Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Katholos, 17-cv-00531. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. New York Number: infdco20180829d79 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2018
Summary: LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS RE: GEORGIOS MARAGHAKIS. ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD , District Judge . The United States District Court for the Western District of New York ("District Court") presents its salutations to the Greek Central Authority, and requests assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court. This request is m
More

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS RE: GEORGIOS MARAGHAKIS.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York ("District Court") presents its salutations to the Greek Central Authority, and requests assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court. This request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapter I of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ("Hague Evidence Convention"), to which both the United States and Greece are contracting parties.

Specifically, the District Court requests assistance in obtaining documents and oral testimony from Georgios Maraghakis, a citizen of Greece, for use at trial. Mr. Maraghakis is married to the defendant Marika M. Katholos and is also represented by the defendant's counsel. This Letter of Request is submitted in both English and Greek.

SECTION I

1. SENDER: The Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 United States of America Tel: + (585) 613-4320 Fax: + (585) 613-4325 Email: wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov 2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF REQUESTED STATE: Hellenic Ministry of Justice, Transparency & Human Rights Directorate of Legislative Work, International Legal Relations and International Judicial Cooperation, Department of International Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Criminal Cases 96 Mesogeion Av. Athens 11527 Greece Tel: +30 210 7767312; +30 210 7767322 Fax: +30 210 7767499 Email: civilunit@justice.gov.gr gkouvelas@justice.gov.gr mntolia@justice.gov.gr 3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED: The Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 United States of America Tel: + (585) 613-4320 Fax: + (585) 613-4325 Email: wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov With a Copy to the Parties' Legal Representatives: a. Plaintiff: United States of America c/o W. Damon Dennis, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 555 4th Street, N.W.,Room 7822 Washington. D.C. 20001 Tel: +1 202 616-1460 Email: w.damon.dennis@usdoj.gov b. Defendant: Marika M. Katholos c/o Laura L. Gavioli, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: +1 214 295 8079 Email: lgavioli@mwe.com 4. SPECIFICATION OF THE DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF REQUEST. Date: It is requested that the documents be transmitted and oral testimony be taken as soon as possible, preferably within 90 days of your receipt of this Letter of Request. Reasons for Urgency: To ensure that the documents and testimony are received in a timely manner for use at trial in the civil proceedings described below and that trial counsel has sufficient time to utilize information obtained in preparation of their respective cases. Although the trial date is not currently scheduled, it is expected to take place in 2019. Fact discovery, including depositions, is to be completed by November 16, 2018. SECTION II IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THE INSTANT REQUEST: 5. a. REQUESTING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (Article 3,a) The Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 United States of America Tel: + (585) 613-4320 Fax: + (585) 613-4325 Email: wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov b. TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF (Article 3,a): Hellenic Ministry of Justice, Transparency & Human Rights Directorate of Legislative Work, International Legal Relations and International Judicial Cooperation, Department of International Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Criminal Cases 96 Mesogeion Av. Athens 11527 Greece Tel: +30 210 7767312; +30 210 7767322 Fax: +30 210 7767499 Email: civilunit@justice.gov.gr gkouvelas@justice.gov.gr mntolia@justice.gov.gr c. NAMES OF THE CASE AND ANY IDENTIFYING NUMBER United States of America v. Marika M Katholos, No. 1:17-cv-00531, United States District Court for the Western District of New York. USA 6. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES (Article 3,b): a. Plaintiff: United States of America c/o W. Damon Dennis, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 555 4th Street, N.W., Room 7822 Washington. D.C. 20001 Tel: +1 202 616-1460 Email: w.damon.dennis@usdoj.gov b. Defendant: Marika M. Katholos c/o Laura L. Gavioli, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel. +1 214 295 8079 Email: Igavioli@mwe.com 7. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTS (Article 3,c):

a. Nature of the proceedings

The plaintiff United States of America brought this civil action under 31 U.S.C. § 3711(g)(4)(C) to collect an outstanding civil assessment, along with associated late-payment penalties and interest, assessed against the defendant Ms. Marika Katholos for her failure to timely report her financial interest in and signature authority over a foreign bank or other financial account during the 2007 calendar year as required by 31 U.S.C. § 5314 and its implementing regulations.

In summary, the United States seeks to prove that Ms. Katholos failed to disclose her foreign bank account at UBS Group AG, i.e., UBS, on a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, i.e., an FBAR, for the calendar year 2007 despite Ms. Katholos' obligation to do so pursuant to U.S. law.

This is a civil matter pursuant to U.S. law and carries no criminal liability for Ms. Katholos. As to how "civil or commercial" is to be defined within the context of the Hague Evidence Convention, the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Evidence Convention clearly states that the term civil or commercial should be "interpreted in an autonomous manner", without just referring to the law of the Requesting State or Requested State. Hague Conference on Private Int'l Law, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Evidence Convention ¶ 50, at 21 (3d ed. 2016) ("Handbook").1 In addition, the Handbook notes that the term should be interpreted "liberally" and the focus should be on the nature of the cause of action, which in this case is a purely civil matter. Handbook ¶ 50, at 21.

