By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Filing
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Vlog - Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 25 -- For money laundering for scam crypto currency OneCoin, lawyer Mark Scott was convicted by a jury after testimony by Konstantin Ignatov and others but was allowed to remain free on bail pending sentencing. Sebastian Greenwood, meanwhile, is in detention and will wait (at least) a year for a trial.
On September 21, 2021 there was a proceeding on and with Greenwood and Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below (and podcast here)
Late on September 24, a month after Inner City Press filed to unseal it, Scott's counsel's allegation that Konstantin Ignatov lied that he threw away a laptop in Las Vegas, when he returned it to OneCoin, has been partially unsealed. Letter on Patreon here.
Scott's counsel's second letter refers to notes in an Exhibit A - still no provided even into September 25 - stating that Konstantin as recently as August 25, 2021 lied about returning the laptop to OneCoin because he didn't think the US Government would believe him... Letter on InnerCityPress' DocumentCloud here.
We asked, But where is Exhibit A? Where is the DOJ's information?
Now later on September 25, DOJ has filed some, including "Scott argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Rule 33 on the basis that cooperating witness Konstantin Ignatov testified falsely about throwing his laptop computer (the “Laptop”) into a trash bin in Las Vegas in February 2019. (Tr. 206). Scott further alleges that the Government purposefully withheld this information from the defense. To be clear, the prosecutors in this case first learned of these serious allegations only when Scott filed his Supplemental Motion. Since then, the Government has investigated the allegations raised by the letter. Specifically, the Government has spoken with Ignatov regarding the incident (who immediately admitted to the perjury) and to the U.K.-based law enforcement agent who first learned of the allegations against Ignatov. The Government immediately turned over the notes from those interviews to the defense. As explained below, Scott’s Supplemental Motion should be denied for two reasons: (1) the perjured testimony, amounting to only a small piece of Ignatov’s testimony and regarding an event that took place after the charged conspiracy and was unrelated to Scott’s guilt, was not material to the jury’s verdict; and (2) Ignatov’s full testimony had limited relevance to the key issue in dispute at trial, i.e., Scott’s knowing participation in the charged criminal conspiracies. The Government presented overwhelming independent evidence of Scott’s guilt, consisting of emails, chat messages, bank records, travel records, other witness testimony, and recordings, that supported the jury’s verdict on that issue (and all of the other elements of the charged offenses)." 32 pages on Patreon here.
More to follow.
From Sept 21: Assistant US Attorney Dimase: We have nearly completed providing discovery to Mr. Greenwood. Still to be produced is the dump of a cell phone recovered from Mr. Greenwood in jail. The gov't today received a 20 GB download from the phone.
Judge Ramos: After that, discovery will be complete?
AUSA Dimase: We may obtain more... We had discussions about a motion schedule in the first half of 2022, in the Spring with a trial in the summer or fall.
Greenwood's lawyer: We could come back in five months and update you, if we're done with our review of the discovery, with an eye on a Fall trial.
Courtroom Deputy Rivera: February 24 at 3:30 pm. AUSA Dimase: In person? Judge Ramos: I'm always hopeful.
Greenwood's lawyer: Thank you for your time. Judge Ramos: We are adjourned. Please stay well.
On May 24, 2021 Mark Scott's sentencing was again pushed back, this time from June 14 into September.
On August 24, Mark Scott's lawyers asked for yet another postponement of his sentencing, in a heavily redacted letter. The basis is a motion filed under seal, and a medical procedure "due to the COVID-19 situation in Florida."
On August 25, the US Attorney's Office opposed the request, but left the basis mysterious, writing: "The Government is in the process of investigating the allegations raised in the supplemental motion and will respond to the claims raised by the motion. Nonetheless, even the claims in the supplemental motion do not establish a basis for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 under prevailing legal precedent."
And on August 25, Inner City Press filed a letter with Judge Ramos, cc-ing the prosecutors and Scott's counsel, formally asking that the motion be unsealed - still not docketed as of Aug 30, unlike the practice of other SDNY judges.
(Now on DocumentCloud, here; podcast here).
Vlog here.
On September 13, counsel for Mark Scott and for the US Attorney's Office were told by Judge Ramos' chambers (to its credit), "Judge Ramos directs the parties to response to this request."
