MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY
BERMAN JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On
April 11, 2019, a grand jury indicted defendant Gregory Craig
for two offenses arising out of statements he made to the
National Security Division of the United States Department of
Justice in 2013. Indictment (“Ind.”) [Dkt. # 1].
The statements related to his possible obligation to register
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C.
§§ 611-621 (“FARA” or “the
Act”), in connection with work he performed for the
government of Ukraine. Id. Craig and his law firm
were engaged to prepare a report, and the alleged false
statements and omissions set forth in the indictment concern
the extent of his participation in any public relations
effort within the United States associated with the December
2012 release of the report. Ind. ¶¶ 7-46. Count One
alleges that Craig engaged in a scheme to “knowingly
and willfully falsify, conceal, and cover up . . . material
facts” in his communications with the Division's
Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (“the FARA
Unit” or “the Unit”) in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1), and that he did so to avoid
registering as a foreign agent and making the disclosures
required under the Act. Ind. ¶¶ 47-48.
Count Two alleges that he made false statements of material
fact in an October 11, 2013 letter furnished to the FARA Unit
under the provisions of the Act, and that he omitted material
facts necessary to make those statements not misleading in
violation of sections 612 and 618 of FARA, 22 U.S.C.
§§ 612 and 618(a)(2). Ind. ¶¶
66-67.
The
indictment sets forth the defendant's alleged
“manner and means” of carrying out the scheme to
conceal charged in Count One: (1) withholding information
from attorneys within his law firm; (2) drafting false and
misleading descriptions of his media contacts to be
distributed within the law firm and also provided to the FARA
Unit; and (3) omitting material facts “regarding his
acts in furtherance of Ukraine's media plan” and
his own contacts with reporters in his communications with
the FARA Unit. Ind. ¶ 50. In a section
entitled, “Execution of the Scheme, ” the
indictment sets forth the specific false statements and
omissions allegedly made by the defendant to his firm's
general counsel and in letters to, and a meeting with, the
Unit. Ind. ¶¶ 51-65.
The
defendant has filed two motions to dismiss, one for each
count in the indictment. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Count One
[Dkt. # 19] (“Def. Count One Mot.”); Def.'s
Mot. to Dismiss Count Two [Dkt. # 20] (“Def. Count Two
Mot.”).[1] This opinion concludes that Count Two must
be dismissed, but Count One will proceed to trial.
With
respect to Count Two, while the Court can fairly square the
plain language of 22 U.S.C. § 618, FARA's false
statement provision, with the government's application of
that provision to the October 11, 2013 letter the defendant
submitted to the Department of Justice FARA Unit “Re:
FARA Registration, ” it finds, after application of the
full range of tools of statutory construction, including an
analysis of the statute as a whole, that the
legislature's clear intent cannot be discerned. Given
this ambiguity concerning the breadth of the provision and
the documents to which it was intended to apply, the rule of
lenity requires the dismissal of the count.
With
respect to Count One, the question posed in the motion to
dismiss is whether the indictment alleges a scheme to conceal
something that Craig would have had a legal duty to reveal.
The answer is yes: the Foreign Agents Registration Act
creates the duty and puts individuals on notice of their
specific disclosure obligations. The statute applies to
anyone acting as a “foreign agent, ” and that
term is statutorily defined to include individuals who are
engaged not in just political advocacy, but also, certain
public relations activities in the United States in the
interests of foreign entities or individuals. 22 U.S.C.
§ 611(c). Foreign “agents” are not spies -
what they do is legal. But they are required to register,
which simply means they must disclose their activities and
who paid for them. Id. § 612(a). Registration
entails the completion of a government form that asks
specific questions about the registrant's own public
relations activities and any participation of public
relations firms, in addition to other information.
Id. Thus, this indictment, which alleges that Craig
carried out a scheme to conceal his potential status as a
foreign agent, by making a series of false or misleading
statements and omissions allegedly obscuring the true timing
and full nature of his public relations activities on behalf
of Ukraine, states an offense under 18 U.S.C. §
1001(a)(1) that comports with Circuit precedent and the
Constitution's due process clause. FARA places
individuals on notice of a duty, arising out of both a
federal statute and the government forms used to implement
it, to reveal the very information Craig is charged with
concealing.