Furthermore the civil assessment at issue in this matter is imposed against Ms. Marika Katholos pursuant to Title 31 ("Money and Finance") of the United States Code, not Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code, i.e., the U.S. Tax Code). The civil assessment at issue, which is known as an FBAR assessment, originated in the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, Pub.L. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970); and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress directed, in the USA Patriot Act, that attempts should be made to improve compliance with these provisions. Section 5321(a) of Title 31 provides for civil compensation for violations of the reporting requirements of section 5314. and section 5321(b)(1) provides that the United States may make that assessment.

In summary, this case serves to cover a civil compensation resulting from the breach of the obligations to report foreign accounts. The U.S. Tax Code is inapplicable to FBAR assessments because such assessment are not considered a "tax liability" as a matter of law, 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(2) (the collection mechanism authorized in the FBAR statute itself is not tax lien or levy but a civil action to recover a civil assessment). Indeed, an FBAR is a foreign banking reporting form, related to the record keeping and filing requirements for reportable interests in foreign bank accounts, and is controlled by Title 31, U.S.C., not Title 26. There is no underlying tax with which the FBAR assessment could be linked. The FBAR assessment is not a function of income, is not a property or estate tax determined by value, and is not a sales or excise tax determined by receipts or expenditures. As stated above, 31 U.S.C. § 5321, which authorizes FBAR assessments, is titled "civil" assessments — not "tax" assessments. This matter therefore qualifies as civil and commercial matter and is within the scope of the Hague Evidence Convention.

b. Summary of Allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint

Ms. Katholos, who is a United States citizen residing in Greece, is the beneficial owner of the Storchen Family Foundation and Storchen Finance Limited. Ms. Katholos controls/controlled two UBS bank accounts, including an UBS Account ending 65569. She was involved with the decision-making regarding the performance and investments of an UBS Account ending 65569, and she also instructed UBS to make a transfer from the account to Greece so that she could invest in the Romanian real estate market.

By way of background, in February 2005, the Storchen Family Foundation was formed in Vaduz, Liechtenstein. On March 3, 2005, on the Form A. "Verification of the beneficial owner's identity," Ms. Katholos was identified as one or the beneficial owners of the Storchen Family Foundation for the UBS account ending in 36795. The Form A was signed by members of the board, which included Dr. Martin Batliner. Also on that date, members of the board instructed UBS in the "Basic document for account/custody account relationship (firms, corporations, and other institutions)" to send all correspondence to Consilia Anstalt in Vaduz, Liechtenstein. English was selected as the preferred language of the correspondence.

On December 23, 2005, Ms. Katholos and others had dinner in Athens, Greece, with UBS client advisors, and discussed a new account and the creation of a Hong Kong entity to be the accountholder. A few days later, on December 29, 2005, a representative from UBS signed the Certificate of Incorporation for Storchen Finance Limited creating an entity that is registered in Hong Kong, with an UBS Account ending 65569. On January 3, 2006, on the Form A, "Verification of the beneficial owner's identity," Ms. Katholos was identified as one of the beneficial owners of the Storchen Finance Limited, for the account ending in 65569. In addition, on said date and on June 1, 2006, Dr. Batliner, as a director, signed several Corporations and Complex Trusts Certifications of Beneficial Owner and Non-US Person Status for the primary and sub-accounts, indicating that Storchen Finance Limited was a corporation organized in Hong Kong.

On January 3, 2006, documents were signed by member(s) of the Board, inter alia instructing UBS to send all correspondence to Consilia Anstalt in Vaduz. On January 18, 2006, a "Base Document for Non-U.S. Domiciliary Companies for U.S. Tax Withholding" was prepared indicating that the accountholder, Storchen Finance Limited, is domiciled in Hong Kong and wants to invest in U.S. securities. On January 18, 2006, a "Domiciliary Companies decision" sheet was prepared by UBS indicating that the tax haven will be Hong Kong. In February 2006, UBS account ending 36795 was closed when the balance in the account was transferred to the UBS account ending 65569. On February 14, 2006, an asset management agreement instructed UBS to invest in aggressive securities for the UBS account ending in 65569.S3 and account ending in 265569.S4. The reference currency is in United States' dollars.

The United States contends that Ms. Katholos took steps to conceal or mislead her sources of income by opening the UBS Account ending 65569. The 2007 Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, i.e., FBAR, assessment against the defendant Marika Katholos remains unpaid, and the total balance due on the penalties, along with statutory additions and interest, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3717, is $4,474.320.29 as of December 2, 2016.

c. Summary of Defendant's Answer

Ms. Katholos contends, inter alia, that the administrative record and Complaint fail to establish any factual basis for assertion of a willful Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, i.e., FBAR, assessment against her. To provide additional information, Marika Katholos describes the defenses in the case, as follows.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO. 1: MARIKA DID NOT ACT WILLFULLY

The administrative record and Complaint fail to establish any factual basis for assertion of a willful FBAR penalty against Marika. 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(C) imposes a civil money penalty for willful failures to file certain reports required to be filed under 31 U.S.C. § 5314, including the FBAR. As outlined in the statute, the amount of the willful penalty may be 50 percent of the high balance in the account at the time of the alleged failure to file the FBAR form. On the other hand, if a taxpayer does not act willfully—for example, if she failed to file the FBAR because she did not know the form existed or was required to be filed—the civil money penalty under 31 U.S.C. § 5321 shall not be greater than $10,000.

