Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-55/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

CO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIRITCHENKO ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER RE FIFTH AMENDMENT

PRIVILEGE

The Court has received the Declaration of Doron Weinberg in Support of Defendant

Lazarenko’s Request for Partial Reconsideration of Ruling (Doc. No. 1346) and Plaintiff’s

Objections to the Affidavit of Doron Weinberg (Doc. No. 1350). The parties have raised Fifth

Amendment issues that the Court cannot resolve without further information. 

Plaintiff argues that, with the exception of the 14 criminal counts on appeal, Defendant

Lazarenko cannot claim the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Plaintiff

previously noted that, in the criminal prosecution of Defendant Lazarenko, Judge Jenkins dismissed

23 Counts that are summed up as the “Natural Gas Scheme,” the “Prefabricated Houses Scheme,”

and the “Ditiatkovsky Scheme.” Plaintiff argues that Defendant Lazarenko’s claims of Fifth

Amendment privilege were terminated as to those Schemes because Lazarenko may not be

prosecuted again for them. In addition, Plaintiff has argued that the statute of limitations has run on

acts committed prior to Lazarenko’s February 19, 1999 detention, thus Lazarenko has no fear of

self-incrimination as to pre-February 1999 acts. However, the Court is unable to tell without further

explanation whether the outstanding discovery Plaintiff seeks falls within the 14 remaining criminal

counts on appeal.

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1356 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant argues that Defendant Lazarenko has a Fifth Amendment privilege as to all

statements provided to the U.S. government by Defendant Lazarenko pursuant to proffer

agreements. However, the excerpt of the proffer agreement Defendant quoted appears to provide

some form of use immunity as to Lazarenko’s statements to the government. Accordingly, the Fifth

Amendment may not apply if statements Lazarenko gave to the government could not subject him to

criminal prosecution. Defendant does not address the effect of the government’s agreement to “not

use any statements made by [Lazarenko] during the proffer directly against Mr. Lazarenko and his

case-in-chief in any criminal case.” See Weinberg Decl. at 3:4-5 (emphasis added). And, if the

privilege applies, Defendant does not address whether the privilege would apply only as to the

sections of the statements that apply to the 14 criminal counts on appeal, or whether the privilege

would apply to the whole statement, including sections that address Counts or Schemes that were

dismissed or barred by the statute of limitations.

 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS further briefing as follows:

By May 21, 2007, Defendant Lazarenko is ordered file a brief in support of his Request for

Partial Reconsideration of Ruling which addresses the Court’s concerns.

By May 28, 2007 Plaintiff is ordered to file an Opposition.

The Court will take the matter under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1356 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2