Also,
the statute is not the sole source of the duty. In this case,
the government agency charged with implementing FARA
initiated an inquiry, and it asked focused questions, probing
Craig's role in the public relations effort surrounding
the release of a report that Craig and his law firm prepared
for the government of Ukraine. The legal work - the creation
of the report - was not the issue; the FARA Unit asked about
statements made to the press about the report. The questions
were posed for the stated purpose of enabling the agency to
ascertain whether Craig or the firm was obliged to register
as a foreign agent as a result of those activities, and Craig
responded to these inquiries for the stated purpose of
persuading the FARA Unit that he was not. Moreover, after the
Unit informed Craig of its decision that he and his firm were
bound to register, he embarked on an active effort to
persuade the agency to change its position. Thus, this case
is not United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the appellate decision that forms the foundation
of Craig's motion. Unlike the defendant in that case,
Craig is not charged with failing to volunteer information
based on some undefined set of obligations. And he was not
answering questions without any guideposts about what was or
was not important: they are in the statute, they are in the
registration form, and the FARA Unit laid out what it needed
to know.
The
indictment alleges that Craig was engaged in ongoing
communications with a law enforcement agency for the specific
purpose of determining whether he was subject to a clearly
defined statutory requirement to disclose public relations
activities and identify their sponsor. Once he chose to
answer the Unit's questions about facts directly related
to that inquiry and the underlying duty, and then again when
he took up the banner of persuading the agency that its
decision was wrong, he was obliged to be both truthful
and complete. The facts the indictment alleges he
omitted were the facts necessary to make the registration
determination; the indictment sets forth sufficient facts to
allege that they were - contrary to the defendant's
argument - the very sort of facts he was being asked about,
and they were the facts that a foreign agent would ultimately
have to disclose. Finally, it was the omission of those facts
that allegedly made what he did say false or
misleading, so they are appropriately included in the
indictment for that reason alone. For these reasons, set
forth in more detail below, Count One will not be dismissed
as a matter of law for lack of a duty to disclose.
The
Court also concludes, based on the D.C. Circuit's
decisions in Bramblett v. United States, 231 F.2d
489 (D.C. Cir. 1956), and United States v. Hubbell,
177 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 1999), that Count One is not barred by
the statute of limitations.
STATUTORY
BACKGROUND
The
Foreign Agents Registration Act is a disclosure statute. It
requires anyone engaged in political or public relations
activities in the United States on behalf of a “foreign
principal” to register with the Attorney General to
disclose the agency relationship. Ind. ¶ 3, citing 22
U.S.C. §§ 611-12. Section 612 of the Act requires
any person acting as an “agent of a foreign
principal” to file a registration statement, 22 U.S.C.
§ 612, and “agent of a foreign principal” is
defined to mean anyone “who directly or through any
other person . . . engages within the United States in
political activities for or in the interests of such foreign
principal” or “acts within the United States as a
public relations counsel . . . for or in the interests of
such foreign principal.” Id. §
611(c)(1)(i), (ii). The Act defines “political
activities” to mean
any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or
that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency
or official of the Government of the United States or any
section of the public within the United States with reference
to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign
policies of the United States or with reference to the
political or public interests, policies, or relations of a
government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.
Id. § 611(o). And it defines
“public-relations counsel” as
includ[ing] any person who engages directly or indirectly in
informing, advising, or in any way representing a principal
in any public relations matter pertaining to political or
public interests, policies, or relations of such principal.
Id. § 611(g).
The
purpose of the Act is to prevent covert influence over U.S.
policy by foreign principals. Ind. ¶¶ 3-4, citing
22 U.S.C. §§ 611-12. Simply put, the statute
ensures that the public is informed of the true source or
sponsor behind the information being disseminated for its
consideration. Agents are required to submit a registration
form to the FARA Unit, which is part of the National Security
Division within the Department of Justice, and to file
regular supplements. Ind. ¶ 3, citing 22 U.S.C §
612.
THE
INDICTMENT
For
purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court is required to
accept the facts alleged in the indictment as
true.[2] The recitation of alleged facts that
follows supplies the backdrop for the assessment of
defendant's legal challenges of the charges against him,
but it should not be read to signal the Court's point of
view about the accuracy of the allegations or the
defendant's guilt or innocence in this case. The facts
have yet to be proved, and the defendant is presumed to be
innocent unless and until the government proves his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
In
early 2012, the government of Ukraine, a foreign principal
under FARA, engaged defendant and his law firm to prepare a
report concerning the 2011 trial of former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Ind. ¶¶ 5-7.