Willfulness is a required element of the penalty asserted by the Government against Marika. The Government's effort to reduce the FBAR penalties to judgment fails because the Government cannot meet its heavy burden to establish a necessary element for enforcement of the penalty—that Marika knew of the FBAR filing obligation and willfully failed to file the form for the 2007 tax year.

The Complaints case for willfulness appears to rest on three major factual allegations, all of which are either incorrect or misleading. First, the Government alleges that Marika was on "inquiry notice" about [BAR reporting because of a 2007 federal income tax return. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, however, the Government possessed information demonstrating that Marika did not sign the 2007 federal income tax return that allegedly put her on "inquiry notice" regarding her FBAR obligations. Further demonstrating that she did not review this return, the 2007 return filed for Marika contains numerous, obvious errors: Marika's name is misspelled and her address is incorrectly given in Elma, New York.

Marika's history of filing U.S. returns since her move to Greece in 1994 demonstrates that she was not fully aware of the relevant U.S. tax rules for reporting income overseas. Prior to 2009, federal tax returns were filed for Marika to report her interests in family assets that generated income in the U.S., such as annuities or rental income from real estate. When there was no U.S. income in a particular year, returns generally were not filed. In many or most cases prior to early 2009, Marika did not see or sign federal tax returns filed for her.

Second, the Internal Revenue Service's ("IRS's") interview with Marika's return preparer Charles Koelemeyer, conducted more than four years after the relevant events, only demonstrates that he knew of FBAR reporting requirements well after the time period at issue. It does not demonstrate that he ever advised Marika about these requirements—or even that he ever spoke to her directly about taxes or U.S. reporting—prior to January 2009. Instead, once Marika learned of the relevant U.S. reporting requirements, she attempted to make a voluntary disclosure to the IRS in February 2009, months before the start of the formal Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. Marika's effort was rejected as untimely because, on information and belief, UBS had delivered her name to the IRS within one week prior to her disclosure.

Finally, the Government alleges that Swiss bankers took actions, including signing forms, to conceal the relevant accounts from U.S. authorities. These are simply not allegations that Marika acted willfully: the allegations describe actions taken by Swiss bankers, not by her and her family. Instead, the long history of Marika and her family in Greece demonstrates that the UBS accounts were not set up for a U.S. tax-avoidance purpose. Marika moved to Greece in 1994, shortly after college, and has been a homemaker and caretaker of her children since that time. Marika's father Theodore Katholos (now deceased) ("Mr. Katholos") immigrated to the U.S. in the mid-1960s with a second-grade education in Greece, and became successful in the painting and contracting business in Buffalo, New York through hard work and determination, not through formal schooling. Mr. Katholos was largely unable to read or write in English. He was very successful in business, particularly given his background, but he lacked sophistication and training in tax matters. In the 1980s, Mr. Katholos seriously considered emigrating back to Greece, and so did Marika. When Mr. Katholos retired in 1997, he had intended to move back to Greece permanently.

The Katholos family set up accounts in Switzerland in 1998, moving their funds from Greek banks because of concerns about privacy and security. They felt there was a great risk that the Greek banks were corrupt, and that there were no true guarantees for' deposits. Also, in dealings with Marika's and her husband George's local bank in Greece, there seemed not to be a policy on secrecy. Information on account values was easily discussed (basically, gossiped about) among employees, a great deal of whom were local residents. These concerns only heightened when Marika and George contemplated starting a family. Their first child was born in 1999, shortly after the Swiss accounts were established. The occurrences of kidnapping are unfortunately not so uncommon in Greece.

In dealings with the Swiss bank, Marika's father Theodore Katholos was the primary decision-maker. Marika had signatory authority because of Mr. Katholos' limited reading and writing skills and because she was the one member of the family located in Europe, with more convenient access to the bank.

In short, the security offered by the Swiss banking system—and not tax avoidance in the U.S.—was the motivating factor in setting up the relevant accounts. Marika's meetings and conversations with Swiss banking advisors are consistent with the purpose of opening the accounts in Switzerland—to ensure privacy and security for Katholos and Maragakis family assets, in contrast to the unstable Greek banking system where these assets had been previously held. There is no factual allegation in the Complaint (other than summary legal assertions) supporting a conclusion that the accounts were established for any U.S. tax purpose.

Further, the Government has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6) because it has alleged no facts in the Complaint—beyond summary legal conclusions—that support a finding of willfulness.

