mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012921.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "170",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 261 1331\nLC6Cmax5 McHugh - cross\n1 A. They would have to be authorized.\n2 Q. So someone running the family office would have to be authorized to use those accounts; correct?\n3\n4 MS. MOE: Objection.\n5 THE COURT: Overruled.\n6 Q. I'll ask the question again.\n7\n8 Someone who is running the family office would have to be authorized to use the accounts that he or she was controlling; right?\n9\n10 A. In that instance, yes.\n11 Q. And so they could be authorized by being given signatory authority over those accounts; right?\n12\n13 A. Can you be more specific, what the operating document would be.\n14\n15 Q. Let's take one of the money market accounts, for example.\n16 You could give somebody signing authority over that account that's not yourself, and that person can sign checks or do transactions on that account -- that person would have that authority to do that without you approving it?\n17\n18\n19\n20 MS. MOE: Objection.\n21 THE COURT: Sustained.\n22 Q. Let me try to rephrase that, and let's keep it simple with the checking account, a simple checking account.\n23\n24 If I have a checking account and I write a check, I can do that because I have signatory authority over that\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012921",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 261 1331",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC6Cmax5 McHugh - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. They would have to be authorized.\n2 Q. So someone running the family office would have to be authorized to use those accounts; correct?\n3\n4 MS. MOE: Objection.\n5 THE COURT: Overruled.\n6 Q. I'll ask the question again.\n7\n8 Someone who is running the family office would have to be authorized to use the accounts that he or she was controlling; right?\n9\n10 A. In that instance, yes.\n11 Q. And so they could be authorized by being given signatory authority over those accounts; right?\n12\n13 A. Can you be more specific, what the operating document would be.\n14\n15 Q. Let's take one of the money market accounts, for example.\n16 You could give somebody signing authority over that account that's not yourself, and that person can sign checks or do transactions on that account -- that person would have that authority to do that without you approving it?\n17\n18\n19\n20 MS. MOE: Objection.\n21 THE COURT: Sustained.\n22 Q. Let me try to rephrase that, and let's keep it simple with the checking account, a simple checking account.\n23\n24 If I have a checking account and I write a check, I can do that because I have signatory authority over that",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012921",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012921"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}