Tymoshenko's trial and conviction in Ukraine garnered
criticism from Western governments and the media, and the
firm was retained to conduct an independent inquiry into
whether Tymoshenko had received a fair trial in accordance
with Western standards of justice and prepare a report with
its findings. Ind. ¶¶ 6-7. The indictment alleges
that with the help of an American lobbyist, Ukraine planned
to utilize the report as part of a larger strategy to improve
its international public image. Ind. ¶ 7.
From
the start of the project, Craig was aware of FARA's
requirements. Ind. ¶ 8. On or about February 13, 2012,
he emailed the co-author of the report, also a partner at the
firm, saying, “I don't want to register as a
foreign agent under FARA. I think we don't have to with
this assignment, yes?” Ind. ¶ 9. According to the
indictment, Craig was concerned that registration as an agent
of Ukraine could affect efforts by the lawyers involved to
obtain government employment in the future. Ind. ¶ 8.
Also, registration would have required the firm to disclose
that a private Ukrainian citizen had paid more than $4
million for the firm's services on the report, and that
the firm had also been hired by Ukraine to assist in a second
prosecution of Tymoshenko for other charges. Id. The
indictment alleges that Craig feared these revelations would
undermine the perceived independence of the report.
Id.
Neither
the amount of the fee nor the source of the funding for the
report was a matter of public record at that time, and the
indictment details Craig's involvement in keeping it
secret. In April of 2012, he prepared and signed a formal
engagement letter with the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice that
falsely stated that the total fee for the work would only
amount to approximately $12, 000 U.S. dollars and made no
mention of the $4 million from the private individual. Ind.
¶ 13.
After
completing the formal engagement letter, Craig continued to
discuss the registration question with other lawyers in the
firm, focusing particularly on Ukraine's interest in
public relations. On or around April 17, 2012, an associate
within the firm relayed advice from a partner with FARA
experience:
In his view, our work writing a report evaluating the
Ukrainian proceedings would not trigger FARA obligations.
However, if we were to perform public relations work aimed at
the US, if our London lawyers were to do so, or if we were to
subcontract with a PR firm to do so, then we would be
obligated to register under FARA.
Email of Apr. 17, 2012, Ex. 1 to Def. Count One Mot. [Dkt. #
19-1] at 1; Ind. ¶ 15. In response to this advice, the
firm attorney who co-authored the report told defendant:
I think our engagement should not include PR advice. . . .
[S]omebody else can hire the PR team and manage that. I say
this for two reasons. First, it will create a FARA problem.
Second, I actually think it's much better for our
representation to be “rule of law” advisers, not
“rule of law”-and-PR advisers. Including a PR
component as part of our representation has the potential to
undermine our work. We're in this representation as
lawyers, not spin doctors, and I think it's important
that we are able to say that. In any event, the FARA issue
looks insurmountable.
Email of Apr. 17, 2012 at 1; Ind. ¶ 15. Defendant
responded: “Good advice.” Email of Apr. 17, 2012
at 1; Ind. ¶ 15.
The
indictment goes on to allege that on or around April 30,
2012, defendant gave the Ukraine's American lobbyist the
names of four public relations firms that he thought could
handle media messaging and strategy for the report's
release, including a PR firm he had worked with previously.
Ind. ¶ 17. Defendant advocated for Ukraine to retain
that firm, [3] and Ukraine did with the help of the
American lobbyist. Ind. ¶ 18.
Defendant
also communicated with the American lobbyist about the
message to be communicated at the time of the report's
release, discussing concerns that a draft of the report might
be leaked and the need to ensure that the report would be
viewed as independent: “The worst thing that could
happen to the project, to this law firm, to your guy and to
me would be to have someone on your side falsely leak a story
that ‘[Law Firm] Finds Tymoshenko Guilty'
‘[Law Firm] Report Exonerates Ukraine.' That kind
of story would be a disaster. We have to join arms to get
something just a little more nuanced. Yes?” Ind. ¶
21.
With
respect to the funding for the report, the indictment alleges
that a bank account in Cyprus controlled by the lobbyist was
used to pass the more than $4 million in payments from the
private Ukrainian to defendant's law firm - facts the
defendant did not disclose publicly. Ind. ¶ 23. When the
media began to question the publicly reported $12, 000 fee
for the report, defendant communicated with others at his
firm and worked with the lobbyist to create a backdated
letter and false invoice from defendant's firm to the
Ukrainian Ministry of Justice for $1, 250, 000, allegedly so
that it would appear that the Ministry, and not the private
Ukrainian, had paid for the report. Ind. ¶¶ 24-27.