Moreover, the administrative record is devoid of any reasoning supporting a finding that Marika acted willfully. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service's guidance regarding mitigation of the FBAR penalty fails to take into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and focuses solely on the high balance in the relevant financial accounts. See Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.16-1. Accordingly, the IRS assessment of the FBAR penalty against Marika is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under 5 U.S.C. § 706.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO. 2: THE PENALTY ASSESSMENT IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE

The IRS has been delegated civil enforcement authority over the FBAR. See 31 CFR § 1010.810(g) (referencing a Memorandum of Agreement between the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") and the IRS). The IRS has established specific procedures for the examination, approval, and assessment of the FBAR penalty under 31 U.S.C. § 5321. See Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.16 and 4.26.17. For example, a willful FBAR penalty must be reviewed by the SB/SE Counsel FBAR Coordinator, and findings must be made supporting the assertion of the penalty. See Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.17.4.3. The taxpayer has the right to administratively appeal an initial determination that the penalty should be assessed, and an IRS group manager must also make findings when approving the penalty. See Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.17.4.6. In addition, a series of notices and letters must be sent to the taxpayer before the penalty is assessed. See Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.17.

The Government's efforts to collect an FBAR penalty for Marika fail because the IRS's assessment of the FBAR penalty was procedurally defective. Based on the incomplete correspondence and notices that Marika and her counsel have received, it appears that the IRS may not have followed its own procedures in making the assessment of the FBAR penalty. As referenced above, the notices and reports that Marika received contain little to no reasoning supporting a willful FBAR penalty, also rendering the assessment procedurally defective. Because the IRS did not validly assess the FBAR penalty before the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, the Government cannot reduce this penalty to judgment.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO. 3: THE PENALTY IS BARRED BY THE RELEVANT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The deadline for an FBAR to be filed for Marika for the 2007 tax year would have been on or before June 30, 2008. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(1), the Government was required to assess any FBAR penalty within six years of June 30, 2008, or by June 30, 2014.

There is no grant of statutory authority for extension of this statutory deadline. In the Complaint, paragraph 38. the Government alleges that the FBAR penalty for 2007 was assessed against Marika on June 15, 2015, after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Government is barred from collecting the FBAR penalty against Marika for the 2007 tax year because the assessment was made after the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(1).

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO. 4: THE PENALTY IS AN EXCESSIVE FINE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

The relevant statutes, 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a) and (b)(1), provide that a willful FBAR penalty of 50 percent of the balance in the relevant financial account may be assessed upon the same funds for each year within a six-year statute of limitations. As written, the statute essentially allows the Government to assess an FBAR penalty of 300 percent of the highest balance of a financial account—three times the entire value of the account.

In addition to the penalty at issue in this suit, the Internal Revenue Service is seeking to assess and collect other civil penalties from Marika under the Internal Revenue Code for the exact same funds at issue here.

The assessed FBAR penalty has been improperly imposed on the entire value of the UBS accounts. A substantial portion of these funds were owned by Marika's husband George Maragakis, and were not taxable or subject to penalties in the United States. George is a Greek citizen and not a U.S. taxpayer. In the late 1990s, the family initially moved their funds out of Greece into accounts held in the names of Marika, George, and Mr. Katholos at a different Swiss bank. In 2004 or thereabouts, these accounts were moved to UBS, also in their individual names. Upon instruction and advice of the Swiss bankers at UBS, the accounts were consolidated in early 2005 into the accounts at issue because the family was advised that this structure would allow for additional investment opportunities and flexibility. Thus, to the extent the calculation of the FBAR penalty is based upon amounts held in the Storchen accounts but actually owned by George, those amounts were never taxable in the United States, and should be excluded from any penalty calculation.

The FBAR penalty under 31 U.S.C. § 5321 and the penalties asserted under the Internal Revenue Code are excessive, punitive, improperly stacked, and disproportionate to any harm suffered by failure to file the relevant forms disclosing the accounts. In short, 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(C)(i), as written and as applied to Marika, violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the penalty should not be enforced for this reason.

8. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED OR OTHER JUDICIAL ACT TO BE PERFORMED (Article 3,d):

a. Evidence to be obtained

The assistance requested of Greece consists of the following:

1. Obtaining copies of documents in the possession of Mr. Maraghakis and obtaining oral testimony from him. The requested documents, including the topics and questions to be utilized in obtaining oral testimony of Mr. Maraghakis, are described in the attached Schedule C.

b. Purpose of the evidence sought

The documents and oral testimony sought from Mr. Maraghakis go to the core of material allegations and contentions described above and are to be used at trial and other proceedings relating to the matter described. Specifically, the defendant claims that:

(1) Mr. Maraghakis has knowledge of the history of the financial accounts at issue, specifically UBS Account No. 65569. including the flow of funds regarding the same; and (2) The defendant is not liable for the civil assessment at issue because, inter alia, she and Mr. Maraghakis felt there was a great risk that the Greek banks were corrupt, and that there were no true guarantees for deposits and that in dealings with local banks in Greece, there seemed not to be a policy on secrecy (i.e., information on account values was easily discussed — basically, gossiped about among employees, a great deal of whom were local residents; these concerns only heightened when the defendant and Mr. Maraghakis contemplated starting a family and the occurrences of kidnapping are unfortunately not so uncommon in Greece).

