Letter opposition (motion to compel) — Harborview v. Cross River

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · No. 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA · Doc. 117 · 2024-05-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Iram P. Valentin, Esq. 
Partner 
 
Certified by the Supreme Court 
Of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney 
 
Direct E-mail:  ivalentin@kdvlaw.com 
Direct Dial: 201-708-8233 
 
 
New York  l  Pennsylvania  l  New Jersey  l  San Francisco  l  Los Angeles  l  Florida  l  Chicago 
 
   
May 17, 2024 
VIA ECF 
Honorable James B. Clark, III, U.S.M.J. 
United States District Court, District of New Jersey 
Martin Luther King Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse 
50 Walnut Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07101 
 
 
 
Re: 
Harborview Capital Partners, LLC v. Cross River Bank;  
 
 
 
Civil Action No.: 21-cv-15146-EP-JBC 
 
 
 
Dear Judge Clark: 
  
 
We represent Defendant Cross River Bank (“Cross River”). Pursuant to Your Honor’s 
Order entered May 14, 2024 [ECF No. 116], we write in response to the letter filed by Plaintiff 
Harborview Capital Partners LLC (“Harborview”) [ECF No. 115] on May 13, 2024, requesting 
leave to file a motion to compel to (1) require the production of allegedly withheld documents 
and/or (2) issue a sanction barring Cross River from later producing or presenting evidence to 
contradict a requested “negative inference” if it does not make a further production now. For the 
following reasons, Harborview’s arguments lack merit. 
 
I. 
Preliminary Statement 
 
 
This case is simple. Harborview sued Cross River in connection with four (4) international 
wire transfers initiated and authorized by Harborview’s employee, Marilyn Tirado, an agent and 
authorized signatory on Harborview’s accounts held at Cross River. Specifically, Ms. Tirado 
requested that these international wire transfers be made when a hacker ostensibly penetrated 
Plaintiff’s computer system, sent her numerous emails from the account of Plaintiff’s CEO, 
Ephraim Kutner, and directed her to make the subject transfers, which she believed were directed 
by Mr. Kutner. Prior to processing the transfer requests, which were not only signed by Ms. Tirado, 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1277

2 
 
but by Mr. Kutner himself, Cross River called her to verify the transactions – which were readily 
verified, all four times. 
 
Harborview’s legal claims are premised on Cross River’s supposed violations of the UCC, 
as adopted by New Jersey. Despite Harborview’s rhetoric, this case begins and ends with 
authorization. In particular, N.J.S.A. 12A:4A2-202(1), and the authority interpreting this statutory 
provision, is clear: if a customer of a financial institution authorizes a transfer, the financial 
institution bears no liability if the customer fell victim to fraud. If, however, the transfer was 
unauthorized, the analysis then turns on the question of whether or not the financial institution had 
commercially reasonable means of security to verify the transfers. 
 
 
 
The Honorable Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J. concluded three times that, on their face, the 
wire transfers were authorized; first, in the Court’s Order and Opinion on Cross River’s Motion to 
Dismiss the initial Complaint; second, in the Court’s Order and Opinion on Harborview’s Motion 
to Reconsider; and, third, in the Court’s Order and Opinion on Cross River’s Motion for Summary 
Judgment. However, in the Order on Summary Judgment, Judge McNulty granted Harborview’s 
request for additional discovery “under the supervision of the Magistrate Judge, who will ensure 
that such discovery is limited to the issues that remain concerning the authority of Harborview’s 
employee, the scope of Cross River’s knowledge regarding that authority, and the commercial 
reasonableness of its procedures to verify the authenticity of the wire transfer[s].” 
 
