1. Mr. Agostini, one of the defendants, shifts the focus to Credit Suisse:
"I always acted in the name of the bank and according to their instructions," Agustoni told Reuters via telephone.
"It's not the case that I did anything independently, the bank was always informed and my actions were checked by my bosses," Agustoni said.
2. A Credit Suisse spokesman says that Credit Suisse is not the target of the probe. Of course, persons (including entities) do not determine their own status. Wonder what the prosecutors would say about that? I have previously noted the phenomenon that, when prosecutors have to declare someone's status relative to an investigation, for those who are clearly not just witnesses or bystanders, the default status is subject rather than target. Then, that subject will turn into a target about a few nanoseconds before presenting the indictment to the grand jury for action. (I overstate the nanoseconds business, but in my limited anecdotal experience, prosecutors have described persons as subjects when their objective behavior made it clear that they considered the persons targets; see my discussion below.)
Interesting. If Credit Suisse is really not a target and it really should be a target (however long it takes the prosecutors to have that Eureka moment), the defendants in this case may have some bargaining power to deliver up Credit Suisse in return for favorable treatment from the U.S. Government (think the big bucks like UBS had to pay). Or maybe the defendants will just stay out of the country and hope that Credit Suisse is appreciative enough to do right by them. Or whatever.
For those wanting to pursue the subject / target distinction, see USAM 9-11.151 Advice of "Rights" of Grand Jury Witnesses. The definitions are:
A "target" is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. An officer or employee of an organization which is a target is not automatically considered a target even if such officer's or employee's conduct contributed to the commission of the crime by the target organization. The same lack of automatic target status holds true for organizations which employ, or employed, an officer or employee who is a target.Basically, as so defined, "subject" could be viewed as the broader class, with "target" being a specific subset of "subject" status. (Many practitioners, I think, view them as mutually exclusive classes, with a subject then being potentially turned into a target later, at which times he or she loses subject status.) So, I suppose, although in context a bit disingenuous, a prosecutor could describe someone as a subject even though the prosecutor knows (or should know) that the person has already reached the status of target. But that person, believing himself or herself to be a subject and not a target, may then be prejudicially mislead into taking further actions. That would be a mistake. So the better part of wisdom when dealing with prosecutors is to obtain the representation that he or she is a subject and not a target (conjunctive representations). Of course, the danger is that the prosecutor would be disingenuous even the representation that he or she is not a target, a status which can change at the whim of the prosecution and can ultimately be based on facts that the prosecutor already knew when he made the "not target" representation. (Remember the nanoseconds.)
A "subject" of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.