In late
August, the public relations firm's strategy documents
for the release of the report were forwarded to defendant.
Ind. ¶ 28. The documents included a statement that
“[the Law Firm] cannot proactively lead in
communications, given their restrictions by FARA registration
and disclosure.” Id. They also included
“a spreadsheet titled ‘Master Control Grid,'
which stated that on the day before the Report's public
release, Craig would provide ‘[m]edia briefings' to
select journalists to be later identified.”
Id.
In
September of 2012, as defendant and his firm finalized the
report, the lobbyist sent defendant a draft PR plan in
preparation for the report's release, writing, “I
wanted to get this document to you to bring your thinking
into the process.” Ind. ¶ 30. The draft plan
stated that the release would “provide an opportunity
for the independent endorsement of the Government message
that the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko (YT) was not politically
motivated and that her conviction was based on evidence
before the court.” Id. And it proposed taking
several steps before the public release of the report:
leaking the report to a media outlet, having a former
Congressman at a U.S.-based lobbying firm retained by Ukraine
brief a selected journalist, and arranging for Craig to brief
the journalist as well. Id.
On or
around September 23, 2012, defendant met with the lobbyist, a
senior executive of the PR firm, and others in New York to
discuss the report's release. Ind. ¶¶ 31-32. At
the meeting, defendant agreed to provide a copy of the report
and a briefing to a selected reporter, and he suggested the
name of a particular reporter he knew. Craig also agreed that
he and others would “background, ” or speak off
the record to reporters concerning the report's release,
Ind. ¶ 31, but he emailed the lobbyist and the PR firm
the next day to tell them that providing background to
reporters was against firm policy. Ind. ¶ 32.
About a
week later, on or around October 2, 2012, defendant contacted
a reporter he knew (“Reporter 1”) to ask whether
the reporter would be willing to discuss the report with a
former Congressman who was working on behalf of Ukraine. Ind.
¶ 33. The two did not talk at that time because the
release of the report was delayed. Id.
Two
months later, the report was finalized and scheduled to be
released on December 13, 2012. At that point, the manager of
the PR firm emailed Reporter 1 to ask if he would be
interested in receiving a copy of the report and an exclusive
briefing with defendant Craig prior to its official release.
Ind. ¶ 37. Defendant also sent an email: “I just
learned that the Ukrainians intend to release our report . .
. on Thursday . . . and that [they] have determined that you
should be given first look at it. . . . [I]f you are
interested, I would be happy to get you a copy . . . and even
happier to talk to you about it.” Ind. ¶ 38.
Defendant then spoke with Reporter 1 on or around December
11, 2012, he personally hand-delivered a copy of the report
to Reporter 1's home in Washington, D.C., and he reported
in an email to the PR firm: “[w]e told [Reporter l]
that it was his if he wanted to use it. He agreed to get back
to us with an answer tomorrow. Tomorrow is not too late for
[another U.S. reporter] or for [another major U.S.
newspaper].” Ind. ¶ 39.
On or
around December 12, 2012, defendant received an email
containing six questions in advance of a scheduled telephone
interview with Reporter 2, a Moscow-based colleague of
Reporter 1, and he sent an on-the-record quote to Reporter 1
in Washington to use in an article. Ind. ¶ 40. The quote
read: “We leave to others the question of whether this
prosecution was politically motivated. Our assignment was to
look at the evidence in the record and determine whether the
trial was fair.” Id. Later that evening, an
article written by Reporter 1 and Reporter 2 was published.
Id. It included the quote defendant emailed to
Reporter 1 and stated that the report would be released the
following day. Id.
On or
about December 12, 2012, defendant also gave an interview to
a newspaper reporter from the United Kingdom who had been
identified in the media plan prepared by the PR firm. Ind.
¶ 41. Paragraph 42 of the indictment alleges that
“[a]s a result of these acts in furtherance of
Ukraine's public relations strategy regarding the Report,
Craig had an obligation under FARA to register as an agent of
Ukraine.” Ind. ¶ 42.
On
December 13, 2012, the government of Ukraine officially
released the report, and defendant's law firm then
responded to inquiries from two other media publications.
Ind. ¶¶ 43-44. That day, the American lobbyist
congratulated Craig with an email with the subject line:
“Well Done.” Ind. ¶ 45. He wrote, “The
pro has emerged again. The initial rollout has been very
effective and your backgrounding has been key to it
all.” Id.
Less
than a week after these events, the Managing Director of the
law firm heard from the FARA Unit. See Ind. ¶
51. In a letter dated December 18, 2012, “Re: Possible
Obligation to Register Pursuant to the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, ” the Chief of the Unit drew the
firm's attention to a newspaper article and wrote:
“[i]t has come to our attention . . . that your firm
may be engaged in activities on behalf of the Ministry of
Justice of the Government of Ukraine, which may require
registration pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration
Act.” Letter of Dec. 18, 2012, Ex. 3 to Def. Count One
Mot. [Dkt. # 19-3]; see Ind. ¶ 51. She asked
the firm to provide the Unit with several categories of
information “[i]n order that we may determine whether
your organization is required to register, ” including
“a description of the activities the firm has engaged
in or the services it has rendered to the Ministry of Justice
of the Government of Ukraine.” Letter of Dec. 18, 2012;
see Ind. ¶ 51.
It was
defendant who answered on behalf of the firm. Writing on or
about February 6, 2013, “to respond to your letter . .
. dated December 18, 2012, ” Craig described the
engagement and emphasized that it was an explicit component
of the assignment that the firm would not provide any
services that would be covered under FARA or would require
registration. Ind. ¶ 53; see Letter of Feb. 6,
2013, Ex. 4 to Def. Count One Mot. [Dkt. # 19-4] at 2. The
indictment notes that the letter made no reference to
defendant's contacts with U.S. media surrounding the
release of the report or his involvement in the PR firm's
media plan. Ind. ¶ 53.
On
April 9, 2013, the FARA Unit acknowledged receipt of
defendant's February 6 letter and its enclosures
“responding to our letter of December 18, 2012,
concerning your firm's possible obligation to register
pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
Letter of Apr. 9, 2013, Ex. 5 to Def. Count One Mot. [Dkt. #
19-5] at 1; see Ind. ¶ 54. Its letter of April
9 advised the defendant: “[w]e have reviewed the
materials, and need additional information to determine
whether your firm is obligated to register under the
Act.” Letter of Apr. 9, 2013 at 1. The Unit posed a
number of questions related to any funding the firm received
beyond the $12, 000 and the existence and identity of any
additional funding sources, and the letter included a series
of questions concerning public relations:
(1) To whom, if anyone, did your firm release or distribute
the report and when? . . .
(5) What [had been the law] firm's understanding of what
would happen to the report when it was released to the
Ukrainian Ministry of Justice?
(6) Did you or anyone in your firm have any media interviews
or comments to the media, public, or government officials
about the report and the findings of your firm?
Letter of Apr. 9, 2013 at 2; Ind. ¶ 54.
Throughout
April and May 2013, defendant and the co-author of the report
prepared a response to the FARA Unit's questions, with
defendant drafting that portion of the response describing
his contacts with the media and the timing and intent of
those contacts. Ind. ¶ 55.
Defendant
signed a letter dated June 3, 2013 that responded to the FARA
Unit. Ind. ¶ 56; Letter of June 3, 2013, Ex. 6 to Def.
Count One Mot. [Dkt. # 19-6] at 1 (“The purpose of this
letter is to reply to the questions in your letter of April
9, 2013.”). He answered question 1:
In addition to giving the report to representatives of the
Government of Ukraine, the law firm on December 12-13, 2012
provided a copy of the report (1) to Ms. Tymoshenko's
legal team in Ukraine, and to a member of her legal team in
the United States . . . (in response to his request); (2) to
a representative of the individual in Ukraine who helped fund
the project . . .; (3) to [Reporter 1]; [and the other
reporters with whom the firm communicated after the
report's public release].
Letter of June 3, 2013 at 2. He answered question 5 by
stating: “[t]he law firm viewed the distribution of the
report as a matter that would be decided by the Ukraine
Government in its sole discretion. The law firm did not
advise the Ministry on that issue.” Letter of June 3,
2013 at 3. In response to question 6, he wrote:
The law firm issued no statements and made no comments to the
media, the public or government officials about the report.
Gregory Craig provided brief clarifying statements about the
report to [Reporter 1] and [the other reporters with whom the
firm communicated after the report's public release]. One
purpose of the statements was to correct misinformation that
the media had received - and was reporting - from the
Ministry of Justice and from the Tymoshenko legal team in
Ukraine. Neither the law firm nor its lawyers sought to
influence American public opinion or U.S. government policy.
Letter of June 3, 2013 at 3. The letter did not
identify the private Ukrainian or state how much the firm had
been paid for the report. See Letter of June 3,
2013; Ind. ¶ 57.
On or
around September 5, 2013, the FARA Unit notified defendant
and the firm that it had determined the dissemination of the
report required registration.
Our review of the documentation concludes that [the law firm]
was an agent of the Ministry and was engaged in political
activities in the United States for the Ministry. You
indicate that your firm was paid by the Ukraine to produce an
independent report on the Tymoshenko prosecution, and that
the report was disseminated to news media by your firm. You
further state that you spoke with representatives of the
media to correct misinformation regarding the report. The
dissemination of the report to the media and your
communications with the media were political activities as
defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(o) of FARA. Furthermore, by
engaging in these activities for the Ministry, [the law firm]
acted as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, and
information-service employee as defined in Section 611 of the
Act. We have determined that your actions in contacting the
media were activities meant to influence the U.S. public with
reference to the political or public interests, policies or
relations of Ukraine. Accordingly, [the law firm] must
register under FARA as an agent of the Ministry.
Letter of Sept. 5, 2013, Ex. 7 to Def. Count One Mot. [Dkt. #
19-7] at 1; see Ind. ¶ 58.
On or
around September 19, 2013, defendant spoke to the law
firm's General Counsel and advanced the position that the
firm should resist registering under FARA. Ind. ¶ 59. He
also sent an email to the General Counsel containing the
following statements, which the indictment alleges are false
and misleading:
Just
for the record:
(1) [The Law Firm] did not “disseminate the report to
the news media.” Three media outlets who were not able
to obtain a copy of the report from the Ministry in Kiev,
contacted us and asked us to provide them with a copy. The
report was a public document.
(2) At no time did [the Law Firm] “contact the
media.” Quite to the contrary, we were approached by
the media - asked for interviews, asked for background
commentary, etc. - and we did not respond. The only time we
responded was to correct misinformation.
(3) To the best of my recollection, our statements to the
press were not about Ukraine. They were to correct
misinformation. The statements were about our report and us.
Id.
The
following day, on September 20, 2013, defendant transmitted a
draft of a letter responding to the FARA Unit to the General
Counsel. It included statements that:
• When Craig gave the report to Reporter 1 and the two
publications with which the law firm had communicated after
the report's public release, it was because Ukrainian
authorities had already publicly released it “much
earlier in that day, but these three outlets - for some
reason - had not been able to obtain copies of the report.
They approached the firm, asked us if we could provide them
with a copy, and we did so.”
• “No one in this law firm initiated any contacts
with the media.”
• “[M]y contact with [the three journalists] was
for the sole purpose of defending my law firm and correcting
misinformation.”
Ind. ¶ 60.
The
letter was not sent. Ind. ¶ 60. Instead, defendant and
the firm's General Counsel met in person with the FARA
Unit Chief and members of the staff on October 9, 2013. Ind.
¶ 61. The indictment alleges that in that meeting, Craig
made false and misleading statements that were consistent
with the statements made to the General Counsel, in
particular, “that his media contacts were solely
reactive and for the purpose of correcting
misinformation.” Id.
Two
days later, at the request of the FARA Unit, defendant put
his position in writing. He sent a letter “Re: FARA
Registration” setting out information “[i]n
further consideration of the issues raised in your letter of
September 5, 2013.” Letter of Oct. 10, 2013, Ex. 9 to
Def. Count One Mot. [Dkt. # 19-9] at 1; Ind. ¶ 62.
According to the indictment, the letter reiterated some of
what defendant said at the October 9 meeting, and it included
the following statements:
[T]his law firm provided a copy of the Tymoshenko Report
(“the Report”) to certain U.S. media outlets.
This was done in response to requests from the media. The
firm did not provide copies of the Report to any other media
outlets in the United States.
With respect to statements appearing in [two publications],
those statements were intended to correct
mischaracterizations of the Report, some of which were
attributable to Ukraine. . . .
In responding to inaccuracies in U.S. news reports - some of
which were directly attributable to Ukraine - the law firm
did not consult with Ukraine, did not inform Ukraine, did not
act under instruction from Ukraine ...