EFTA01361046