 
Discovery in this matter is, unquestionably, limited to these disputed issues. However, and 
despite this clear directive from Judge McNulty, Harborview has continued to engage in a 
relentless and taxing fishing expedition in order to manufacture a claim and evade eventual 
dismissal. Cross River identifies and discusses this pattern in its pending Motion for Protective 
Order [ECF No. 114], and the same rationale applies here, as Harborview presses Cross River for 
ostensible documents that either do not exist or are completely irrelevant to the issues in this action. 
For the reasons set forth below, this should not be permitted. See Claude P. Bamberger Intern., 
Inc. v. Rohm and Haas Co., 1998 WL 684263 at *2 (internal citations omitted) (“[D]iscovery is 
not intended as a fishing expedition permitting the speculative pleading of a case first and then 
pursuing discovery to support it; the plaintiff must have some basis in fact for the action….the 
discovery rules are designed to assist a party to prove a claim it reasonably believes to be viable 
without discovery, not to find out if it has any basis for its claim. That the discovery might uncover 
evidence showing that a plaintiff has a legitimate claim does not justify the discovery request….”).  
 
II. 
Harborview’s “Post-Deposition Requests” Were Responded To; They Request 
Information That Is Either New, Duplicative, Redundant, And/or Non-Existent. 
 
 
On March 18, 2024 – after Harborview deposed four (4) Cross River fact witnesses it 
noticed over the course of three (3) days – Cross River responded to Harborview’s Post-Deposition 
Request for Production of Documents (“Post-Deposition Requests”) (Exhibit 1). Contrary to 
Harborview’s position, many of the requests were new (i.e., a request for the resume of Kathleen 
Nelson, Cross River’s Chief Operating Officer), duplicative of previously served requests (i.e., a 
request for communications between Cross River and Hang Seng Bank, Hong Kong officials, or 
any other person or entity approached in Hong Kong related to the wire transfers) and/or requested 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 2 of 15 PageID: 1278

3 
 
information that simply did not exist (i.e., a request for any information provided by an internal 
system called “World Check” or notes about information in “World Check” relative to the four 
international wires). Accordingly, Cross River interposed appropriate objections to certain 
requests (see Graber v. Dales, 511 F.Supp.3d 594, 600 (E.D.Pa. 2021) (“discovery remains limited 
as to what is necessary to determine the issue of qualified immunity, and Defendant may challenge 
any discovery request as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”) (emphasis added); at 
the same time, Cross River produced one hundred and fifty (150) pages of non-privileged 
documents responsive to the Post-Deposition Requests. 
 
III. 
Harborview’s “Discovery Deficiency” Letter Is Disingenuous and Objectionable. 
 
 
Almost a month and a half after Cross River served these responses and objections to 
Harborview’s Post-Deposition Requests, it received Harborview’s May 2, 2024 “discovery 
deficiency” letter. This letter identifies purported deficiencies with Cross River’s latest production, 
to which Cross River responds in turn in compliance with the Court’s directive. 
 
1. Cross River’s Written Objections 
 
Harborview ostensibly takes issue with (1) Cross River’s objection to the use of the phrase 
“suspicious wires”; and (2) Cross River’s objection to certain requests as duplicative.  
 
With regard to the “suspicious wires” objection, Cross River, in its Responses and 
Objections to Harborview’s Post-Deposition Document Requests, placed the following objection 
when the term “suspicious wires” was used in a Request: “Defendant [] objects to this demand to 
the extent that the term ‘suspicious wires’ implies that Defendant deemed the four international 
wire transfers to be ‘suspicious,’ which is not supported by the record.” The nature of the wires is 
frankly not in issue. Despite Harborview’s unilateral interpretation of the record to date, Cross 
River is under no obligation to accept Harborview’s characterization of the four international wire 
transfers. Cross River did not deem the wire transactions to be suspicious, particularly because 
both Ms. Tirado and Mr. Kutner authorized them verbally and in writing. Therefore, Cross River 
respectfully submits that its objection is proper. Notwithstanding the objection, Cross River has 
not withheld any documents from production pursuant to this objection. 
 
Cross River’s objection to duplicative requests is also proper. In response to such Requests, 
Cross River referred to or provided the same documents and information that it had provided in 
previous Requests, thereby proving the duplicative nature. However, again, Cross River has not 
withheld any documents from production pursuant to this objection. This issue is, therefore, moot. 
  
