Evidence Exhibits For Uranium One and Mark Lambert Uranium One Trial 159-Pages Filed April 26th 2019

Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 63-1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 159
EXHIBIT 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. TDC-18-0012
)
MARK T. LAMBERT, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT MARK LAMBERT’S

MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER COMPELLING THE GOVERNMENT
TO PRODUCE CERTAIN RULE 16 AND BRADY EVIDENCE
Defendant Mark Lambert, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this
Court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 as well as Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its
progeny, to schedule an oral hearing on this motion and issue an Order compelling the
government to produce certain Rule 16 and Brady evidence, as set forth in further detail in the
accompanying memorandum of law.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: April 15, 2019 /s/ William M. Sullivan, Jr.

William M. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. (No. 17082)
Thomas C. Hill, Esq. (No. 05703)
Fabio Leonardi, Esq. (No. 07206)
1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 663-8027
Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
wsullivan@pillsburylaw.com
thomas.hill@pillsburylaw.com
fabio.leonardi@pillsburylaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Mark Lambert


)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. TDC-18-0012
)
MARK T. LAMBERT, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT MARK LAMBERT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER COMPELLING THE
GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN RULE 16 AND BRADY EVIDENCE
Defendant Mark Lambert, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this
Court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 as well as Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its
progeny, to schedule an oral hearing on this motion and issue an Order compelling the
government to produce certain Rule 16 and Brady evidence, as further set forth herein.
Principally, Mr. Lambert seeks documents, including video and audio recordings, related to (1)
alleged co-conspirator Rodney Fisk, the initial co-conspirator with Vadim Mikerin, who
subsequently is alleged to have recruited Mr. Lambert into the conspiracy and who has just been
identified by the prosecution as a secret FBI operative, and (2) alleged co-conspirator Mr.
Mikerin, the purported recipient of illicit payments. Additionally, Mr. Lambert seeks the
underlying FBI 302s, interview memoranda, interview notes or other original source materials
reflecting statements of any witnesses disclosed to Mr. Lambert, including those identified as
having “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment” evidence, as well as the interview notes
reflecting Mr. Lambert’s own statements made to law enforcement.
The government has refused to provide all of these specifically requested materials.
2
BACKGROUND
This case initially stems from a joint Department of Energy Office of Inspector General
and FBI counterintelligence investigation dating back, at least, to 2009. See Criminal Complaint
¶ 13, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-00529-TDC (ECF No. 8) (attached as Exhibit 1);
Transcript of Motion Proceedings Before the Honorable Theodore D. Chuang United States
District Judge at 5, ¶¶ 16-21, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-00529-TDC (ECF No. 58)
(attached as Exhibit 2) (“Mikerin Motion Transcript”); Complaint of William Douglas Campbell,
William Douglas Campbell et. al. v. Vadim Mikerin et. al., 1:16-cv-01888-MJG (ECF No. 1)
(attached as Exhibit 3). Over the past decade, this investigation has seen the government
covertly recruit confidential informants in what appears to be an attempt to entangle a Russian
businessman living in the United States, Mr. Mikerin, into an illicit payment scheme, and then to
leverage his precarious legal position to compel him to provide intelligence about certain high-
ranking Russian government officials. See, e.g., Motion to Recall Arrest Warrant Against Vadim
Mikerin, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-00529-TDC (ECF No. 4) (attached as Exhibit
4).
With regard to Mr. Lambert’s case, the government generally alleges that Mr. Mikerin
solicited and accepted illicit payments from Transport Logistics International, Inc. (“TLI”) in
exchange for assistance in obtaining contracts for the transportation of enriched uranium. See
Superseding Indictment, United States v. Mark T. Lambert, 8:18-cr-00012-TDC (ECF No. 58)
(attached as Exhibit 5). Remarkably, Mr. Lambert has now been told for the first time, based on
a brand new government disclosure to Mr. Lambert’s counsel at the very end of March 2019, that
Mr. Fisk, the president of TLI who, along with Mr. Mikerin, allegedly initiated the unlawful
payment scheme, at that very time was a secret government operative working for, and being
3
paid by, the FBI. See March 29, 2019 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 6). And all of this was apparently unfolding while a second secret government operative
and paid FBI source, William Campbell, was directly involved in making purportedly illegal
payments to Mr. Mikerin at the direction of the FBI, and was reporting back to the FBI about the
payment scheme. See, e.g., Superseding Indictment; Campbell Civil Complaint.
I. Alleged Conspiracy
Mr. Mikerin is a Russian national formerly employed with JSC Techsnabexport
(“Tenex”), a Russian company. See Superseding Indictment at 3, ¶ 7. In or about 2010 or 2011,
Mr. Mikerin moved to the United States to serve as the president of Tenam Corporation, a
Maryland company. According to the government, Mr. Mikerin initially conspired with Mr.
