Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
>
>
Classification: Confidential
See below responses highlighted in yellow
Classification: Confidential
See below
Cherie
Classification: Confidential
Thank you for your email.
Again, I am hoping it is coincidental, but I
find the timing to be extremely ironic.
Disagree -
EFTA01404699
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
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 today, there is an issue This information should have been
properly communicated.
Gave no details on the following-
A DEPOSIT was also received during the reviewing period. ???
RESPONSES: I stated in my write up a CHECK was received, as well as
provide the person who sent the check to the client
LAUREL, INC, ??
What does this mean? "BNP PARIBAS IBAN: BE58001408700179 SSB REF#
SCMS151002551085" It tells me nothing. Should indicate $5,535.84 wire to
EFTA01404700
Cabinet Experton SPRL referencing invoices for July — Sept *
RESPONSES:
My write up indicated Disbursement of Funds — I have only provided the
financial institution information in the past with no issues and you have
approved
SOCIETE GENERALE SSB REF#SCMS151020660775 IBAN:
FR7630003032900005054038502, ?? Should indicate FFC to Mlle
in France RESPONSES: My write up indicated Disbursement of Funds I
have only provided the financial institution information in the past with no
issues and you have approved
SWEDBANK SSB REF#SCMS151019655736 IBAN:
LT387300010129516294,
??? RESPONSES: My write up indicated Disbursement
of funds I have only provided the financial institution information in the
past with no issues and you have approved
CREDIT LYONNAIS SSB REF# SCMS151021657561 IBAN:
FR2330002004690000060269Q70 SORT CODE: 30002 RIB CODE 00091 17
??
RESPONSES: My write up indicated Distribution of funds I have only provided
the financial institution information in the past with no issues and you
have approved
Once again, the timing of your communication is extremely alarming — you
have always approved my Jeffery Epstein cases in this same write up manner
in the past with no issues See CASE#118577, 117962, 123131 but today, you
are highlighting imperfections and changes to the process.
Which brings me
back to the retaliation theory.
Agreed -
Case 129730 — complete error on my part — uploaded the incomplete case
summary that did not included a list of sample checks.
EFTA01404701
Case 129340 — No Summary was attached
- As advised, not sure what
transpired large case items were uploaded and my case write up did not
upload properly. Once advised, case write up was immediately attached.
Pending your approval
Case 129875 — No Summary was attached
- As advised, not sure what
transpired large case items were uploaded and my case write up did not
upload properly. Once advised, case write up was immediately attached.
Pending your approval
Classification: Confidential
I don't review cases every day and 2 of the 5 that were returned had no
summary attached.
It just happened to be a day that I was reviewing cases.
Case 129342 - the Profile was incorrect, for which you stated but didn't
update
Cases 129730 - You indicated that you uploaded the incomplete case summary
Case 129340 — No Summary was attached
Case 129994 -
not enough detail
Case 129875 — No Summary was attached
EFTA01404702
No retaliation at all.
If you feel any did not warrant being returned,
please let me know.
Cherie
Classification: Confidential
Cherie —
I am noticing an unprecedented number of my PRIME October Cases being
returned or commented on right on the tail end of email correspondences I
sent to your attention in regards to outstanding PRIME PEP deferred cases
that have not been properly waived and officially reviewed/ resolved by you.
You actually started returning my October Cases less than 2 hours after I
sent the email questioning PEP deferred cases.
I am hoping it is just
coincidental, and not a display of retaliation for being vocal.
Kind regards,
Tammy
EFTA01404703