Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 18, 2025·No. 1:16-cv-03228·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF et al., ORDER \ Plaintiffs, □ 16 Civ. 3228 (AKH) -against- :

BNP PARIBAS SA, et al., Defendants. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ X ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: I previously held that Defendants’ plea of guilty in United States v. BNP Paribas, 14 Cr. 460 (S.D.N.Y.), and its admissions are generally admissible, subject to agreement, or further order, as to the precise statements that could be read to the jury. See ECF No. 701; see also Kashef v. BNP Paribas, S.A., 16 Civ. 3228 (AKH), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69747 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2025), at *23-28. I ordered the parties to submit a table describing each such statement, and the parties’ respective positions. They have done so. See ECF No. 715. My rulings resolving their disagreements are shown by cross-outs and redactions on the table they submitted, and are attached as part of this Order. Plaintiffs, by June 24, 2025, shall file a single document reciting, passage by passage, the statements eligible to be read to the jury, according to my rulings. The next step is to eliminate redundancies and cumulative admissions. Again, the parties shall prepare a table showing their agreement and disagreements, eliminating redundancies and cumulative statements, and reducing the admissions to just those that will be admissible and readable to the jury. The parties shall file this revised table, via ECF, by July 8, 2025.

As additional explanation: Defendants’ plea agreement, ECF No. 715-1, is not a statement of facts, and is itself irrelevant and cumulative. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. And the sentencing hearing transcripts, ECF No. 715-3, -4, are a long colloquy, repetitive of the Statement of Facts, and cumulative and confusing to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendants seek to admit paragraphs 30, 34 and 35 of the Statement of Facts, describing certain conduct on the advice of counsel. They are not admissible. They are neither party- opponent admissions under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), nor statements against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3), since they are offered in the declarant’s favor as relevant to Defendants’ case. Defendants’ argument that the Rule of Completeness, Fed. R. Evid. 106, supports their admission, see ECF No. 713, is not meritorious. Rule 106 requires courts to admit the entirety of a statement only “where admission of the statement in redacted form distorts its meaning or excludes information substantially exculpatory of the declarant.” United States v. Thiam, 934 F.3d 89, 96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Benitez, 920 F.2d 1080, 1086-87 (2d Cir. 1990)). But here, that is not the case, since the paragraphs offered by Plaintiffs are fully understandable. Admitting extra paragraphs favored by Defendants would serve only to confuse and mislead the jury. Accordingly, I exclude these items from evidence in their entirety.

Dated: June LB. 2025 New York, New York ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

1 tf g a to Z □ 4s 2 fae\ 2 Pe 1 - Res oe 3 : , ot i 5 4f/: 23 □□□ ng epee 3 . 2 oO Oo Ss = 3 28 . ga° 88) ( \ gee □ eS P. ta 33 Bue & 4 4 ' BG : gS S'S! lo NS ge i — hry 1 > rt □□ = 5 : og > ot 3 □□ 5 1 oO □□ Ww □□ ! ao wa o Q a < & gt Fe pen \ ! : fe + wa 36 Go eR 128) □ □ o oO Bag 2 = cee eae ! oes □ | ! S86 rt | . g □□ eehge ! 4 □ i □ : □□ e ea 5 ey o oO 2 Ee C □ □□ Bie B 2.0 a2 9 A □ □ a“ Ssei = □□ cae] 3) □□ rt Pe □□□ □□ □□ Sa □□ @ & & ae □□ a eoGl □□ |B: BBS oes □ 2. □□ a Be S| □□ a AGE) □□ □□ ies = 5 He RoW D fe nL □ A 8S. PL □ am © ks Ces il Pu ee ° 8 □□ □ Bose iA mm re o wn BS p > oe a SS PRRs Fee woo PBST ERS □ Ble a. Bow? & : eB A oO g SB, B15 8 Ao seedage BEE fu BR ort ag eB : go2e apo. 385g □ : oe BS □□ Boog fe oS BEB □ FASS ee ee 3 au zesReen e □ 32 F@ genes So ns begs 28 > Se 2 = 2 eget Zi

#B8E =

ot BoE “2 = oO w og aS 8 Z Zee eB pg od ty SURE EROEE ae Spgs: OfgS □□□ Qo rs "o'U pegs Goo Kg 8 Gta □ Taka eat 8 rete =o w se □ HU ee Bere cbse bees: BEDE ES BE ively □ ge □□ wm ny . Ww @ ‘< Uo □ . wt = Cae BREE □ Oo ns o Seo