On September 16, Scott's lawyer responded: "On September 10, 2021 the Government filed its opposition to Mr. Scott's Supplemental Motion for a New Trial, disclosing that Konstantin Ignatov perjured himself in the trial of Mark Scott and that an investigator with the Manhattan DA's Office, who was involved in the prosecution, received a credible report about this perjury in June and failed to take further action or disclose that information to the defense. Based on these revelations, Mr. Scott has made further information requests to the Government, which the parties are discussing. The parties propose advising the Court of a proposed schedule for a further submission by Mr. Scott on his application once the Government has addressed these requests. Separately, we have discussed with the Government a redacted version of the motion papers that could be publicly filed, relying on the Government’s assessment of what may be necessary to address concerns that initially led counsel for Mr. Scott to file his application under seal. We expect to transmit an agreed upon set of redacted materials to the Court shortly for the Court’s consideration and public filing."
At 10:33 am on September 24 Judge Ramos docketed: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT [407] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Arlo Devlin-Brown dated 9/16/2021...ENDORSEMENT...The following redacted materials are approved for public filing: (1) the government's version of Mr. Scott's August 23, 2021 letter motion; (2) Mr. Scott's August 26, 2021 letter; and (3) the government's September 10, 2021 opposition. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/23/21)."
But by 10 pm on September 24, nothing... Watch this site.
On September 9, Sebastian Greenwood's September 10 proceeding was pushed back to September 21: "NOTICE OF HEARING as to Karl Sebastian Greenwood Status Conference set for 9/21/2021 at 10:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos." Watch this site.
We note that since our August 25 filing, the US Attorney's Office has slipped into a footnote, "Scott's counsel informed the Government today that: 'In light of the Government's recent disclosure that its cooperating witness committed perjury and the lack of prior disclosure to the defense...". Can you say, Konstantin Ignatov? And why hasn't the request to appeal been acted on?
The August 25 letter: Dear Judge Ramos: This concerns, in the above-captioned criminal case that concerns money laundering for the OneCoin scheme, the request to entirely seal a judicial document requesting a new trial for the defendant. The filing(s) should be unsealed in full, or if the Court sees fit, in part. I have been covering the case for Inner City Press, see also, e.g., The Guardian (UK), November 25, 2019, "In testimony live-tweeted by the investigative journalism website Inner City Press, Ignatov reportedly referred to Abdulaziz as 'one of the main money launderers' involved in the scheme."
Yesterday, Scott's counsel filed a letter (Dkt 390) requesting a sentencing adjournment based on "the need for the Court to consider and address the Supplemental Rule 22 Motion (including the request for an evidentiary hearing) filed under seal on August 23, 2021." That motion is a judicial document, within the meaning of United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81-83 (2d Cir. 2008) and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) - it should be made available.
It is not entirely clear to me if the letter has been docketed. There is an August 13 notation of a SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. This is a request to unseal that as well, and to review the redaction in Dkt 390. Judge Richard Sullivan, only today, ruled that a discussion of a defendant's COVID status was not entitled to sealing. See US v. Ernest Murphy, 18-cr-373 (Sullivan), dkt 857. This is a case of public import, and these are judicial documents.
Inner City Press routinely files requests to unseal in this District, and other Districts - including as cited in its March 31 request, here And Judge Broderick's docketing of Inner City Press' request to unseal in US v. Ashe / Piao, 15-cr-706, Dkt No 999 (Inner City Press letter) & Dkt 998 (ordering that sealing be justified or removed by April 9).
And see, regarding public access to allegedly confidential information, Judge Furman's recent grant of Inner City Press request to unseal in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF), Docket No. 134. See also, July 27, 2021, NYLJ, "Judge Orders Release of Michael Avenatti's Financial Affidavits In Stormy Daniels Theft Case," "Journalist Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press had intervened, advocating for the affidavits' release."
(Now on DocumentCloud, here; podcast here).Watch this site.
Inner City Press back on March 13 asked the US Attorney's Office Press Office for its filings not yet in the public docket. Here is Inner City Press' Periscope video upon leaving the courthouse. The case is US v. Scott, 17-cr-630 (Ramos).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