Fisk, the owner and president of TLI, to promote an illicit payment scheme. Years later, upon
Mr. Fisk’s subsequent departure from TLI in 2009, the illegal payment scheme with Mr. Mikerin
is alleged to have continued with Daren Condrey, TLI’s co-president, defendant Mr. Lambert,
TLI’s other co-president, and third-party consultant Boris Rubizhevsky. See id. at 4, ¶ 12; Plea
Agreement of Vadim Mikerin, Attachment A at 10-13, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-
00529-TDC (ECF Nos. 103 and 103-1) (attached as Exhibit 7); Plea Agreement of Daren
Condrey, Attachment A at 9-11, United States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336-TDC (ECF
Nos. 22 and 22-1) (attached as Exhibit 8); Plea Agreement of Boris Rubizhevsky, Attachment A
at 9-10, United States v. Boris Rubizhevsky, 8:15-cr-00332-TDC (ECF Nos. 26 and 26-1)
(attached as Exhibit 9). In particular, the government alleges that it was Mr. Fisk who eventually
recruited Mr. Condrey and Mr. Lambert into the payment scheme, which allegedly continued
after Mr. Fisk’s death in 2011. See Superseding Indictment at 5, ¶ 16.
4
Moreover, according to the government, an additional participant in Mr. Mikerin’s
alleged conspiracy was Mr. Campbell, an FBI confidential informant who, while making
allegedly illegal payments to Mr. Mikerin, was secretly working for the FBI and reporting back
about Mr. Mikerin’s illicit payment schemes. See id.; Mikerin Criminal Complaint at 4, ¶ 13.
And yet, two weeks ago, the government informed Mr. Lambert that Mr. Fisk too was a secret
FBI operative during the very time Mr. Fisk is now alleged to have been conspiring with Mr.
Lambert, among others. See March 29, 2019 DOJ Letter at 3. Of course, like Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Fisk was presumably reporting back to his FBI handlers while allegedly making illegal payments
to Mr. Mikerin.
It also appears that Mr. Fisk’s status as an FBI informant has been known to the
prosecution since at least April 2015 (if not years earlier), but the prosecution chose not to
disclose Mr. Fisk’s FBI role to the defense until two weeks ago, after Mr. Lambert’s unopposed
request for a continuance of the original trial date, and has declined to identify the FBI agents
with knowledge of, or documents or recordings reflecting, any of Mr. Fisk’s activities on behalf
of the FBI. See id.; Mikerin Motion Transcript at 32, ¶¶ 9-14; April 1, 2019 Email from the U.S.
Department of Justice (attached as Exhibit 10).
II. Charges
In the summer of 2014, the government filed an 11-page affidavit of Energy Department
OIG Special Agent David Gadren in support of an application for a criminal complaint charging
Mr. Mikerin with one count of Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence under 18
U.S.C. section 1951, i.e., extortion. See Mikerin Criminal Complaint. About a year later, Mr.
Mikerin pled guilty before this Court to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
under 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Mikerin Plea Agreement.
5
In the fall of 2014, the government also filed a 21-page affidavit of Energy Department
Special Agent Gadren in support of a request for a criminal complaint charging Mr. Lambert,
Mr. Condrey, Carol Condrey (Mr. Condrey’s wife) and Mr. Rubizhevsky with one count of
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and seeking their arrest. See
Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint, United States v. Daren Condrey, Carol Condrey,
Mark Lambert and Boris Rubizhevsky, 8:15-cr-00032-TDC (ECF No. 4) (attached as Exhibit 11);
Criminal Complaint, United States v. Carol Condrey, 8:14-mj-02424-CBD (ECF No. 1)
(attached as Exhibit 12); Criminal Complaint, United States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336-
TDC (ECF No. 1) (attached as Exhibit 13); Criminal Complaint, United States v. Boris
Rubizhevsky, 8:15-cr-00332-TDC (ECF No. 1) (attached as Exhibit 13). In a rarely seen turn of
events, however, Magistrate Judge Charles Day exercised his informed independent judgment
and refused to grant the government’s request for a criminal complaint and arrest warrant against
Mr. Lambert, as he found that no probable cause was established to believe that Mr. Lambert had
engaged in the charged crime. Armed with the remaining arrest warrants, FBI agents arrested
Mr. and Mrs. Condrey. As part of the FBI raid, government agents also searched TLI’s offices
in Fulton, Maryland, where they obtained assistance from, and interrogated, Mr. Lambert. Intent
on cooperating with the FBI, Mr. Lambert responded to the agent’s questioning by providing
statements which were later summarized in an FBI 302. Mr. Lambert also consented to the
government’s search of TLI email accounts, and directed the agents to Mr. Condrey’s files. See
February 2, 2018 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, at 6 (attached as Exhibit 14).