In addition, the United States believes that Mr. Maraghakis, as Ms. Katholos' husband, has knowledge of the lengths Ms. Katholos went through to hide her assets in the foreign bank account(s) beyond the United States' purview. Absent the Greek Central Authority authorization to gather this evidence pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, the United States would not be able to obtain material evidence from Mr. Maraghakis because he is a Greek citizen and thus beyond the jurisdiction of T.S. Courts.

In short, the information sought in Schedule C to the Letter of Request is highly relevant to this case and important to its resolution. Accordingly, this Court respectfully requests the assistance of Greece in obtaining the documents and testimony referred to above,

SECTION III

9. IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON TO BE EXAMINED (Article 3,e):

Georgios Maraghakis Avlonos 3G Voula, Greece As with Ms. Katholos, Mr. Maraghakis is represented by Laura L. Gavioli and he can be contacted through his counsel. Ms. Gavioli's contact information is below, Laura L. Gavioli, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: +1 214 295 8079 Email: 1gavioli@mwe.com

10. QUESTIONS TO BE PUT TO THE PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED OR STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED (Article 3,f):

Please refer to Schedule C, attached. The questions contained in Schedule C concern the following subject matters (with opportunity for follow up questions), in addition to questions addressing preliminary matters of the witness's knowledge, competence, and relationship with Ms. Katholos:

(1) circumstances leading up to the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation and the Storchen Finance Limited; (2) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis and Ms. Katholos' relationship with UBS, including anyone acting on UBS's behalf; (3) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis' relationship with Ms. Katholos relating to her obligations concerning, knowledge of and interest in the financial accounts at issue, specifically, UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569; (4) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis' knowledge of U.S. tax laws and U.S. taxpayers' reporting obligations; (5) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis and Ms. Katholos' relationship with Dr. Matthias W. Rickenbach, including anyone acting on his behalf, relating to the Storchen Family Foundation and the Storchen Finance Limited, as well as Ms. Katholos' beneficial interest in any bank accounts; (6) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis and Ms. Katholos' involvement with Consilia Anstalt; (7) Mr. Maraghakis' knowledge of the history of the financial accounts at issue, specifically, UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569, including the ownership of the funds at issue, and the flow of funds regarding the same, as well as the transaction history for those accounts; (8) circumstances surrounding Ms. Katholos' interest in the Storchen Family Foundation and the Storchen Finance Limited, as well as her interest in the various bank accounts for which she has/had a beneficial interest in or signature authority over; (9) circumstances surrounding why UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569 were opened and, subsequently, closed; (10) circumstances surrounding Mr. Maraghakis and Ms. Katholos' knowledge of Basak Holdings and its relationship the Storchen Family Foundation and the Storchen Finance Limited, including Ms. Katholos; (11) the nature of Mr. Maraghakis and Ms. Katholos' relationship with Basak Holdings; and (12) the rights, duties and functions described in the various agreements/understandings between Ms. Katholos, Mr. Maraghakis, Consilia Anstalt, Dr. Batliner, UBS, Credit Suisse, Storchen Family Foundation and the Storchen Finance Limited, and any other financial institution for which Ms. Katholos has/had a beneficial interest in or signature authority over.

11. DOCUMENTS OR OTHER PROPERTY TO BE INSPECTED (Article 3,g):

It is requested that copies of the documents or electronic records described in the attached Schedule C be requested from Mr. Maraghakis for inspection and for transmission back to the Requesting Authority.

12. ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION AND SPECIFIC FORM TO BE USED (Article 3,h):

If agreeable to the Greek Central Authority, it is hereby requested as follows:

a. It is requested that the oral testimony of Mr. Maraghakis be taken under affirmation in accordance with the laws of Greece before an appropriate judicial official of Greece.

b. It is further requested that the affirmation be administered, and that the oral examination be conducted, in both Greek and English. The cost of the interpreters will be covered by the United States. The requested questions in Schedule C have been provided both in English and Greek.

c. The United States has authorized the Law Firm of Bazinas to represent its interests in the execution of this Request in Greece. Please contact Mr. George B. Bazinas for any questions and notices regarding this Letter of Request and notify the Court that shall be designated to execute this Letter of Request that Mr. George Bazinas shall represent the United States in connection with any procedures, hearings, and motions that shall be taken and heard in connection with the examination of the witness and presentation of documents.