2. OFAC Related Materials 
 
Harborview’s next gripe is with Cross River’s response to Post-Deposition Request No. 5, 
which states: “Ms. Kim testified she was shown a .ppt during her training the (sp) indicated how 
she was trained on identifying OFAC false positives. Pursuant to our previous request 37 and 39 
(among others), please supplement your production immediately. NB: We acknowledge your 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 3 of 15 PageID: 1279

4 
 
production of IT trainings from 911-1204, but no information in these presentations seems to be 
related to OFAC policies.”  
 
In response to this Request, Cross River produced the two PowerPoints that Ms. Kim 
referred to her in deposition, without objection. However, in its May 2 letter, Harborview asks, for 
the first time, for additional documentation, including “internal training/follow-up emails/memos, 
or actions taken by Cross River with regard to this training as well as any certifications of 
attendance from this training PowerPoint should it be Cross River’s position that indeed this 
PowerPoint represents the training of its staff.” Remarkably, Harborview posits this request as if 
Cross River purposefully withheld documents that Harborview initially requested, which could 
not be further from the truth. Indeed, Cross River fulfilled Harborview’s singular request for the 
OFAC training PowerPoints, and it should not have an obligation to provide anything further. 
Indeed, Document Request No. 37 referenced by Harborview (quite overbroadly) requests “any 
and all documents or communications that relate to Cross River’s legal “know your customer” 
(KYC) obligations and Harborview or the Unauthorized Wires,” and Document Request No. 39 
requests “any and all documents that describe Cross River’s wire room procedures, including but 
not limited to, operating and security procedures.” (Emphasis added.) Harborview’s additional 
document demands have nothing to do with these Requests or implementation of these policies or 
the OFAC policy (see, e.g., Harborview’s ambiguous and bizarre request for “follow-up or after-
the-fact review that Cross River conducted after being trained in 2020 that China was posing a 
threat, in 2019, if any”). Cross River should not be required to search for or produce irrelevant 
documents. 
 
Harborview further complains about Cross River’s alleged failure to produce “memo 
notes” relative to the OFAC check for each of the four international wires. In particular, 
Harborview alleges that documentation only containing the description “False Positive” has been 
produced in various productions, when more information concerning the OFAC check should have 
been available.1 Harborview’s assertion is incorrect. Numerous documents produced by Cross 
River contains the “Audit Trail” for each wire transfer; and this “Audit Trail” further contains a 
row called “OFAC Approved,” which provides the reason for why the wire was released after an 
OFAC review was conducted. Indeed, Harborview’s counsel is well aware of the existence of the 
Audit Trail – in fact, at the deposition of Anna Kim, Cross River’s former Wire Transfer Manager, 
counsel specifically tells Ms. Kim that he is “going to walk through the audit trail information with 
[her].” (Exhibit 2).  
 
 
 
 
1 Harborview attempts to confuse the Court or by contradicting the record and stating in its May 
13 letter, at page 3, that “[h]ad Cross River followed its own internal policies related to what it 
should have done when an OFAC positive came through, it is likely that at least three, if not all 
four, of the suspicious wires would have been stopped.” This completely misconstrues the 
testimony of the Cross River deponents. All four wire transfers were noted as “false positives,” 
and as reflected by the deposition testimony and the documents that Cross River produced, the 
proper procedures for reviewing OFAC-flagged transactions were followed to the tee.  
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 4 of 15 PageID: 1280

5 
 
3. World Check Procedures 
 
Harborview requests the effective date of the first version of Cross River’s “World Check 
Procedures.” That date is November 2018. 
 
4. Suspicious Activity Report and Related Information 
 
Harborview finally requests “information, memos, or documentation….with regard to 
whether [Cross River’s] BSA/AML officer was made aware of” the four international wire 
transfers. Again, Harborview’s position here assumes that the four international wires needed to 
be reported to Cross River’s BSA/AML team and, if not, some negative inference should be drawn 
that Cross River did not comply with its own policies. In fact, as made clear by Ms. Kim’s 
deposition testimony, Cross River’s policies did not require that a single one of the four wires be 
reported to the BSA/AML team (e.g., when Ms. Kim was asked, “When you make a decision as 
to the OFAC scan hit being a false positive do you communicate that with the OFAC compliance 
officer?”, she stated “No.”) (Exhibit 3). Moreover,  the “incident report” referenced by Ms. Nelson 
at her deposition and in the May 2 letter has already been produced, at CRB001358-CRB001492. 
In sum, Cross River produced all non-privileged/non-confidential documents and information that 
are responsive to Harborview’s queries relative to Cross River’s BSA/AML policies, and that 
team’s involvement with the wire transfers. 
 
