Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 12
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 12
`
`EXHIBIT 1.E
`EXHIBIT 1.E
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 12
`
`8/9t2021
`
`ECLI : N L: H R: 2005: AT 441 8, previously LJ N AT44 1 8, Supreme Courl, 0327 21 04 B
`
`ECLI : N L : H R:2005 :AT4 418
`Judicial authority Dutch Supreme Court
`Date ofjudgment June 14, 2005
`Publication date
`June 15, 2005
`Case No.
`
`03272t04 B
`
`Proced u ral references Opin ion. EC Ll : N L: PH R :2005:AT44 1 B
`
`Areas of law
`Criminallaw
`Specific features Cassation appeal
`
`Content indication Search for purposes of seizure at an attorney (suspect). 1. The attorney's
`Iegal privilege is not absolute in the sense that there might be very exceptional
`circumstances imaginable where the interests of uncovering the truth -
`includíng matters entrusted to the attorney's knowledge in that capacity - must
`take precedence over attorney-client privilege. What this means is that while
`searching for the purposes of seizure at an attorney's office without his
`consent can already happen if it pertains to letters and documents that are the
`subject matter of the criminal offense or have been used in its commission,
`this consent is likewise unnecessary if there are very exceptional
`circumstances where the search has a further purpose and is targeted at
`letters and documents that may be used to uncover the truth. lt is not possible
`to summarize, in terms of a general rule, the answer to the question of which
`circumstances should be classified as very exceptional. The simple fact that
`an attorney is classed as a suspect is not enough, in any event, but the
`suspicion of a serious crime - such as the attorney forming a criminal
`conspiracy with specific clients - would be. ln those cases, the interests of
`those clients who have entrusted certain knowledge in that criminal situation
`to the attorney, on the assumption that it will be kept secret, must yield to the
`interest of uncovering the truth. ln such a case, the attorney-client privilege
`and associated constraints on exercising the power of search and seizure
`must yield to the interest of criminal prosecution, albeit that the breach of
`attorney-client privilege may not go further than is strictly necessary for
`uncovering the truth surrounding the relevant offense. Due care must also be
`observed to ensure that the interests of the attorney's clients other than those
`involved in the criminal offenses of which the attorney is suspected are not
`impacted disproportionately (Dutch Supreme Court NJ 2002,438 and Dutch
`Supreme Court NJ 2002, 439).2. lt was neither incorrect nor
`incomprehensible for the District Court to hold that there were very exceptional
`circumstances in this case, as a resultof which the interestin uncovering the
`truth - including in relation to knowledge entrusted to the complainant in that
`capacity - should take precedence over attorney-client privilege (the attorney
`was suspected, correctly in the view of the District Court, of money-laundering
`involving potentially a very large amount of cash in terms of Articles 420ter or
`else 420bis of the Dutch Penal Code ('DPC') and forgery of a notarial deed in
`terms of Articles 225 andlor 226 DPC, or else of participating or assisting in
`the commission of those offences, while there appeared to be a serious
`interest in investigating four joint suspects). Nor is there any
`of an
`incorrect legal understanding by the District Court in its findi
`balancing the interests in question in a case like this, one
`significant was that there were joint suspects and there
`investigating those joint suspects. 3. ln a case of very e
`
`https://uitspraken. rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI
`
`: N L: H R:2005:AT441 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 3 of 12
`
`8t9t2021
`
`ECLI:NL:HR:2005:Af 4418, previously LJN AT441I, Supreme Court,03272t04 B
`
`circumstances such as this one, where the interest in uncovering the truth
`takes precedence over attorney-client privilege, the power of search is not
`confined to letters or documents that form part of the subject matter of the
`criminal offense or have been used to commit the offense, so that the question
`whether the documents are of that nature is irrelevant (Dutch Supreme Court,
`NJ 2002, 439).
`
`Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure
`Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure 98
`Rechtspraak.nl
`JOL 2005, 369
`NJ 2005, 353
`NBSTRAF 20051253
`
`Statutory
`references
`Sources
`
`Judgment
`June 14,2005
`CriminalSection
`no.03272104 B
`EC/SM
`
`Supreme Court of the Netherlands
`
`Decision
`
`on the cassation appeal against a judgment by the District Court of 's-Hertogenbosch of October 6,
`2004, No. RK 04/968, on a complaint as defined in Article 552a of the Dutch Code of Criminal
`Procedure, filed by:
`[complainant], born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1969, residing in [place of residence].
`
`'1. The challenged decision
`The District Court held that the complaint filed by the complainant for return to him of certain items
`described in its decision was without merit.
`
`2. Proceedings in cassation
`The appealwas filed by the complainant. A.A. Franken, attorney practicing in Amsterdam, filed
`grounds for cassation rn a document on his behalf. The document is attached to this ruling and
`constitutes a part thereof. Advocate-General Wortel concluded that the Supreme Court should dismiss
`the appeal.
`
`3. Course of the proceedings
`The following assumptions may be applied in the context of the cassation appeal.
`The complainant is an attorney. A preliminary judicial investigation against him was initiated in relation
`to suspected violation of Articles 420bis and/or 420ter and/or violation of Articles 225 andlor 226 of the
`Dutch Penal Code, or of participating in and/or being an accessory to the commission of those
`offenses. The charge against the complainant entails - briefly - that he, potentially along with one or
`more others, forged documents, namely (parts of) a private client administration, business
`administrations, valuation reports and/or notarial deeds, or else intentionally used those forged
`documents and disguised or concealed the true nature and origins of cash and residences and the
`identity of the ultimate beneficiaries.
`
`https://uitspraken. rechtspraak. nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI : NL: HR :2005:.AT 441 8
`
`2t5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 4 of 12
`
`ECLI : N L: H R:2005: AT 441 8, previously LJN AT44 1 B, Supreme Court, 0327 21 04 B
`
`ln the context of the preliminary judicial investigation against the complainant, a search for the purpose
`of seizure was performed at the complainant's office address on September 21, 2004 under the
`direction of the lnvestigating Judge. The lnvestigating Judge was accompanied by the Dean of the Bar
`Association for the court district of Amsterdam. The lnvestigating Judge seized a number of
`documents in the course of this search. The complainant did not consent to the search of his office,
`nor to the seizure of documents.
