Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
sd-10-EFTA01363779Dept. of JusticeOther

EFTA Document EFTA01363779

Cc: Alastair Mackinlay Jitan Patel Subject: Red List [I] Classification: For Infernal Use only Hello Megha and James, We have found out today that two of our clients are on a red list which I was unaware of. Both of the clients in question we asked to be retained through Jane Varley and her team. Jitan says there are emails coming from you regarding the red list which I am not a part of. 1. Who is currently signing off from WM and how can I be included going forward in respect to KCP?

Date
Unknown
Source
Dept. of Justice
Reference
sd-10-EFTA01363779
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...

Summary

Cc: Alastair Mackinlay Jitan Patel Subject: Red List [I] Classification: For Infernal Use only Hello Megha and James, We have found out today that two of our clients are on a red list which I was unaware of. Both of the clients in question we asked to be retained through Jane Varley and her team. Jitan says there are emails coming from you regarding the red list which I am not a part of. 1. Who is currently signing off from WM and how can I be included going forward in respect to KCP?

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Cc: Alastair Mackinlay Jitan Patel Subject: Red List [I] Classification: For Infernal Use only Hello Megha and James, We have found out today that two of our clients are on a red list which I was unaware of. Both of the clients in question we asked to be retained through Jane Varley and her team. Jitan says there are emails coming from you regarding the red list which I am not a part of. 1. Who is currently signing off from WM and how can I be included going forward in respect to KCP? 2. Can I see the full red list? 3. If clients are asked to be retained from Jane Varley, why are they on the red list? Do the teams not connect? 4. Tonell — please advise why it's on the red list. Feb 151h it showed up on the lavastorm list and we advised to retain. 5. Southern Financial — we asked to retain a while back and we are in the process of an NCA and a product extension. Why is this on the red list? This is all very confusing and frustrating because it doesn't seem like the teams communicate with one another and they should. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Nina Tona Associate Business Control Manager, Key Client Partners —Americas Deutsche Bank Wealth Management 5022 Gate Parkway Jacksonville Florida 32256 KCP products and senors are intended ond available only for persons who ore sophisticated instaut•onal investors within the meaning of the FINRA Rate 4512(C)(3). and who ore capable of evaluating the strategic; characteristics and investment risks of, and exercising independent judgment in evaloohng, the Ideas and products discussed herein. Trades and transactions ore subject ro relevant Internal approvals of Oat or Its off dares prior to execution, and the execution of any transaction a kko discussed herein is conditional on your becoming a client of Deutsche Sank Key Client Partners (KCP)products, investment ideas and solutions ond related motters discussed herein ore provided for discussion purposes only, and strictly on o non- advisory basis. The KCP Americas desk does not provide investment advice. The information set forth herein is confidential and personal to you and Is being presented for your information and for discussion purposes only. Any reproduction and/or redistribution thereof On whole or in partlor disclosure of its content without our written consent is strictly forbidden. This communication does not create any legally binding obligation on the port of 08St or any of as affiliates. CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0054063 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00200247 EFTA01363779

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11

11p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.