This is the last production from my first FOIA request, before the IRS must begin working on my far more comprehensive second request, which the court ordered the IRS to produce after I successfully sued the IRS for its failure to do so. Though brief, it supplied some very important new information.
First, I learned for the first time of the existence of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OCIF and IRS-CI regarding my bank. This is more evidence that the two agencies worked together on the shutdown of my bank, contrary to the claims of both IRS-CI Chief Jim Lee and OCIF Commissioner Natalia Zaqueria that OCIF did its work completely independently of the IRS.
Second, this production provides the answer to key questions that were previously redacted. On the morning of the OCIF press conference to shut down my bank, Jim Lee asked some questions to help prepare for the conference. The questions themselves reveal that, prior to speaking at the conference, Jim Lee actually thought the bank was being shut down for tax evasion and money laundering. He did not realize the whole thing was just a publicy stunt and that the bank was being framed. As a result, he wanted to know what was happening to the owners of the bank, and he wanted two examples of what the bank did to help its clients evade taxes and launder money.
But of the seven questions asked, there are the only two that were not answered. The reason is clear. Had Gary Shapley informed Jim Lee that nothing was happening to the owner of the bank because the owner did nothing wrong, it would fly in the face of the false impression Lee was given about the bank’s illegal activity. Also, Shapley could not give Lee any examples of how the bank helped customers launder money or evade taxes, as the bank was innocent of those crimes. Lee did not know that yet, which is why he asked for the examples.
Third, I received more information that OCIF was motivated to shut down my bank not because the bank deserved to be shut down, or because doing so would put an end to any illegal activity, but because of the positive publicity OCIF expected to receive as a result of the action. OCIF and the Governor of Puerto Rico expected that shutting down the bank would prove to the world that Puerto Rico would not be a haven for tax evasion and money laundering. But the only way to achieve this objective was to allow the IRS to frame the public narrative to pretend the bank was actually facilitating tax evasion and money laundering, even though OCIF knew for a fact that it was doing neither.