United States v. Thompson
2:16-cr-00145
E.D. Wash.
Dec 21, 2016
Check Treatment
Docket
Case 2:16-cr-00145-TOR Document 93 Filed 12/21/16 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE Nos: 2:16-CR-0145-TOR-1 8 Plaintiff, 2:16-CR-0145-TOR-2 2:16-CR-0145-TOR-3 9 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING 10 VASSILY ANTHONY THOMPSON, USE OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY DERRICK JOHN FINCHER, and REPORTS 11 JOHN PATRICK NIXON, 12 Defendants. 13 BEFORE THE COURT is the Government’s Ex Parte Motion for a 14 Protective Order Governing Defendants’ Use of Suspicious Activity Reports (ECF 15 No. 89). The motion was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The 16 Court—having reviewed the motion, the record, and files therein—is fully 17 informed. 18 The United States explains that it inadvertently included in discovery several 19 Suspicious Activity Reports. It seeks a protective order from the Court because 20 federal law restricts their disclosure to the public. Inexplicably, the Government PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS ~ 1 Case 2:16-cr-00145-TOR Document 93 Filed 12/21/16 1 filed its motion ex parte, yet the Court’s order will necessarily have to be provided 2 to the Defendants. 3 It is no surprise that the Secretary of the Treasury may require financial 4 institutions “to report suspicious transactions relevant to a possible violation of law 5 or regulation.” 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g). These suspicious transactions are reported by 6 completing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). 31 C.F.R. § 1020.320(b)(1) 7 Apparently, so as not to compromise an investigation, according to the Bank 8 Secrecy Act, no employee or agent of a financial institution may notify any person 9 involved in a suspicious transaction that the transaction has been reported. See 31 10 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)(A)(i). Also, no federal officer or employee “may disclose to 11 any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported, other 12 than as necessary to fulfill the official duties of such officer or employee.” 31 13 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). 14 Here, the Government contends the disclosure to the Defendants was 15 inadvertent. That may well be, but their disclosure to the Defendants may well 16 have been necessary to fulfill the Government’s criminal discovery obligation. In 17 any event, further disclosure of the SARs to the public would be inappropriate 18 without judicial oversight. 19 // 20 // PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS ~ 2 Case 2:16-cr-00145-TOR Document 93 Filed 12/21/16 1 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Suspicious Activity Reports shall not be copied, and no person other 3 than the Defendants, the Defendants’ attorneys of record, and 4 Defendant’s investigators (defense teams) may see the Suspicious 5 Activity Reports. 6 2. The Defendants’ defense teams shall not disclose the contents of any 7 SAR to any other person, shall not file any SAR or its content in a public 8 filing, and shall not introduce any SAR or its content in evidence, without 9 first obtaining permission of the Court. 10 3. The Defendants’ defense teams shall return all SARs to the 11 Government’s counsel immediately after conclusion of the case at the 12 district court level (entry of judgment or dismissal), absent further order 13 of the Court. 14 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and 15 furnish copies to counsel. 16 DATED December 21, 2016. 17 18 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 19 20 PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS ~ 3