a 25 ee □□ Gy ao ef a pagegeS & tH □ wg 4 "a 5 BS. eGo 39 SERBS SE << eBES Sxed 5 □□ □□ SP ty ow SEGRE RES BBS □ geese om Soest Q □□ & 9,70 Seog “AB 4 Ae a □ Han □□ Tne □ — ot Bohs 250828 85 oO □□ Sy Une p8es a) fe gf HEPES oO oa. CS “ □ 8 7° 9 aq gms □□ □□ □□ FS 8 & PSE S68 □ □□ 5 FEE5 5 □ ape oh om oe PE Seg o. Bog R a Bs 8 OC mg □□ os o” geeeeee □□ Rao8 gee awe ZEEE □□ “RERSES □□ geese ag Q. se □□ □ 2 & 3 go +4 = □□ og =p eh een = 60 ES a. 8 □ Fe FF □□ nm PoE eB = EEeee es & 8&8 @ 5 5 peas □□ mo A 5 gaa ES Zgees oe SEB eS aes □ Hg Sas 8 a woe eke □□ ian □ A a ag So 8 ey cBDE SEES = B GB ag 8 □□□ Sere eee Bass Be po 233 2 ms 9 30 eee eeeegs oF 35 gm & 2 Sf SEAR > ok a a. Se ES oO. o 8 Bo BOR OA of y Sa □□ BB □□ Peedg SEUhy EB BBB Oa ot QB a & = ee PSS a. 3 Ag 4 BG & pipeityepae 2g peser tees oli ol dgke cere i oO + So Ta oct Eee. a eos Ono B EB ac eUrehtEhe) Te dasd peas OE = 3 8 "ys 3 wi ; plgeecouet ew SB Bag 2 FREE aS Bee Z mg BB AG E2988 aS Bo aes © = 0 eee “AO Bo 8B. Qs os 8 a Pes B

P5825 □ big] Be 5 □□ BeBe . □ 8 B29 & ° wa 8 et oe Prean □ dee □ a □ B2e4 "Ss □□ SEG 2 3 g mS mo ee § we HE | @ 2 5g 5 py pPER oasis 8 □□ feel □□ Hein □ ea □□ Hate □□ ey □□ qn “5S □□ vei □□ a Phe sag □ □ teal 35 ually □□ a8 Sg & = OB BS e 8 Se ge Ru □ □□ (go a os wp "ch □□ Hea □□ bra wn co aan ES BBS g ge bees > □□ He FG □ “hos BR ae3 a2 8, © Bae □□ a8 moe Bo 8 = DBPeE Pees = Z ou ° ae Be 5 "9 aaa □□ a □□ □ i Hens □□ EE □□ uy 28 a B85 □ ag a □□ ee 4 □ Ae rt Baa 2 BE SEES □ p88 BS BEE DEEP ee: 5 a □□□ □ Rg i zB |S. bt @ □ Gg wy □□ □ Bok EBEog3 ery bias ae □□□ ede <. gS oe @ Bog eg EES a ae reese ‘oO a. ae oe : = 9 5 +|ta wo Peer Ba 8 G o a □□ 3 ae Peep 6 oe peead rERES □ GS 5 any g @ § El ans THE ns 4 8g Bee B's 3 8 Og 5 eS = Bo 22 <3 Sp, BB wm ae Ss □ a2 8 ta Be of ay □ "eee □□□ a8 nue o pt nse hy 28g □□□ Yea a . Fy BBs Pees ae EB i Co a Re 5 5 5 & a Bo

gE BS tA Pees EE □□ Zz es BEEP ESS 8 eee os a. be 5 “oO ry ‘Ee 5 2 g = SEOs goo BY aM gS 8 G23 38 oOo 4 oe □ Peerebapyical BREE □ = ss 8 Seg 38'S pasos a PELEESELE TeRoss fa @ gos 88 □□ > geskks □ = She Oo eho SOGCER SEE BREE □□ □□□□ ° or oh Oo @ Aa pgoe meen Be On es 78 Bt we ofthe □□ mh ch S72 5 Eg << o A Py 5 Q 5 BEE Ck Ee: Poe agers s Bo “3 © 3 a. o B 5 aa ao S © oA, wn □ Qo, Q. ut wo o> RQ ny og? Hee Z eae SEGRE S □□□ ebeed: □□ gege □ fy be 5 Sa Fr 9a ‘io. oO 6.5 hom 4, 4 Pe @e SESS ERGE 2°35 -og riod □ by SERRESEE st Ame 2 a □□ BS SEEGER PEs = Bas “@E5 bo 2 8. . Boos 3 PE we o o° RS □ ogg go 38 e588 o's ot Bs 2 a 2 8 . we Sg Bo & Am fa. Bo a . + 63 op re Babess ‘ggg Bo go mE ES 2 (38283 Fy “Fy EF Gh. ¢ a □□ gerne SP EaEE ogecas □ 8 B “eee ¢ =o 2 oS □□ □□ 2 Bg & a 7 re Boog HG BOreBE B's 23% □ at OB. 3 = a O ga Ao eg 229 5 58 Pg8ags by Ges “OR Sa saowe “Se “< □□ eB Bot ug age SALW © os 2 Be. @ A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Thiam
934 F.3d 89 (Second Circuit, 2019)