IV. 
Conclusion  
 
In light of the above, there should be no doubt that Cross River satisfied its written 
discovery obligations to Harborview. Harborview’s requests for more documents and more 
information is contrary to Judge McNulty’s directive for limited discovery, and they are nothing 
but an attempt to manufacture a case in an attempt to avoid the unavoidable, as all subject 
international wire transactions were approved by not one, but two of Harborview’s authorized 
agents, including approval by an authorized signatory and also by its CEO – which, as a matter of 
law, should end this action.  
 
Accordingly, Cross River respectfully requests that the Court deny Harborview’s request 
for leave to file a motion to compel. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
Kaufman Dolowich, LLP 
 
 
By: /s/  Iram P. Valentin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IRAM P. VALENTIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALLISON R. SCOTT 
 
IPV/ars 
Encl. 
Cc: 
All counsel of record (via ECF) 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 5 of 15 PageID: 1281

EXHIBIT 1 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 6 of 15 PageID: 1282

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP 
Iram P. Valentin, Esq. (Attorney No. 010222002) 
Allison R. Scott, Esq. (Attorney No. 083842013)  
25 Main Street, Suite 500 
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 
Tel: (201) 488-6655 
Fax: (201) 488-6652 
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross River Bank 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
HARBORVIEW CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC 
                                 Plaintiff, 
             vs. 
CROSS RIVER BANK, 
                                  Defendant. 
 
Civil Action: 2:21-cv-15146-KM-ESK 
 
DEFENDANT CROSS RIVER BANK’S 
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 
PLAINTIFF’S POST-DEPOSITION 
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 
DOCUMENTS 
 
 
TO:  
CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC 
A. Ross Pearlson, Esq. 
 
Brigitte M. Gladis, Esq.  
 
105 Eisenhower Parkway 
 
Roseland, NJ 07068 
 
 
FRANKEL, RUBIN, KLEIN, PAYNE & PUDLOWSKI, P.C. 
Mayer S. Klein, Esq. 
 
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1111 
 
Clayton, MO 63105 
 
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Cross River Bank (“Defendant”), by 
and through its attorneys, Kaufman Dolowich, LLP, hereby submits the following responses and objections 
to Plaintiff Harborview Capital Partners, LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Post-Deposition Request for Production of 
Documents (“Requests”). 
 
DATED: March 18, 2024 
 
 
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IRAM P. VALENTIN, ESQ. 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 7 of 15 PageID: 1283

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
 
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an admission by Defendant respecting the admissibility 
or relevance of any fact or document or as an admission of the truth or accuracy of any characterization of 
any document of any kind contained in the Plaintiff’s requests for production.  
These responses are based upon the information available at the present time from Defendant.  
Defendant will continue to review its files and reserves the right to supplement, amend or correct these 
responses in the event that future discovery reveals facts that will justify such supplementation, amendment 
or correction.  
By making information or documents available in response to the Plaintiff’s requests for 
production, Defendant does not waive or intend to waive any objections which it may have to the Plaintiff’s 
use of these documents and expressly reserves all questions concerning competency, privilege, relevancy, 
materiality and admissibility of all responses to the requests for production and documents produced and 
their contents; the right to object to the Plaintiff’s use of these responses and to produce documents in whole 
or in part, or to the subject matter covered thereby at a later stage of proceedings on any grounds set forth 
hereinabove; and, the right to object on any and all proper legal grounds at any time to discovery procedures 
involved in or relating to the subject matter of the demand responses or documents made available to the 
parties. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 8 of 15 PageID: 1284

DEFENDANT CROSS RIVER BANK’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S 
POST-DEPOSITION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
 
1. A copy of a recent resume from Kathy Nelson, and/or a cv if available. 
 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is irrelevant to the subject 
matter of the within action. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, see the 
documents produced at CRB001685-CRB001686. Defendant reserves the right to revise, 
supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to and including at the time of trial. 
 
