Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: November 22, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comButterfield currently has several offices throughout the Caribbean and Switzerland, and officials have long suspected that certain American account holders have utilized their accounts to hide income and assets from the Internal Revenue Service. The special summonses granted by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman will require five U.S. banks – Citigroup, Bank of New York Mellon, JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and Bank of America – to provide financial information and details to federal officials about clients who may be evading their tax responsibilities through Butterfield.
As Butterfield does not operate within the U.S., tax officials will be required to obtain information through the five banks that manage correspondent accounts with the Caribbean-based financial institution. These correspondent accounts, which are common in the international banking system, enable foreign banks with no U.S. presence to work with U.S. institutions to carry out monetary transactions and perform services for their clients. Lately, however, officials have discovered that these accounts may also be abused and allow clients to shield income.
These so-called “John Doe” summonses have been a strategic tool in the U.S. Justice Department’s search for Americans who are using offshore accounts to skirt their tax responsibilities. The summons was instrumental in a 2009 case against Swiss banking giant UBS, which eventually resulted in the institution agreeing to pay a $780 million settlement to avoid criminal prosecution for helping Americans evade their taxes.
“These John Doe summonses will provide information about individuals using financial institutions from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands to Hong Kong to avoid their U.S. tax obligations,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kathryn Keneally.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!