- 30 -
agreement, the Attorney General of the United States was required
to certify that the records were for use in the grand jury
proceedings in Florida involving petitioner. Furthermore, the
Attorney General had to certify that the records would not be
used or disclosed for any purposes other than the resolution of
matters encompassed by the agreement without the written consent
of the Government of the Cayman Islands through the Cayman
Attorney General.
Petitioner argues that neither the criminal tax prosecution
in Missouri nor the instant civil tax proceedings are matters
encompassed by the agreement; i.e., narcotics activities.
Therefore, petitioner argues, the written consent of the
Government of the Cayman Islands was required for disclosure of
the records. Thus, petitioner asserts that since there was no
written authorization, it was improper to use the records for any
purpose other than the investigation conducted by the Federal
grand jury in Florida.
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
addressed this argument as well. In upholding the jeopardy
assessment, the District Court stated:
Neither are the jeopardy assessments prohibited on the
grounds that they are based on documents which * * *
[petitioner] asserts were obtained in violation of a
treaty with the Cayman Islands. United States citizens
do not have standing to challenge purported violations
of this treaty because the agreement did not create any
rights for United States citizens. United States v.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011