2. Any notes made by any employee of Cross River or any automated notices provided by the 
WatchDog software related to the OFAC “possible hit” or related to the verifications and follow-
ups for each of the four suspicious wires. 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is vague and ambiguous. 
Defendant further objects to this demand to the extent that the term “suspicious wires” implies that 
Defendant deemed the four international wire transfers to be “suspicious,” which is not supported 
by the record. .  
 
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, see the documents produced at 
CRB001677-CRB001684. Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this 
response at any time, up to and including at the time of trial. 
 
3. Any communications made between Cross River and Hang Seng Bank, Hong Kong officials, or 
any other person or entity approached in Hong Kong related to the suspicious wires. 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is overly broad, unduly 
burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this demand to the extent that the 
term “suspicious wires” implies that Defendant deemed the four international wire transfers to be 
“suspicious,” which is not supported by the record. Defendant further objects to this demand to the 
extent that it is duplicative of other Requests, namely, Request No. 22 of Plaintiff’s First Request 
for Production of Documents (“[a]ny and all documents and communications with Heng Seng Bank 
regarding or related to the Unauthorized Wires”). 
 
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, no documents exist which are responsive 
to this Request. However, after Plaintiff notified Defendant that the four international wire transfers 
authorized by Marilyn Tirado were the result of an attack on Plaintiff’s email systems, Defendant 
sent and received a number of service messages to JPMorganChase – the correspondent bank – 
requesting a recall of the three authorized international wires. These messages were previously 
produced at CRB001523-CRB001534. Additional copies of the service message correspondence 
with JPMorganChase is attached hereto at CRB001688-CRB001713. Defendant reserves the right 
to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to and including at the time of 
trial. 
 
 
 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 9 of 15 PageID: 1285

4. Although Ms. Nelson testified a SAR was not completed before stating she would not have seen 
one, a copy of the SAR if it was indeed one was completed. 
 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is overly broad, unduly 
burdensome and duplicative of Request No. 36 of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of 
Documents (“[a]ny and all Suspicious Activity Reports Cross River generated or completed that 
relate to Harborview or the Unauthorized Wires.”) Defendant further objects to the extent that 
Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) are prohibited from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal 
and/or state law, regulations and guidance, including, but not limited to, 31 CFR 1020.320(e) and 
FinCEN Advisory FIN-2012-A002, 3/2/2012. To make a formal request for a SAR, Plaintiff must 
submit a formal document request to bsadocumentrequests@crossriver.com, or submit a subpoena 
to Defendant’s legal department. 
 
Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
 
5. Ms. Kim testified she was shown a .ppt during her training the (sp) indicated how she was trained 
on identifying OFAC false positives. Pursuant to our previous request 37 and 39 (among others), 
please supplement your production immediately. NB: We acknowledge your production of IT 
trainings from 911-1204, but no information in these presentations seems to be related to OFAC 
policies.  
 
RESPONSE: Please see documents produced at CRB001714-CRB001753. 
 
Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
 
6. Ms. Kim testified during her deposition that the cross-river wire room may have kept internal 
policies and practices outside of deposition exhibit G-1 (CRB 216-223), such as a prior version of 
the document provided by CRB 1535 (Ex. Z). Ms. Kim referred to it as potentially “Wire entry 
procedures”. Pursuant to our previous request 39 (among others), please supplement your 
production immediately. 
 
RESPONSE: Please see documents produced at CRB001761-CRB001796. 
 
Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
 
7. Ms. Gamero testified that the Account Opening Data Entry Form was entered into a computer 
system that was referred to when she went to compare the signature cards and she believed all this 
information was entered in this database. Ms. Gamero mentioned a potential system “Phyzer”. 
Pursuant to our previous request 12 and 13 (among others), provide screenshots/printouts of the 
Harborview “Customer Profile” in this system or state otherwise that this information is not 
available. In that situation, at a minimum, provide an example of the information available in a 
customer profile for a business account client. 
 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is overly broad, vague 
and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see documents 
produced at CRB001754-CRB001759. 
 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 10 of 15 PageID: 1286

Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
 
8. Ms. Gamero testified about a software called World Check. Appreciating it may not have been 
used, if “World Check” was used relative to any of the four suspicious wires,  pursuant to our 
previous requests 17 and 18 (among others),  provide any information provided by World Check 
or notes about information in World Check relative to the four suspicious wires. In the alternative, 
state World Check was not used. 
 
RESPONSE: Upon advice of counsel, objection. This document demand is vague and ambiguous. 
Defendant further objects to this demand to the extent that the term “suspicious wires” implies that 
Defendant deemed the four international wire transfers to be “suspicious,” which is not supported 
by the record.  
 
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, no documents exist which are responsive 
to this Request, as World Check was not used in the processing of the four international wire 
transfers. 
 
Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
 
9. CRB 001543 (subject to request bullet 2 above) notes a policy called “World Check Procedures” 
with pathway “(Q:)\Retail Banking\Wire Transfer\Policy & Procedures\Procedures\World Check 
Procedures”.  Pursuant to our previous request 39 (among others),  produce this policy and all 
previous versions of this policy.  
 
RESPONSE: Please see documents produced at CRB001797-CRB001827. 
 
Defendant reserves the right to revise, supplement and/or amend this response at any time, up to 
and including at the time of trial. 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 11 of 15 PageID: 1287

EXHIBIT 2 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 12 of 15 PageID: 1288

1
  -- I know you said you have knowledge of the
2
  customer.  That's typically where the customer does
3
  business.
4
               Correct?
5
        A.     In Lawrence?
6
        Q.     Yes.
7
        A.     Yes.
8
        Q.     And this wire also is going to Hang Sang
9
  Bank as the beneficiary bank.
10
               Correct?
11
        A.     Yes.  That's correct.
12
        Q.     And that was in Hong Kong.
13
               Correct?
14
        A.     Yes, that's correct.
15
        Q.     In China.  Correct?
16
        A.     Yes.
17
        Q.     And the information in sections one, two
18
  and three of 1502 was the information that was put
19
  into the bank's computer system for wiring purposes.
20
               Correct?
21
        A.     Yes, that's correct.
22
        Q.     And if we go to 1503, please.  I'm going
23
  to walk through the audit trail information with you.
24
  Okay?
25
        A.     Yes.
Page 105
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-227-8440
973-410-4040
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 13 of 15 PageID: 1289

EXHIBIT 3 
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 14 of 15 PageID: 1290

1
        Q.     When you make a decision as to the OFAC
2
  scan hit being a false-positive do you communicate
3
  that with the OFAC compliance officer?
4
        A.     No.
5
        Q.     So when it says in this next sentence
6
  that we have been looking at in CRB 223:  "If the
7
  preparer is unable to determine if it is a true OFAC
8
  hit the investigation be escalated to the OFAC
9
  compliance officer prior to releasing the wire
10
  transfer."
11
               So I guess the only time the OFAC
12
  compliance officer is involved is when there's an
13
  escalation?
14
        A.     Yes.
15
        Q.     And at that time you don't -- do you
16
  send it to the OFAC compliance officer or not?
17
        A.     For escalation purposes?
18
        Q.     Yes.
19
        A.     Yes.  We would send that over to the
20
  group, the e-mail group, which the officers should be
21
  included in.
22
        Q.     So the AML BSA group would include the
23
  OFAC compliance officer?
24
        A.     Yes.
25
        Q.     Is there someone -- who was the OFAC
Page 93
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-227-8440
973-410-4040
Case 2:21-cv-15146-EP-SDA   Document 117   Filed 05/17/24   Page 15 of 15 PageID: 1291

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.njd.479907.117.0.pdf

Size

645,512 bytes

SHA-256

f5e119c3cada33ac3e226c548244a992fa020c1152c87c8a84eb66c0d6f1b5b3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.njd.479907.117.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com