George B. Bazinas Bazinas Law Firm 11 Alopekis Str. Kolonaki Athens — Greece GR106 75 Tel: +30.210-72 54 800 Fax: +30.210-72 54 835 Email: gbazinas@bazinas.com www.bazinas.com

d. It is requested that the oral testimony be taken through direct questioning by counsel for the United States in Greece, Mr. George Bazinas, or by attorneys from the United States Department of Justice, with an opportunity afforded to counsel for the defendant to cross examine the witness.

e. It is requested that counsel for the United States be notified in advance of the time and place of the proceedings and that counsel for all parties be permitted to attend in person, or by video or audio teleconference for those not able to attend in person. Mr. George Bazinas shall thereafter inform the other parties by email (as previously agreed by the parties in this matter) of the procedures to be followed in the proceeding, including such arrangements as are necessary to attend in person, or by video or audio teleconference.

f. It is further requested that the affirmation and oral examination be video-recorded and also transcribed verbatim stenographically: or recorded by a method permitted under Greek law, and that the video and transcript be provided to:

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 United States of America Tel: + (585) 613-4320 Fax: + (585) 613-4325 Email: wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov

With a Copy to the parties /gal Representatives:

1. Plaintiff: United States of America c/o W. Damon Dennis, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 555 4th Street, N.W.,Room 7822 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: +1 202 616-1460 Email: w.damon.dennis@usdoj.gov 2. Defendant: Marika M. Katholos c/o Laura L. Gavioli, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: +1 214 295 8079 Email: 1gavioli@mwe.com

g. It is further requested that, if any portion of this Request is deemed to be unacceptable under the laws of Greece, that counsel for the United States, Mr. George Bazinas, please be informed of that fact and be allowed to respond substantively prior to the Decision and that the Greek Court please comply with as much of the Request as possible.

13. SPECIAL METHODS OR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED (Article 3,i & 9):

Please see Item 12 above.

14. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE REQUEST AND IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED (Article 7).

Please see Item 12(e) above. Please send documents described on Schedule C to:

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 United States of America Tel: + (585) 613-4320 Fax: + (585) 613-4325 Email: wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov

With a copy to the parties' Legal Representatives:

a. Plaintiff: United States of America c/o W. Damon Dennis, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 555 4th Street, N.W.,Room 7822 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: +1 202 616-1460 Email: w.damon.dennis@usdoj.gov b. Defendant: Marika M. Katholos c/o Laura L. Gavioli, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: +1 214 295 8079 Email: 1gavioli@mwe.com

Regarding oral testimony, please see Item 12 above.

15. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE EXECUTION OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST (Article 8):

Please see Item 12 above.

16. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN (Article 11,b).

In responding to this Letter of Request, Mr. Maraghakis need not disclose documents and electronic records that constitute communications for which either party sought for legal advice. This privilege may be waived, however, if the communication has been disclosed to third parties.

17. THE FEES AND COSTS INCURRED WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 OR UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONVENTION WILL BE BORNE BY:

This Court understands that certain fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request may be reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article 14 or under Article 26 of the Hague Evidence Convention. These fees and costs will be reimbursed by the United States. up to $10,000 USD. Mr. George Bazinas should be informed about anticipated costs and before the costs exceed this amount.

SECTION IV

This United States District Court expresses its gratitude to the judicial authorities of Greece for their assistance and courtesy under the terms of the Hague Evidence Convention.

SCHEDULE C TO LETTER OF REQUEST TO GREEK CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Document Requests to and Questions or Topics for the Examination of GEORGIOS MARAGHAKIS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST

a. The documents and electronic records requested are intended to cover any and all documents and things in the control and/or possession of any Mr. Georgios Maraghakis, as well as those subject to their custody and/or control, whether in his possession, at the office of his attorneys, accountants, and/or at any other place and/or in the possession of any other person and/or entity subject to Mr. Georgios Maraghakis' control.

b. In responding to the requests, Mr. Georgios Maraghakis is requested to state which documents and electronic records he will produce for inspection and copying. If Mr. Georgios Maraghakis objects to a particular request, he is requested to state the precise grounds upon which his objections rests and state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

c. With respect to each document and/or electronic record withheld from production, on any basis whatsoever, including, without limitation, document or electronic record withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, a separate list of all such documents and/or electronic records shall be served with the responses to the document requests herein that states and identifies the following:

(1) the date the document or electronic record bears, if any and, if different, the date on which the document or electronic record was created, (2) the nature, type and subject matter of the document or electronic record, and its title, if any (i.e. draft letter, final letter, legal opinion, report, memorandum, chart. Email, etc.); (3) the name, business address, and business affiliation of each and every person who drafted, wrote, produced, executed, signed, edited, reviewed, revised and/or otherwise participated in creating and/or altering the document or electronic record; (4) the name, business address and business affiliation of each and every person who received the document or electronic record, and/or any copy thereof, and/or was permitted to learn of its contents; (5) the number of pages of the document or electronic record; (6) the name, business address and business affiliation of each and every person who personally has possession, custody and/or control of the document or electronic record and/or any copy thereof; and (7) the basis for the privilege claim with respect to the document or electronic record.

