US Court of Appeals Overturns LIBOR Convictions Based on Derivative Use of Compelled Testimony Lawfully Obtained in UK

by Dechert LLP
Contact

Dechert LLP

In a decision with significant implications for cross-border criminal and regulatory investigations in both the UK and U.S., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently overturned two convictions for manipulating LIBOR based on the improper use of compelled testimony given to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) and used in the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) enforcement proceedings.

In United States v. Allen,1 the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in U.S. criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign enforcement agency, in this case the FCA, lawfully compelled the testimony. Consistent with the Fifth Amendment, a witness who is compelled to testify must be granted both (a) direct use immunity (i.e. the promise that the Government will not directly use an individual’s own testimony against him) and; (b) derivative use immunity (i.e. the promise that the Government will not use any information directly or indirectly derived from his compelled testimony to prosecute him, such as investigative leads developed from the compelled testimony). Therefore, where the Government calls a witness in a U.S. criminal trial who has been “substantially exposed to a defendant’s compelled testimony,” it has a burden to show that the review of that compelled testimony “did not shape, alter, or affect” the witness’s testimony. In Allen, the Government could not meet that burden with respect to a U.S. cooperating witness who had previously reviewed the defendants’ testimony in the UK before providing testimony in a U.S. trial.2

The impact of this ruling on UK clients means that UK individuals who are compelled to provide witness accounts to the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) or the FCA can now do so with a degree of comfort that their compelled accounts will not be used against them by enforcement authorities in the U.S. This ruling is likely to bring about closer and earlier liaison between U.S. and UK authorities in all types of cross-border investigations, with U.S. enforcement agencies seeking a greater role in foreign investigations, that may include being engaged from the outset in cases involving a U.S. element, and directing and providing guidance to their foreign counterparts on issues that could impact U.S. enforcement.

The Allen Case

The U.S. DOJ and the UK FCA investigated Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti (the “Defendants”), both UK nationals and former employees of Rabobank in London, in connection with the manipulation of dollar and yen LIBOR rates. In 2013, the FCA lawfully compelled the Defendants to answer questions in accordance with UK law and provided them with “direct use” but not “derivative use” immunity in respect of their statements. The FCA decided to take enforcement action against Paul Robson, a former colleague of the Defendants, and pursuant to the FCA’s standard disclosure procedure, allowed Robson to review and keep copies of the Defendants’ compelled testimony. The FCA subsequently stayed its regulatory proceedings at the request of the SFO in favor of a criminal prosecution of Robson by the DOJ. In April 2014, Robson was indicted and subsequently pleaded guilty in the U.S. and began to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. Robson's cooperation led to the indictment of the Defendants in the U.S., and he then testified at their trial. The Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud.

Following the trial, the District Court held a Kastigar hearing3 to assess the taint from Robson’s review of the Defendants’ compelled testimony. Robson admitted that he had read, marked-up and taken notes from their compelled testimony, and the FBI agent who testified at the grand jury to secure the indictments of the Defendants relied solely on Robson for some of the information presented to the grand jury. In its ruling, the District Court assumed that the Fifth Amendment barred the use of testimony lawfully compelled by a foreign sovereign but found that the Government had met its burden under Kastigar to show that there was no taint from the compelled testimony.

On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment’s bar against compelled self-incrimination applies to statements compelled by non-U.S. enforcement authorities.4 The Court noted that a constitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs only at trial and the right against self-incrimination is a trial right, so the lawfulness of the compulsion to testify in the UK is irrelevant to the determination of whether the use of that testimony in the U.S. courtroom is constitutional.

The Court then held that the Government’s burden under Kastigar is to prove, “at a minimum, that the witness’s review of the compelled testimony did not shape, alter, or affect the evidence used by the government,5 and that the Government failed to meet that burden where the cooperating witness merely made self-serving and conclusory statements that his testimony was not tainted.6 The Second Circuit concluded that the Government had used the compelled testimony of the Defendants against them at trial and that the error was not harmless, and therefore their convictions could not stand.

Key Takeaways

  1. In the event that a foreign regulator requests a UK agency to conduct an interview on its behalf, the potential interviewee should seek legal advice to determine if it is in their best interests to attend voluntarily or to be compelled.
  2. Individuals facing a compelled request from a UK enforcement agency to answer questions, such as a section 2 notice from the SFO,7 where the SFO has the power to compel persons to answer questions at both investigation and pre-investigation (in overseas bribery and corruption cases) stage and failure to respond to a notice or providing misleading information is a criminal offense (similar to powers afforded to the FCA),8 should assess the likelihood of the future involvement of any foreign government agency.
  3. The decision in Allen means that U.S. government agencies interested in the case of an individual in the UK are likely to seek strategic agreement with their UK counterparts with respect to investigative actions from a significant earlier stage than before. Their failure to do so may compromise the U.S. proceedings. It is essential that individuals at risk of U.S. involvement obtain expert U.S. and UK legal advice to ensure the best likelihood of securing all available legal protections in respect of any account given.

Effective defense in multi-jurisdictional investigations requires a keen appreciation of the interaction of U.S., UK and other foreign laws when interfacing with investigators and at any subsequent hearings or trials.

Footnotes

1) United States v. Allen, Nos. 16-898, 16-939 (2d Circuit, decided July 19, 2017).

2) Id. at 80.

3) A Kastigar hearing is held to assess whether the Government has made direct use or derivative use of compelled testimony. Kastigar v U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972).

4) Allen, Nos. 16-898, 16-939 at 33–39.

5) Id. at 80.

6) Id. at 55–71.

7) Sections 2 and 2A, Criminal Justice Act 1987.

8) Sections 171 to 173, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.