`The complainant filed a complaint as defined in Article 552a of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure
`on September 28,2004. On October 6,2004, the lnvestigating Judge submitted three sealed
`envelopes - numbered 1,2 and 3 - in judges'chambers. Envelopes 1 and2 contained the documents
`that the lnvestigating Judge had seízed, following advise on this from the Dean. Envelope 3 was
`returned to the complainant with the consent of the Public Prosecutor and without the District Court
`becoming aware of the contents of the documents it contained, as the lnvestigating Judge and the
`Dean considered that these documents were of no interest in the criminal investigation against the
`complainant or his joint suspects.
`The District Court issued the disputed decision on October 6,2004 after hearing the case in
`chambers.
`
`4. Assessment of the first ground for appeal in cassation
`
`4.1 . This ground complains, among other things, that the District Gourt was incorrect in taking into
`consideration that there was a compelling investigation interest in relation to the complainant's joint
`suspects.
`
`4.2. The District Court made the following finding in the disputed judgment:
`"Under Article 98(1) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, letters or other documents in the
`custody of those who are entitled to legal privilege (in this case the attorney) may not be seized
`without their consent if those letters or documents are covered by their duty of confidentiality.
`Paragraph 2 of that Article provides that, unless they consent, a search will only occur for such
`persons to the extent that it can be done without violating their positional, professional or official
`confidentiality and any such search will not extend to letters or documents other than those that are
`part of the subject matter of the criminal offense or have been used in its commission.
`ln the view of the District Court, there is a further exception to the assumption contained in Article
`98(1) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, which is - briefly - if the interest of uncovering the
`truth takes precedence over professional secrecy. That will only be the case in very exceptional
`circumstances, which may be present if the individual protected by attorney-client privilege is
`suspected of a serious criminal offense.
`The District Court supports the premise that the opinion on whether letters or documents are protected
`by privilege is in principle a matter for the individual entitled to the privilege.
`There is an exception to this, however, in an exceptional case as defined above. When balancing the
`interests in this sense, the fact that there are joint suspects and an interest in investigating those joint
`suspects as well is a factor that may be considered.
`ln this case, the District Court considers that this is one such exceptional case as outlined above. The
`complainant is an attorney and attorney of record and, in the District Court's view, is correctly
`suspected of money-laundering within the meaning of Articles 420ter of the Dutch Code of CrimÍnal
`Procedure or money-laundering within the meaning of Article 420bis of that Code, and also of
`(aggravated) forgery in a notarial deed, as defined in Articles 225 andlor 226 of the Dutch Code of
`Criminal Procedure, or else of participating or assisting in the commission of these offenses.
`There is sufficient evidence from the documents currently available to conform that the potential
`money-laundering related to a very large amount of cash. Those documents also confirm a compelling
`investigative interest against the joint suspects I , 2, 3, and 4, [joint suspect 1], fioint suspect 2], [joint
`suspect 3l and [joint suspect 4] who may or may not be under arrest.
`
`https://uitspraken. rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI
`
`: NL: H R:2005:4T441 8
`
`3t5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 5 of 12
`ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT4418, previously LJN Aï44í 8, Supreme Courl, 03272t04 B
`
`Bt9t202'l
`
`The seizure of the relevant documents is accordingly lawful.
`ln this case, therefore, the complainant loses his right to attorney-client privilege.
`ln this regard, the District Court has noted the documents that were ultimately seized.
`The seized documents in envelope number 1 are also, in the view of the District Court, documents that
`[... ] form part of the subject matter of the criminal offense or that have been used in its commission
`and, for this reason also, it must be concluded that the seizure was lawful."
`
`4.3. The explanation accompanying the ground for appeal in cassation states that the investigative
`interest relating to joint suspects may not play any part in the decision as to whether uncovering the
`truth must take precedence over attorney-client privilege of the suspect who benefits from that
`privilege.
`
`4.4.fhe attorney's legal privilege is not absolute in this sense; there might be very exceptional
`circumstances imaginable where the interests of uncovering the truth - including matters entrusted to
`the attorney's knowledge in that capacity - must take precedence over attorney-client privilege. What
`this means is that while searching for the purposes of seizure at an attorney's office without his
`consent can already happen if it pertains to letters and documents that are the subject matter of the
`criminal offense or that have been used in its commission, this consent is likewise unnecessary if there
`are very exceptional circumstances where the search with a view to seizure has a further purpose and
`is targeted at letters and documents that may serve to uncover the truth. lt is not possible to
`summarize, in terms of a general rule, the answer to the question of which circumstances should be
`classified as very exceptional. The simple fact that an attorney is classed as a suspect in not enough,
`in any event, but the suspicion of a serious crime - such as the attorney forming a criminal conspiracy
`with specific clients - would be. ln those cases, the interests of those clients who have entrusted
`certain knowledge in that criminal situation to the attorney, on the assumption that it will be kept
`secret, must yield to the interest of uncovering the truth. ln such a case, the attorney-client privilege
`and associated constraints on exercising the power of search and seizure must yield to the interest of
`criminal prosecution, albeit that the violation of attorney-client privilege may not go further than is
`strictly necessary for uncovering the truth surrounding the relevant offense. Due care must also be
`observed to ensure that the interests of the attorney's clients other than those involved in the criminal
`offenses of which the attorney is suspected are not impacted dÍsproportionately (cf. Dutch Supreme
`Court NJ 2002,438 and Dutch Supreme Court NJ 2002,439).
`
`4.5. Applying the correct criterion, the District Court explained that and why it held that there were very
`exceptional circumstances here, meaning that the interest of uncovering the truth - including matters
`entrusted to the knowledge of the complainant as such - must take precedence over attorney-client
`privilege. That finding does not show an incorrect understanding of the law and is not
`incomprehensible. Nor is there any evidence of an incorrect legal understanding by the District Court
`in its finding that when balancing the interests involved in this case, it should attach weight to the fact
`that there were joint suspects and that in a case such as this one weight should also be attached to
`the investigative interest relating to those joint suspects.
`
`4 6. The ground for appeal accordingly fails.
`
`4.7. Nor can the other ground for appeal in cassation described in the complaint be successful. ln the
`light of section 81 of the Judiciary Organization ActlWet op de Rechterlijke OrganisaÍlel, this does not
`require any further substantiation, as the complaint does not warrant the answering of legal issues in
`the interests of the unity or the development of law.
`
`Assessment of the second ground for appeal in cassation
`
`https.//uitspraken. rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI
`
`: NL: HR:2005:AT441 8
`
`4t5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 6 of 12
`
`8t9t2021
`
`ECLI : NL: H R:2005:AT44 1 8, previously LJ N AT44 1 B, S upreme Courl, 0327 2104 B
`
`5.1. This ground complains that the District Court ignored the complainant's position that the seized
`letters or documents were not part of the criminal offense or used in the commission of that offense,
`while it had not decided - with adequate reasoning - that there could not reasonably be any doubt that
`this position of the complainant was wrong. This ground makes reference on this to the decision by the
`Dutch Supreme Court of November 30, 1999, NJ 2002, 438.
`
`5.2. ln the absence of any interest, the ground for appeal cannot result in a successful cassation,
`taking into account that the District Court held, as shown above in para. 4.2, thatthere were very
`exceptional circumstances here, where the interest in uncovering the truth outweighed the attorney-
`client privilege. ïhe fact is that in such cases the power of search and seizure is not confined to letters
`or documents that are the subject matter of the criminal offense or that have been used in its
`commission, so that the question as to whether the documents were of that nature is irrelevant. (cf.
`Dutch Supreme Court February 12, 2002, NJ 2002, 439, paras.3.3 - 3.4).
`
`6. Conclusion
`As none of the grounds for appeal in cassation can lead to a successful cassation and as this Court
`sees no reason why the disputed decision by the District Court should be annulled ex proprio motu,
`the appeal must be dismissed.
`
`7. Decision
`This Court dismisses the appeal.
`This judgment was issued in chambers by Vice-president C.J.G. Bleichrodt as presiding justice with
`justices J.P. Balkema and A.J.A. van Dorst, in the presence of the court registrar J.D.M. Hart, and
`pronounced in open court on June 14, 2005.
`
`https:/iuitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI
`
`:N L: H R:2005:AT441 8
`
`5t5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 7 of 12
`
`.1* 1
`
`l, Anne Hermine Hendriks, residing in Amsterdam, duly sworn as a translator for the English language
`by the District Court of Amsterdam and listed under number 2321 in the Dutch Register of Sworn
`lnterpreters and Translators (ReglsÍer beédigde tolken en vertalers) of the Dutch LegalAid Board
`(Raad voor Rechtsbijstand), the official register of sworn interpreters and translators recognised and
`approved by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, certify that the foregoing document is a true and faithful
`translation of the Dutch source text, a copy of which is hereby attached.
`
`Amsterdam, August 10, 2021
`
`

`

`   
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`

` 
`ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`]U^_\`^\5:\IGGJ\bcEEDd
`./012/134
`5678ÿ:;;<
`=21>?ÿ>310AB22C
`DEFGHFIGGJ
`=21>?ÿA>KL3M2134
`DJFGHFIGGJ
`N22C/>??4B
`GOIPIQGEÿRÿ
`STB?4L4ÿB4L21340
`U6VWXYZ[8\ÿ]U^_\`^\a5:\IGGJ\bcEEDdÿ
`e4Mf10g4K34h4/
`ijk;lk8Wmjÿ
`U;ZZ;j[8ÿ
`n3opT/h4B4
`C4/?4BC4/
`./fT>h03/h3M2134
`q66kr68s[V7ÿj8kÿ[Vt8ZX;7V8u[V7ÿt[vÿ;<w6W;;jxFw8k<;Wmj8yzÿDzÿ58j
`w8kZWm6V[V7Zk8Wmjÿw;Vÿ<8ÿ;<w6W;;jÿ[Zÿ[Vÿr6w8kk8ÿV[8jÿ;tZ6XYYjÿ<;jÿr[Wmÿr88k
`Y[jr6V<8kX[vs8ÿ6uZj;V<[7m8<8VÿX;j8Vÿ<8Vs8Vÿ{;;k[Vÿm8jÿt8X;V7ÿ<;jÿ<8ÿ{;;km8[<
`;;Vÿm8jÿX[Wmjÿs6ujÿFÿ66sÿj;wÿ<;j78V8ÿ{;;kw;Vÿ<8ÿ{8j8VZWm;|ÿ<8ÿ;<w6W;;jÿ;XZ
`r6<;V[7ÿ[Zÿj68w8kjk6Y{<ÿFÿu68jÿ|k8w;X8k8Vÿt6w8Vÿm8jÿw8kZWm6V[V7Zk8Wmjzÿq[j
`tk8V7jÿu88ÿ<;j}ÿ{;;kÿ<66kr68s[V7ÿj8kÿ[Vt8ZX;7V8u[V7ÿt[vÿ88Vÿ;<w6W;;jÿr6V<8k
`<[8VZÿj68Zj8uu[V7ÿk88<Zÿs;Vÿ|X;;jZw[V<8Vÿ;XZÿm8jÿ7;;jÿ6uÿtk[8w8Vÿ8Vÿ78ZWmk[lj8V
`<[8ÿw66k{8k|ÿw;Vÿm8jÿZjk;lt;k8ÿl8[jÿY[ju;s8Vÿ6lÿj6jÿm8jÿt87;;Vÿ<;;kw;Vÿm8tt8V
`78<[8V<}ÿ<[8ÿj68Zj8uu[V7ÿ[Vÿm8jÿ78w;Xÿw;Vÿr88kÿY[jr6V<8kX[vs8ÿ6uZj;V<[7m8<8V
`8w8Vu[VÿV6<[7ÿ[Zÿ;XZÿ<8ÿ<66kr68s[V7ÿ88Vÿw8k<8k8ÿZjk8ss[V7ÿm88ljÿ8Vÿ[Zÿ78k[Wmjÿ6|
`tk[8w8Vÿ8Vÿ78ZWmk[lj8Vÿ<[8ÿsYVV8Vÿ<[8V8Vÿ6uÿ<8ÿ{;;km8[<ÿ;;Vÿm8jÿX[Wmjÿj8
`tk8V78Vzÿq8ÿt8;Vj{66k<[V7ÿw;Vÿ<8ÿwk;;7ÿ{8Xs8ÿ6uZj;V<[7m8<8Vÿ;XZÿr88k
`Y[jr6V<8kX[vsÿu68j8Vÿ{6k<8Vÿ;;V78u8ksj}ÿX;;jÿr[WmÿV[8jÿ[Vÿ88Vÿ;X78u8V8ÿk878X
`Z;u8Vw;jj8Vzÿq8ÿ8Vs8X8ÿ6uZj;V<[7m8[<ÿ<;jÿ88Vÿ;<w6W;;jÿ;XZÿw8k<;Wmj8ÿ{6k<j
`;;V78u8ksjÿ[Zÿ[Vÿ[8<8kÿ78w;XÿV[8jÿj68k8[s8V<}ÿu;;kÿ{8Xÿ<8ÿw8k<8Vs[V7ÿw;Vÿ88V
`8kVZj[7ÿZjk;lt;;kÿl8[j}ÿr6;XZÿm8jÿw6ku8Vÿw;Vÿ88VÿWk[u[V88XÿZ;u8V{8ks[V7Zw8kt;V<
`w;Vÿ88Vÿ;<w6W;;jÿu8jÿt8|;;X<8ÿWX[~Vj8Vzÿq;Vÿr;Xÿm8jÿt8X;V7ÿw;Vÿ<[8ÿWX[~Vj8Vÿ<;j
`r[vÿ8kw;Vÿu68j8VÿsYVV8VÿY[j7;;Vÿ<;jÿ<8ÿ;<w6W;;jÿ78m8[uÿm6Y<jÿm8j788Vÿr[vÿm8u
`[Vÿ<[8ÿWk[u[V8X8ÿ;;V78X878Vm8[<ÿm8tt8Vÿj68w8kjk6Y{<ÿu68j8Vÿ{[vs8Vÿw66kÿm8j
`t8X;V7ÿ<;jÿ<8ÿ{;;km8[<ÿ;;Vÿm8jÿX[Wmjÿs6ujzÿ_Vÿ88Vÿ<8k78X[vsÿ78w;Xÿ<[8V8Vÿm8j
`w8kZWm6V[V7Zk8Wmjÿ8Vÿ<8ÿ<;;ku88ÿZ;u8Vm;V78V<8ÿt8|8ks[V78Vÿw;Vÿ<8
`Y[j68l8V[V7ÿw;Vÿ<8ÿt8ZX;7Fÿ8Vÿ<66kr68s[V7Zt8w687<m8<8Vÿj8ÿ{[vs8Vÿw66kÿm8j
`t8X;V7ÿw;VÿZjk;lw6k<8k[V7}ÿr[vÿm8jÿ<;jÿ66sÿ<;Vÿ<8ÿ[Vtk8Ysÿ6|ÿm8j
`w8kZWm6V[V7Zk8WmjÿV[8jÿw8k<8kÿu;7ÿ7;;Vÿ<;VÿZjk[sjÿV6<[7ÿ[Zÿw66kÿm8jÿ;;Vÿm8jÿX[Wmj
`tk8V78Vÿw;Vÿ<8ÿ{;;km8[<ÿw;Vÿm8jÿ<8Zt8jk8ll8V<8ÿl8[j}ÿ{;;kt[vÿr6k7ÿu68jÿ{6k<8V
`t8jk;Wmjÿ6uÿj8ÿw66ks6u8Vÿ<;jÿ<8ÿt8X;V78Vÿw;Vÿ;V<8k8ÿWX[~Vj8Vÿw;Vÿ<8ÿ;<w6W;;j
`<;Vÿ<8ÿWX[~Vj8Vÿ<[8ÿt8jk6ss8Vÿr[vVÿt[vÿ<8ÿZjk;lt;k8ÿl8[j8Vÿ{;;kw;Vÿ<8ÿ;<w6W;;j
`{6k<jÿw8k<;Wmjÿ6V8w8Vk8<[7ÿ{6k<8Vÿ78jk6ll8Vÿx5:ÿ`ÿIGGI}ÿEOdÿ8Vÿ5:ÿ`ÿIGGI}
`EO€yzÿIzÿq8ÿktÿm88ljÿ6VvY[ZjÿV6Wmÿ6Vt87k[v|8X[vsÿ7866k<88X<ÿ<;jÿ[zWzÿZ|k;s8ÿ[Zÿw;V
`r88kÿY[jr6V<8kX[vs8ÿ6uZj;V<[7m8<8Vÿ6|ÿ7k6V<ÿ{;;kw;Vÿm8jÿt8X;V7ÿ<;jÿ<8ÿ{;;km8[<
`;;Vÿm8jÿX[Wmjÿs6ujÿFÿ66sÿj;wÿ<;j78V8ÿ{;;kw;Vÿ<8ÿ{8j8VZWm;|ÿ<8ÿsX;78kÿ;XZ
`r6<;V[7ÿ[Zÿj68w8kjk6Y{<ÿFÿ<[8Vjÿj8ÿ|k8w;X8k8Vÿt6w8Vÿm8jÿw8kZWm6V[V7Zk8Wmjÿx<8
`;<w6W;;jÿ{6k<jÿV;;kÿm8jÿ66k<88Xÿw;Vÿ<8ÿktÿj8k8Wmjÿw8k<;Wmjÿw;Vÿ{[j{;ZZ8Vÿw;V
`u678X[vsÿ88Vÿr88kÿ7k6j8ÿ78X<Z6uÿ8ÿ;kjzÿEIGj8kÿ<;Vÿ{8XÿEIGt[Zÿikÿ8Vÿw;XZm8[<ÿ[V
`88VÿV6j;k[~X8ÿ;sj8ÿ8ÿ;kjzÿIIJÿ8VQ6lÿIIHÿik}ÿ<;Vÿ{8Xÿw;Vÿm8jÿu8<8|X878Vÿw;V
`8VQ6lÿt8mYX|r;;uÿr[vVÿt[vÿ<[8ÿl8[j8V}ÿj8k{[vXÿtX[vsjÿw;Vÿ88Vÿr{;;k{878V<
`!!"#
` $%!#"&'(!#"&') %*%($+!,%-
`
`

` 
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`   
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`

` 
`ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`./0123.1456178/9ÿ;191/5ÿ<=12ÿ>101<1208?@A1/BCÿD1Aÿ..20117ÿ<8/ÿ01ÿ26ÿ08Aÿ6=;ÿ0=1
`6178/91/8EF19=/9ÿ>89ÿ>11F191/ÿ01ÿ.>5A8/0=9@1=0ÿ08Aÿ12ÿ5G2841ÿ=5ÿ<8/
`>101<1208?@A1/ÿ1/ÿ08Aÿ=/ÿ11/ÿ91<87ÿ875ÿ@1Aÿ./012@8<=91ÿ>101ÿ61A141/=5ÿA.14.>A
`88/ÿ@1AÿA8<ÿ0=1ÿ>101<1208?@A1/ÿ91701/01ÿ./0123.1456178/9Hÿ91AI=9Aÿ1<1/>=/
`<8/ÿ11/ÿ./;I=5A1ÿ21?@A5.G<8AA=/9CÿJCÿK/ÿ11/ÿ91<87ÿ<8/ÿ3112ÿI=A3./0127=;41
`.>5A8/0=9@101/Hÿ3.875ÿ=C?CHÿF8826=;ÿ@1Aÿ6178/9ÿ<8/ÿ01ÿF882@1=05<=/0=/9
`G21<87112Aÿ6.<1/ÿ@1Aÿ<125?@./=/9521?@Aÿ=5ÿ01ÿ61<.190@1=0ÿA.Aÿ0..23.14=/9ÿ/=1A
`61G124AÿA.Aÿ62=1<1/ÿ.Eÿ915?@2=EA1/ÿ0=1ÿ@1Aÿ<..2F12Gÿ<8/ÿ@1Aÿ5A28E6821ÿE1=A
`I=A>841/ÿ.EÿA.Aÿ@1Aÿ61988/ÿ0882<8/ÿ@1661/ÿ910=1/0Hÿ3.08Aÿ01ÿ<2889ÿ.Eÿ01
`915?@2=EA1/ÿ11/ÿ3.08/=9ÿ48284A12ÿ@1661/ÿ/=1Aÿ2171<8/Aÿ=5ÿLDMÿNOÿPQQPHÿRJSBC
`TUVWXUYZ[\][^_U^
``1A6.14ÿ<8/ÿaA28E<.2012=/9ÿ
``1A6.14ÿ<8/ÿaA28E<.2012=/9ÿSbÿ
`c[^defggVWU^
`M1?@A5G2884C/7ÿÿ
`OhiÿPQQjHÿJkSÿ
`q[VWeYggr
`NOÿPQQjHÿJjJÿÿ
`NlamMnoÿPQQjpPjJÿÿ
`sRÿ;I/=ÿPQQj
`aA28E48>12
`/2CÿQJPtPpQRÿl
`uvpawD.91ÿM880ÿ012ÿN101278/01/
`l15?@=44=/9
`.Gÿ@1Aÿ612.1Gÿ=/ÿ?8558A=1ÿA191/ÿ11/ÿ615?@=44=/9ÿ<8/ÿ01ÿM1?@A68/4ÿA1ÿx5yD12A.91/6.5?@ÿ<8/ÿkÿ.4A.612ÿPQQRH
`/I>>12
`MzÿQRpSkbHÿ.Gÿ11/ÿ614789ÿ875ÿ610.170ÿ=/ÿ82A=417ÿjjP8
`<8/ÿ@1Aÿ`1A6.14ÿ<8/ÿaA28E<.2012=/9Hÿ=/910=1/0ÿ0..2{
`|478912}Hÿ916.21/ÿA1ÿ|916..2A1G788A5}ÿ.Gÿ|916..2A108AI>}ÿsSkSHÿF./1/01ÿA1ÿ|F../G788A5}C
`sCÿ~1ÿ615A2101/ÿ615?@=44=/9
`~1ÿM1?@A68/4ÿ@11EAÿ./9192./0ÿ<12478820ÿ@1Aÿ0..2ÿ478912ÿ=/910=1/01ÿ614789ÿ5A21441/01ÿA.AÿA12I998<1ÿ88/ÿ@1>ÿ<8/
`01ÿ=/ÿ@882ÿ615?@=44=/9ÿ.>5?@21<1/ÿ<..2F12G1/C
`PCÿ10=/9ÿ=/ÿ?8558A=1
`D1Aÿ612.1Gÿ=5ÿ=/915A170ÿ0..2ÿ01ÿ478912CÿN8>1/5ÿ0131ÿ@11EAÿ>2CÿnCnCÿo28/41/Hÿ80<.?88AÿA1ÿn>5A1208>Hÿ6=;ÿ5?@2=EAII2
`>=00171/ÿ<8/ÿ?8558A=1ÿ<..2915A170Cÿ~1ÿ5?@2=EAII2ÿ=5ÿ88/ÿ0131ÿ615?@=44=/9ÿ91@1?@Aÿ1/ÿ>884Aÿ0882<8/ÿ0117ÿI=AC
`~1ÿn0<.?88Ay1/12887ÿ`.2A17ÿ@11EAÿ91?./?7I01120ÿ08Aÿ01ÿD.91ÿM880ÿ@1Aÿ612.1Gÿ387ÿ<12F12G1/C
`JCÿ€2.?1598/9
`!!"#
` $%!#"&'(!#"&') %*%($+!,%-
`
`

` 
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`8/9/2021
`
`   
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 10 of 12
`Case 1:19-cv-115841:MSir:200cATAAeftadBEbG_INATeahd)BsgdRad, obeage 40 of 12
`
`In cassatie kan van het volgende worden uitgegaan.
`
`De klager is advocaat. Tegen hem is een gerechtelijk vooronderzoek geopend ter zake van vermoedelijke
`
`overtreding van de art. 420bis en/of 420ter Sr en/of over-treding van de art. 225 en/of 226 Sr, dan wel van het
`
`gemaaktvan die valse stukken en heeft verhuld of verborgen wat de werkelijke aard, herkomst van geld en
`
`woningen is en wie de rechthebbenden zijn.
`
`In het kader van het gerechtelijk vooronderzoek tegen de klager is op 21 september 2004 onder leiding van de
`
`Rechter-Commissaris een doorzoeking ter inbeslagneming verricht op het kantooradres van de klager. De Rechter-
`
`Commissaris was daarbij vergezeld van de Deken van de Orde van advocaten in het arrondissement
`
`Amsterdam. Bij die doorzoeking zijn door de Rechter-Commissaris diverse stukken in beslag genomen. Klager heeft
`
`geen toestemming gegeven tot doorzoeking van zijn kantoor en evenmin tot inbeslagneming van stukken.
`
`Op 28 september 2004 is door de klager een klaagschrift als bedoeld is art. 552a Sv ingediend. De Rechter-
`
`Commissaris heeft op 6 oktober 2004 in raadkamer een drietal gesloten enveloppen overgelegd genummerd 1, 2 en
`
`3. In de enveloppen 1 en 2 bevinden zich de stukken die door de Rechter-Commissaris - na advies daaromtrent van
`
`de Deken - in beslag zijn genomen. De enveloppe 3 is met instemming van de Officier van Justitie en zonder dat de
`
`Rechtbank kennis heeft genomen van de inhoud van de zich daarin bevindende stukken teruggegeven aan de
`
`klager, nu die stukken, aldus de Rechter-Commissaris en de Deken, van geen belang zijn in het strafrechtelijk
`
`onderzoek tegen de klager of de medeverdachten.
`
`De Rechtbank heeft, na de behandeling in raadkamer, op 6 oktober 2004 de bestreden beschikking gegeven.
`
`medeplegen van en/of medeplichtigheid aan die feiten. De verdenking tegen klager hield - kort samengevat - in dat
`hij al dan niet tezamen met een of meer anderen bescheiden - te weten (delen van) een privé-administratie,
`bedrijfsadministraties, taxatierapporten en/of notariéle akten - heeft vervalst, althans opzettelijk gebruik heeft
`
`
`
`

` 
`ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`./ÿ12332456ÿ72/ÿ82/ÿ964ÿ8:;<6/=6ÿ>:?=6/ÿ@54<6<22/A
`B6ÿ7;2<6?ÿ53ÿ2=8:1224AÿC6<6/ÿ96Dÿ53ÿ66/ÿ<6?61946;5E7ÿ8::?:/=6?F:67ÿ<6:G6/=ÿ46?ÿF276ÿ82/ÿ86?D:6=6;5E76
`:86?4?6=5/<ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ2?4AÿHIJK53ÿ6/L:MÿHIJ46?ÿN?ÿ6/L:Mÿ:86?O4?6=5/<ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ2?4AÿIIPÿ6/L:MÿIIQÿN?Rÿ=2/ÿ>6;ÿ82/ÿ964
`D6=6G;6<6/ÿ82/ÿ6/L:MÿD6=6G;51945<965=ÿ22/ÿ=56ÿM6546/AÿB6ÿ86?=6/75/<ÿ46<6/ÿ7;2<6?ÿ956;=ÿOÿ7:?4ÿ32D6/<6824ÿOÿ5/ÿ=24
`95Eÿ2;ÿ=2/ÿ/564ÿ46F2D6/ÿD64ÿ66/ÿ:MÿD66?ÿ2/=6?6/ÿK631965=6/ÿOÿ46ÿ>646/ÿS=6;6/ÿ82/Tÿ66/ÿG?58UO2=D5/534?2456R
`K6=?5EM32=D5/534?24563Rÿ42V2456?2GG:?46/ÿ6/L:Mÿ/:42?5W;6ÿ2746/ÿOÿ966M4ÿ86?82;34Rÿ2;492/3ÿ:GF6446;5E7ÿ<6K?@57ÿ966M4
`<6D2274ÿ82/ÿ=56ÿ82;36ÿ34@776/ÿ6/ÿ966M4ÿ86?9@;=ÿ:Mÿ86?K:?<6/ÿ>24ÿ=6ÿ>6?76;5E76ÿ22?=Rÿ96?7:D34ÿ82/ÿ<6;=ÿ6/
`>:/5/<6/ÿ53ÿ6/ÿ>56ÿ=6ÿ?619496KK6/=6/ÿF5E/A
`./ÿ964ÿ72=6?ÿ82/ÿ964ÿ<6?61946;5E7ÿ8::?:/=6?F:67ÿ46<6/ÿ=6ÿ7;2<6?ÿ53ÿ:GÿIXÿ36G46DK6?ÿIJJHÿ:/=6?ÿ;65=5/<ÿ82/ÿ=6
`Y61946?OZ:DD5332?53ÿ66/ÿ=::?F:675/<ÿ46?ÿ5/K63;2</6D5/<ÿ86??5194ÿ:Gÿ964ÿ72/4::?2=?63ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ7;2<6?AÿB6ÿY61946?O