d. All documents must be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or must be organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the requests. In the case of electronic records, the records should be produced in electronic or optical format which can be accessed, indexed and searched with accepted computer programs and with all of their metadata. If electronic records responsive to this document request are held in electronic or optical folders and sub-folders that are utilized for organization of the records into specific groups cat'' records (such as documents pertaining to a certain transaction, or agreements of a certain nature or with a certain party) the documents should be produced within the said electronic or optical folders and subfolders.

e. If Mr. Georgios Maraghakis is aware that a document and/or electronic record (and/or a group of documents and/or electronic records) once existed, but has been destroyed, Mr. Georgios Maraghakis is requested to specifically identify such document and/or electronic record, when the document and/or electronic record was destroyed, the reason for such destruction, and the circumstances under which such destruction occurred.

f. In the event that Mr. Georgios Maraghakis is able to produce only some of the documents and/or electronic records responsive to these requests within the allotted time, he is requested to produce the documents and/or electronic records which can be produced, and to state the reason for the asserted inability to provide the remaining documents and/or electronic records. Once the remaining responsive documents and/or electronic records are obtained and/or become available, those documents and/or electronic records should be produced promptly at a mutually agreeable time.

A. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

1. All communications between Georgios Maraghakis and the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, including anyone acting on those entities' behalves relating to the defendant Marika Katholos' interest in those entities. 2. All communications between Georgios Maraghakis and the defendant Marika Katholos, including anyone acting on her behalf, relating to the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited. 3. All documents relating to or themselves comprising the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited. 4. All documents regarding the opening of any bank account with any other Swiss bank on behalf of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, from January 1, 2003, to the present. 5. All communications involving circumstances leading up to the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited. 6. All communications between Georgios Maraghakis and Consilia Anstalt relating to the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, from January 1, 2003, to the present. 7. All communications between Georgios Maraghakis and Dr. Matthias W. Rickenbach, including anyone acting on his behalf, relating to the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, and any other entity for which the defendant Marika Katholos has/had a beneficial interest in or signature authority over. 8. All communications relating to the history of the financial accounts at issue, specifically, UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569, including the ownership of the funds at issue, and the flow of funds regarding the same, as well as the transaction history for those accounts. 9. All communications relating to, or themselves comprising, UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569. 10. All communications between Georgios Maraghakis and Basak Holdings relating to the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, including each of its beneficiaries, from January 1, 2003, to the present.

B. QUESTIONS FOR WITNESS

The witness will be asked the following questions that relate to the subject matters detailed herein, including follow up questions, to the extent of the knowledge of the witness. Examining attorneys may utilize documents in their questioning of the witness:

1. Identify and describe your personal, educational and employment background. 2. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with Consilia Anstalt. 3. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with Dr. Matthias W. Rickenbach. 4. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with Dr. Martin Batinler. 5. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with UBS. 6. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with Credit Suisse. 7. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited. 8. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' relationship with her siblings. 9. Identify and describe your relationship with the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, including in your response your relationship with each beneficiary. 10. Identify and describe your understanding of U.S. tax laws and U.S. taxpayers' reporting obligations from January 1, 2003, to the present. 11. Are you aware that U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and legal permanent residents have an obligation to report all income earned from foreign bank accounts on their tax returns and to pay the taxes due on that income? 12. Are you aware that since tax year 1976, U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and legal permanent residents have had an obligation to report to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on Schedule B of a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, whether that individual had a financial interest in, or signature authority over, a financial account in a foreign country in a particular year by checking "Yes" or "No" in the appropriate box and identifying the country where the account was maintained? 13. Are you aware that since 1970, U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and legal permanent residents who have had a financial interest in, or signature authority over, one or more financial accounts in a foreign country with an aggregate value of more than $10,000 at any time during a particular year have been required to file with the Department of the Treasury a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114 (the "FBAR," formerly known as Form TD F 90-22.1). 14. What is an FBAR? 15. What is an "undeclared account"? 16. Identify and describe your understanding of Swiss bank secrecy laws concerning the prohibition against the disclosure of personal and account information about their customers without their customers' authorization. 17. Identify and describe your understanding of the Swiss Banking Act of 1934. 18. Identify and describe your understanding of Qualified Intermediary Agreement that certain Swiss banks entered into with the Internal Revenue Service. 19. Identify and describe the circumstances leading up to the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited. 20. Identify and describe the nature of your relationship with UBS, including anyone acting on UBS's behalf. 21. Identify and describe the nature of Ms. Katholos' relationship with UBS, including anyone acting on UBS's behalf. 22. Identify and describe if you or the defendant received correspondences relating to the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, from UBS and/or any other financial institution. 23. Identify and describe your knowledge of the history of the financial accounts at issue, specifically, UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65509, including the ownership of the funds at issue, and the flow of funds regarding the same, as well as the transaction history for those accounts. 24. Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding the defendant's interest in the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, as well as her interest in the various Swiss bank accounts for which she has/had a beneficial interest in or signature authority over. 25. Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding why UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569 were opened and, subsequently, closed. 26. Identify and describe rights, duties and functions described in the various agreements/understandings between you and the defendant, CA, Batliner. UBS. Credit Suisse, the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, and/or any other financial institution for which the defendant she has/had a beneficial interest in or signature authority over. 27. Identify and describe the flow of funds into and out of the UBS accounts ending 36795 and 65569 from January 1, 2003, to the present. 28. What efforts did you make to ensure that the beneficiaries of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited, including the defendant, satisfied their respective reporting obligations to the U.S. authorities from January 1, 2003, to the present? 29. Identify and describe your knowledge of the following transfers were made from the UBS Account No. 65569: Date Amount Transferee Bank 2/4/2006 $350,000.00 Storchen Finance LTD. Account # 65569.14X 2/14/2006 $3.500.000.00 Storchen Finance LTD. Account #6569.51W 2/28/2006 $10,000.00 Alpha Bank AE, Agens. Greece, Beneficiary: Marika Katholos 5/15/2006 $195.000.00 OTP Bank Romania S.A., RO-011017 Bucharest, Panagiotis Diamantis 10/2/2006 $812.500.00 Beneficiary Bank. Account 60385.01Z Swift 2/27/2007 $35,000.00 Account #615379, Athens, Greece 4/10/2007 $500,000.00 Invest CHF for six months with rate of 3,15%, Account # 65569.90P 4/26/2007 $195,000.00 Invest Euro for one car with rate of 5.15%, Account # 65569 60A 6/11/2007 $50.000.00 Bank of Cyprus Public Co, Account # 000948 8/28/2007 $7,850.00 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.77P 10/16/2007 $507.525.00 Invest CHF for 9 months with rate of 3.38%, Account # 65569.80 11/27/2007 $457,560.00 Bank of Cyprus Public Co, CY-NICOSIA, Account # 000948, Beneficiary: Panaciotis Diamandis 12/6/3007 $10,000.00 Alpha Bank AE. GR-102 52 Athens, Swift Account # 015379, Beneficiary: Marika Katholos 1/25/2008 $10,605.89 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.60A 1/25/2008 $40.120.09 Storchen Finance LID, Account # 65569.60A 2/6/2008 $47,600.00 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.77P 3/4/2008 $36.666.00 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.12V 3/4/2008 $26,343.88 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.12V 3/4/2008 $9.796.80 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.12V 3/20/2008 $10,000.00 Alpha Bank AE, GR-102 52 Athens. Account # 15379, Beneficiary: Marika Katholos 3/26/2008 $5,000,000.00 Bank of Cyprus Public Co, CY-NICOSIA, Account # 10806, Basak Holdings, LTD, B.V.I. Date Amount Transferee Bank 3/28/2008 $1,296,700.58 Storchen Finance LTD, Account # 65569.22M 4/16/2008 $50,948.61 Storchen Finance LTD, AccoUnt # 65569.22M 4/16/2008 $111,26895 Storchen finance LTD. Account # 65569.22M

30. Identify and describe Ms. Katholos' knowledge of UBS's public announcement that it was the target of a criminal investigation in 2008 by the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of Justice and that it would be exiting and no longer accepting certain U.S. clients.

31. After learning of the UBS investigation, what if anything did Ms. Katholos do in connection with her interest in the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited?

C. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM DEFENDANT

1. Identify and describe your personal, educational and employment background.

In reference to Plaintiffs Question 1 (copied above for convenience):

1A. Identify and describe the circumstances leading to your marriage to Marika Katholos. 1B. When was your first child with Marika Katholos born? 1C. Describe your introduction to Marika's father, Theodore Katholos. 1D. Describe your relationship with Theodore Katholos, including whether that relationship was close and whether you had any business dealings with him. 1E. What, if any, knowledge did you have of Theodore Katholos' educational background? Please describe. 1F. What, if any, knowledge did you have of Theodore Katholos' literacy in English? Please describe. 1G. What, if any, knowledge did you have of Theodore Katholos' knowledge of US tax laws? Please describe. 1H. Are you a US citizen or green card holder?

19. Identify and describe the circumstances leading up to the formation of the Storchen Family Foundation, as well as the Storchen Finance Limited.

In reference to Plaintiff's Question 19 (copied above for convenience):

19A. Identify and describe your reasons for the opening of accounts at Credit Suisse in the late 1990s, including conditions in Greece, if any, that may have motivated your decision. 19B. Identify and describe your reasons for transferring funds from Credit Suisse to UBS in the early 2000s. 19C. Identify how much, if any, of your own funds were used to establish Storchen at UBS. 19D. If any of your own funds went into Storchen, identify why this occurred. In answering this question, identify and describe what, if any, advice you received from UBS or other professional advisors regarding this decision, when this advice was given, and who gave this advice. 19E. Did you ever seek to withdraw your funds from Storchen? If so, when? Identify and describe the circumstances leading to a withdrawal, including how much was withdrawn and how this was accomplished.

FootNotes


1. The Handbook is a reliable source for interpretation and implementation questions related to the Hague Evidence Convention. It was drafted by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, reviewed by a Special Commission convened to review the practical operation of the Convention, and approved by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer