I’ve been thinking about this New Yorker story on SARs missing from a FINCEN database and I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade here, but color me at least a little bit skeptical. Here’s why. /1/
Assume for a moment that some records of Cohen’s transactions are, in fact, missing. That does not mean that the transactions themselves have disappeared, only that the Treasury Department’s record of the back’s reports of the transactions are gone from this database. /2/
So when Bob Mueller or the SDNY subpoenas the bank—as they surely have done already—for the records of all of Cohen’s transactions, those transaction records will still be there—and will be turned over. Moreover, the bank surely still has records of the SARs themselves. /3/
So I doubt very much that there will be material data loss to Mueller or the SDNY in any pending investigation even if there has been, in fact, some data loss within FINCEN. /4/
Moreover, were such a data loss to be discovered—as I’m pretty sure it would be if such records were under scrutiny—and the destruction were intentional and malicious, that would likely be traceable. That’s the sort of the thing prosecutors will find very interesting. /5/
Finally, internal destruction of investigative records at a law enforcement agency like FINCEN to protect an investigative subject is rare. It’ll take more than an anonymous source explaining why he leaked material to make me believe that’s what happened here. /6/
Not saying it didn’t happen. Just saying something about this isn’t ringing right to me. /7/
That’s all I got. /8/
