honor if you have any trouble hearing me please let me know something i'm good for now my name is daniel kaplan i'm representing the palace alexander radio i'm going to be watching the clock i will attempt to save which i believe i can demonstrate is an issue and problem here in two easy steps if one is that the fact is that transferring funds that are derived from health care fraud in foreign commerce is a crime under eighteen us c ninety seven dollars under which there are seven charges in this indictment in this case two is that if you are compelled to repatriate from abroad that you transfer to africa you return fines you are so actually making that assertion in fact these are fines extreme for now doesn't prove the whole crime obviously it still has to be proven those came from fraud but the proof part of the crime and of the same situation the government say well we promise not to use this against the defendant and the supreme court say that would be a sort of constructive use immunity that's just between the prosecutor and court and congress  but the protection of the th amendment it stands to any possible additional charges if you evidence that might be used against him but it would be a wink and a chain leading to other evidence that could be used against him any lead in protection against still are upset because you have cases like the whole case which to which is discussed in the briefs where statutory hannity was granted and huge amount of material was provided pursuant to that grant of immunity and yet there was of the money went to the government does not currently know about and why wouldn't it i mean graham well your honor i think as q you are correct that the grand jury found up to seven hundred and sixty in the district or before that so is it your position that simply saying in your moving papers that you have some additional evidence that may or may not have been presented to the jury and jury that mr point three million dollars i would say a couple things the the amount that i think that the government proffered is to two point four so the seven hundred and sixty was presented to the grand jury and then the and i think this court or the district court could accept a proffer on that  a the amount that i think we can justify at this point i want to be clear i reached out to defense counsel last week to suggest mediation in this case the government does not intend to use this information in that trial and on direct on cross over about all the government does not intend to seek new charges and to the extent those statements are clearer than they were at the district court i reached out to opposing counsel to see whether mediation may be appropriate because of the situation that we're all working under including his inability to have a discussion with his client we were unable to resolve it the government remains open to that appropriate to say the government would agree to not use it at all in its case and would not use it to seek new charges and i do take issue with  immunity that was in a pre charge and situation where i think it would be very difficult to be able to track whether the government was making any sort of use of financial information derivative use here that event has been charged we are not going to seek additional charges based on any information derived from the repatriation in fact we've suggested that the information be turned the the funds be turned over to the marshals not the prosecution or investigation  team to further insulate any information that could be derived from it ever so this is you see from a justice to make this offer so it's coextensive with the immunity that's provided there i do not believe main justice has been consulted but prosecutors do have the ability to give right it i guess my i would say that it was not sought allowed if that was not the issue raised in the defendant and say i would do this but this pocket immunity isn't good enough i need formal immunity district court did here is similar to how district courts in other places have handled this and i point the court to the the cases cited in the briefing adam sellers morriston were district courts  ordered repatriation under similar circumstances and of course those are not binding on this court but i think are good examples of how district courts have handled the crime to deal with that that is the problem i have with those cases in order for he'll to identify new bank accounts that he doesn't have any information about in the process the true patriot in those other cases the government either through its own independent effort and identified where the funds were located or the defendant was ordered to sign a very general consent to access information relating to his records without specifying what banks and what in cases routinely when we have and last each a legal assistant assistance treaties with countries we are able to repatriate the fun in this situation the defendant sent his money to countries where we do not have that there should be an avenue for the government to repatriate the son otherwise you know there's a clear message here because to be able to hang on to your your fraudulent  the extent that this court feels that a better record does it provide more information here i don't disagree and would not have a problem having this remanded for that purpose ok and mr if your honor if the if the government wanted to try to prove what the district court found without evidence which is that it's a foregone conclusion a certain amount was transferred then they in the respect that if he does comply as to that seven hundred and sixty thousand and eight will be especially turning over more specific information actually permitting because the indictment does not include the identification of the counts in africa where the money is and because he's doing it from federal custody everything he does is monitored it would effectively be handing over to the prosecution that account information so in other respects is that relevant to the charges that it would be actually would extend to that information just briefly as far as the government's position that what is being called offered immunity i submit that immunity is nothing more or less than another nickname for constructive unity