`Z:DD5332?53ÿ>23ÿ=22?K5Eÿ86?<6F6;=ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿB676/ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ[?=6ÿ82/ÿ2=8:1246/ÿ5/ÿ964ÿ2??:/=5336D6/4
`\D346?=2DAÿ]5Eÿ=56ÿ=::?F:675/<ÿF5E/ÿ=::?ÿ=6ÿY61946?OZ:DD5332?53ÿ=586?36ÿ34@776/ÿ5/ÿK63;2<ÿ<6/:D6/Aÿ^;2<6?ÿ966M4
`<66/ÿ4:6346DD5/<ÿ<6<686/ÿ4:4ÿ=::?F:675/<ÿ82/ÿF5E/ÿ72/4::?ÿ6/ÿ686/D5/ÿ4:4ÿ5/K63;2</6D5/<ÿ82/ÿ34@776/A
`[GÿI_ÿ36G46DK6?ÿIJJHÿ53ÿ=::?ÿ=6ÿ7;2<6?ÿ66/ÿ7;22<319?5M4ÿ2;3ÿK6=:6;=ÿ53ÿ2?4AÿPPI2ÿN8ÿ5/<6=56/=AÿB6ÿY61946?O
`Z:DD5332?53ÿ966M4ÿ:GÿQÿ:74:K6?ÿIJJHÿ5/ÿ?22=72D6?ÿ66/ÿ=?5642;ÿ<63;:46/ÿ6/86;:GG6/ÿ:86?<6;6<=ÿ<6/@DD6?=ÿXRÿIÿ6/
``Aÿ./ÿ=6ÿ6/86;:GG6/ÿXÿ6/ÿIÿK685/=6/ÿF519ÿ=6ÿ34@776/ÿ=56ÿ=::?ÿ=6ÿY61946?OZ:DD5332?53ÿOÿ/2ÿ2=8563ÿ=22?:D4?6/4ÿ82/
`=6ÿB676/ÿOÿ5/ÿK63;2<ÿF5E/ÿ<6/:D6/AÿB6ÿ6/86;:GG6ÿ`ÿ53ÿD64ÿ5/346DD5/<ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ[MM5156?ÿ82/ÿa@345456ÿ6/ÿF:/=6?ÿ=24ÿ=6
`Y6194K2/7ÿ76//53ÿ966M4ÿ<6/:D6/ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ5/9:@=ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿF519ÿ=22?5/ÿK685/=6/=6ÿ34@776/ÿ46?@<<6<686/ÿ22/ÿ=6
`7;2<6?Rÿ/@ÿ=56ÿ34@776/Rÿ2;=@3ÿ=6ÿY61946?OZ:DD5332?53ÿ6/ÿ=6ÿB676/Rÿ82/ÿ<66/ÿK6;2/<ÿF5E/ÿ5/ÿ964ÿ34?2M?61946;5E7
`:/=6?F:67ÿ46<6/ÿ=6ÿ7;2<6?ÿ:Mÿ=6ÿD6=686?=21946/A
`B6ÿY6194K2/7ÿ966M4Rÿ/2ÿ=6ÿK692/=6;5/<ÿ5/ÿ?22=72D6?Rÿ:GÿQÿ:74:K6?ÿIJJHÿ=6ÿK634?6=6/ÿK63195775/<ÿ<6<686/A
`HAÿ]6::?=6;5/<ÿ82/ÿ964ÿ66?346ÿD5==6;
`HAXAÿb64ÿD5==6;ÿ7;22<4ÿ:/=6?ÿD66?ÿ=24ÿ=6ÿY6194K2/7ÿ5/ÿ922?ÿ::?=66;ÿ46/ÿ:/?61946ÿ966M4ÿ;246/ÿD66>6<6/ÿ=24ÿ6?ÿ66/
`F>22?>6<6/=ÿ:/=6?F:673K6;2/<ÿK634224ÿ46/ÿ22/F56/ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿD6=686?=21946/ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ7;2<6?A
`HAIAÿB6ÿY6194K2/7ÿ966M4ÿ5/ÿ=6ÿK634?6=6/ÿK63195775/<ÿ:/=6?ÿD66?ÿ:86?>:<6/c
`d];5E76/3ÿ2?4576;ÿe_Rÿ66?346ÿ;5=ÿ82/ÿ964ÿf8N8ÿ7@//6/Rÿ46/F5EÿD64ÿ9@/ÿ4:6346DD5/<RÿK5EÿG6?3:/6/ÿD64ÿK68:6<=965=
`4:4ÿ86?319:/5/<ÿS5/ÿ123@ÿ66/ÿ2=8:1224Tÿ/564ÿ5/ÿK63;2<ÿ<6/:D6/ÿ>:?=6/ÿK?5686/ÿ:Mÿ2/=6?6ÿ<6319?5M46/Rÿ4:4ÿ>6;76ÿ9@/
`G;5194ÿ4:4ÿ<6965D9:@=5/<ÿF519ÿ@5434?674Aÿ];5E76/3ÿ964ÿ4>66=6ÿ;5=ÿ82/ÿ=24ÿ2?4576;ÿ85/=4ÿ66/ÿ=::?F:675/<ÿK5Eÿ=6?<6;5E76
`G6?O3:/6/Rÿ46/F5EÿD64ÿ9@/ÿ4:6346DD5/<Rÿ2;;66/ÿG;2243ÿ8::?ÿF:86?ÿ964ÿF:/=6?ÿ3196/=5/<ÿ82/ÿ964ÿ342/=3ORÿK6?:6G3Oÿ:M
`2DK43<6965Dÿ72/ÿ<631956=6/Rÿ6/ÿ34?674ÿ=56ÿ=::?F:675/<ÿF519ÿ/564ÿ@54ÿ4:4ÿ2/=6?6ÿK?5686/ÿ:Mÿ<6319?5M46/ÿ=2/ÿ=56
`>6;76ÿ964ÿ8::?>6?Gÿ82/ÿ964ÿ34?2MK2?6ÿM654ÿ@54D276/ÿ:Mÿ4:4ÿ964ÿK6<22/ÿ=22?82/ÿ<6=56/=ÿ96KK6/A
`g22?ÿ964ÿ::?=66;ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ?6194K2/7ÿK634224ÿ6?ÿ/:<ÿ66/ÿ@54F:/=6?5/<ÿ:Gÿ964ÿ@54<2/<3G@/4ÿ82/ÿ964ÿ66?346ÿ;5=ÿ82/
`2?4576;ÿe_ÿ82/ÿ964ÿf8N8Rÿ/2D6;5E7ÿO7:?4ÿ<6F6<=Oÿ5/ÿ964ÿ<682;ÿ=24ÿ964ÿK6;2/<ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ>22?965=385/=5/<ÿG?682;66?4
`K:86/ÿ964ÿK6?:6G3<6965DAÿh2/ÿ66/ÿ=6?<6;5E7ÿ<682;ÿ53ÿ3;61943ÿ3G?276ÿK5EÿF66?ÿ@54F:/=6?;5E76ÿ:D342/=5<96=6/ÿ6/
`=6?<6;5E76ÿ:D342/=5<96=6/ÿ7@//6/ÿ22/>6F5<ÿF5E/ÿ5/=56/ÿ=6ÿ86?319:/5/<3<6?61945<=6ÿ86?=2194ÿ>:?=4ÿ82/ÿ66/ÿF66?
`6?/345<ÿD53=?5EMA
`B6ÿ?6194K2/7ÿ:/=6?319?5EM4ÿ964ÿ@54<2/<3G@/4ÿ=24ÿ964ÿ::?=66;ÿ:D4?6/4ÿ=6ÿ8?22<ÿ:MÿK?5686/ÿ:Mÿ<6319?5M46/ÿ:KE614ÿ82/
`=6ÿK68:6<=965=ÿ4:4ÿ86?319:/5/<ÿ@54D276/ÿ5/ÿK6<5/36;ÿ4:67:D4ÿ22/ÿ=6ÿ4:4ÿ86?319:/5/<ÿK68:6<=6ÿG6?3::/A
`B54ÿ;65=4ÿ61946?ÿ@54F:/=6?5/<ÿ5/ÿ66/ÿ@54F:/=6?;5E7ÿ<682;ÿ2;3ÿ956?8::?ÿK6=:6;=Aÿ]5Eÿ66/ÿK6;2/<6/2M>6<5/<ÿ5/ÿ8::?D6;=6
`F5/ÿD2<ÿD66>6<6/ÿ=6ÿ:D342/=5<965=ÿ:Mÿ6?ÿ3G?276ÿ53ÿ82/ÿD6=686?=21946/ÿ6/ÿ964ÿ46/ÿ22/F56/ÿ82/ÿ=56
`D6=686?=21946/ÿ<6;=6/=6ÿ:/=6?F:673K6;2/<A
`./ÿ123@ÿ53ÿ=6ÿ?6194K2/7ÿ82/ÿ::?=66;ÿ=24ÿ6?ÿ3G?276ÿ53ÿ82/ÿ66/ÿ=6?<6;5E7ÿ@54F:/=6?;5E7ÿ<682;ÿ2;3ÿ956?8::?ÿK6=:6;=A
`^;2<6?ÿ53ÿ2=8:1224ÿ6/ÿG?:1@?6@?ÿ6/ÿ>:?=4ÿ/22?ÿ964ÿ::?=66;ÿ82/ÿ=6ÿ?6194K2/7ÿ46?6194ÿ86?=2194ÿ82/ÿ>54>2336/ÿ2;3
`K6=:6;=ÿ5/ÿ2?4576;ÿHIJ46?ÿ82/ÿ964ÿf8N?ÿ=2/ÿ>6;ÿ>54>2336/ÿ2;3ÿK6=:6;=ÿ5/ÿ2?4576;ÿHIJK53ÿ82/ÿ=24ÿ>64K:67ÿ6/ÿ82/
`!!"#
` $%!#"&'(!#"&') %*%($+!,%-
`
`

` 
`
`
`4. Beoordeling van het eerste middel
`
`4.1. Het middel klaagt onder meer dat de Rechtbank in haar oordeel ten onrechte heeft laten meewegen dat er een
`
`zwaarwegend onderzoeksbelang bestaat ten aanzien van de medeverdachten van de klager.
`
`4.2. De Rechtbank heeft in de bestreden beschikking onder meer overwogen:
`
`"Blijkens artikel 98, eerste lid van het WvSv kunnen, tenzij met hun toestemming, bij personen met bevoegdheid
`
`tot verschoning (in casu een advocaat) niet in beslag genomen worden brieven of andere geschriften, tot welke hun
`
`plicht tot geheimhouding zich uitstrekt. Blijkens het tweede lid van dat artikel vindt een doorzoeking bij dergelijke
`
`per-sonen, tenzij met hun toestemming, alleen plaats voor zover het zonder schending van het stands-, beroeps- of
`
`ambtsgeheim kan geschieden, en strekt die doorzoeking zich niet uit tot andere brieven of geschriften dan die
`
`welke het voorwerp van hetstrafbare feit uitmaken of tot het begaan daarvan gediend hebben.
`
`Naar het oordeel van de rechtbank bestaat er nog een uitzondering op het uitgangspunt van het eerste lid van
`
`artikel 98 van het WvSv, namelijk -kort gezegd- in het geval dat het belang van de waarheidsvinding prevaleert
`
`boven het beroepsgeheim. Van een dergelijk geval is slechts sprake bij zeer uitzonderlijke omstandigheden en
`
`dergelijke omstandigheden kunnen aanwezig zijn indien de verschoningsgerechtigde verdacht wordt van een zeer
`
`ernstig misdrijf.
`
`De rechtbank onderschrijft het uitgangspunt dat het oordeel omtrent de vraag of brieven of geschriften object van
`
`de bevoegdheid tot verschoning uitmaken in beginsel toekomt aan de tot verschoning bevoegde persoon.
`
`Dit leidt echter uitzondering in een uitzonderlijk geval als hiervoor bedoeld. Bij een belangenafweging in voormelde
`
`zin mag meewegen de omstandigheid of er sprake is van medeverdachten en het ten aanzien van die
`
`medeverdachten geldende onderzoeksbelang.
`
`In casu is de rechtbank van oordeel dat er sprake is van een dergelijk uitzonderlijk geval als hiervoor bedoeld.
`
`Klager is advocaat en procureur en wordt naar het oordeel van de rechtbank terecht verdacht van witwassen als
`bedoeld in artikel 420ter van het WvSr dan wel witwassen als bedoeld in artikel 420bis van dat wetboek en van
`
`https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT4418
`
`3/5
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`   
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 220-6 Filed 08/11/21 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`

` 
`ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ
`./01234565700890:ÿ<34=>059ÿ5?ÿ/0=7>856@0ÿ5?ÿ00?ÿ?A@385B40ÿ31@0ÿ34=ÿC09A049ÿ5?ÿ38@5104ÿDDEÿ0?FA6ÿDDGÿ<3?ÿ>0@ÿH<I8Jÿ93?
`204ÿ<3?ÿ>0@ÿK090L40/0?ÿ<3?ÿ0?FA6ÿC0>M4LN33KÿN5O?ÿ33?ÿ950ÿ605@0?P
`Q5@ÿ90ÿ@>3?=ÿ<AA8>3?90?ÿN5O?90ÿ=@M110?ÿC45O1@ÿ/0?A0/N33Kÿ93@ÿ>0@ÿKA/045O1ÿ25@23==0?ÿC0@80115?/ÿ>006@ÿALÿ00?ÿN008
`/8A@0ÿ/049=AKPÿR08908ÿC45O1@ÿM5@ÿ950ÿ=@M110?ÿ<3?ÿ00?ÿN233820/0?9ÿA?908NA01=C043?/ÿO0/0?=ÿ90ÿ34ÿ93?ÿ?50@ÿ/0>07>@0
`K090<08937>@0?ÿSK090<08937>@0ÿTUJÿSK090<08937>@0ÿDUJÿSK090<0893