In June 2015, following months of negotiations between the government and counsel for
both Mr. Condrey and Mrs. Condrey –and after the government had dropped all charges against
his wife– Mr. Condrey pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Violate the Foreign Corrupt
6
Practices Act (“FCPA”) and to Commit Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Daren Condrey
Plea Agreement; Order Granting Continuance of Daren Condrey’s Preliminary Hearing, United
States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336 (ECF No. 10) (attached as Exhibit 15); Second Consent
Motion for Continuance of Daren Condrey’s Preliminary Hearing, United States v. Daren
Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336 (ECF No. 11) (attached as Exhibit 16); Third Consent Motion for
Continuance of Daren Condrey’s Preliminary Hearing, United States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-
00336 (ECF No. 13) (attached as Exhibit 17); Fourth Consent Motion for Continuance of Daren
Condrey’s Preliminary Hearing, United States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336 (ECF No. 16)
(attached as Exhibit 18); Second Consent Motion for Continuance of Carol Condrey’s
Preliminary Hearing, United States v. Carol Condrey, 8:14-mj-02424-CBD (ECF No. 10)
(attached as Exhibit 19). The charges against Mrs. Condrey were dismissed. See Order for
Dismissal, United States v. Carol Condrey, 8:14-mj-02424-CBD (ECF No. 12) (attached as
Exhibit 20). However, according to both Mr. Condrey’s plea agreement, and the lack of any
government disclosure to Mr. Lambert providing otherwise, no representations, express or
implied, were ever made to Mr. Condrey concerning the status of his wife’s case. See Condrey
Plea Agreement. The government has represented to Mr. Lambert that Mr. Condrey will be
testifying at trial as a cooperating witness.
Over three years later, and at least nine years after the investigation began, the
government sought a grand jury indictment charging Mr. Lambert. On January 10, 2018, Mr.
Lambert was indicted in an eleven-count indictment charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 371 with
Conspiracy to Violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) and to Commit Wire
Fraud (Count One), under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2 with Violation[s] of the FCPA (Counts Two
through Eight), under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 with Wire Fraud (Counts Nine and Ten), and under 18
7
U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), with Money Laundering (Count Eleven). See Indictment, United States
v. Mark T. Lambert, 8:18-cr-00012-TDC (ECF No. 1) (attached as Exhibit 21). A superseding
indictment was also filed with the Court just about two weeks ago – over a year after the
government indicted Mr. Lambert, shortly after Mr. Lambert’s unopposed request for a trial
continuance, and less than three months from the current trial date.
III. Withheld Discovery
A. Mr. Fisk’s Secret Role as a Government Operative
As the Court knows, Mr. Fisk died in 2011. However, the government “unambiguously”
represented to the Court that Mr. Fisk too “would have been charged” along with Mr. Lambert
“were he still alive . . . .” Mikerin Motion Transcript at 10, ¶¶ 14-16.
In addition, by April 2015, at the latest, the prosecution learned that Mr. Fisk had been a
secret government and FBI operative at the time he purportedly recruited Mr. Lambert into the
payment scheme and allegedly made the illicit payments that are at issue in this case. In fact,
when asked by Mr. Mikerin’s counsel whether Mr. Fisk was a confidential FBI source, Energy
Department Special Agent Gadren testified that while “I don’t know for certain. I believe he
might have been . . . .” Id. at 32, ¶¶ 9-13 (emphasis added). Although the prosecution had been
on notice for, at least, almost four years that Mr. Fisk likely had been a secret government
operative, it failed to disclose this information to Mr. Lambert until March 26, 2019 – over 14
months after Mr. Lambert was indicted and barely one month before trial was then scheduled to
begin. 1 The prosecution also limited its subsequent written March 29, 2019 disclosure to a brief
single sentence generally merely repeating that Mr. Fisk had served as a government asset
1
At the time of the disclosure to the defense on March 26, 2019, trial was scheduled to
commence on April 30, 2019.
8
between 2006 and 2011. See March 29, 2019 DOJ Letter. That statement, of course, has no
evidentiary value.
Mr. Lambert’s counsel immediately asked for both the identity of the FBI agents
responsible for the FBI’s relationship with Mr. Fisk, and all documents and recordings relating to
such relationship. The government responded that it would not disclose any of the requested
materials. See April 1, 2019 DOJ Email. Despite Mr. Lambert ’s requests for all Rule 16 and
Brady materials regarding Mr. Fisk’s role as a confidential government asset, to this date, the
government has declined to produce either the identities of the relevant FBI agents or any
documents or recordings.
B. Audio and Video Recordings of Vadim Mikerin
While the government did provide Mr. Lambert with a video recording of Mr. Mikerin’s
complete FBI interview, as well as audio recordings of his jail calls and his phone’s pen trap and
trace records, along with many of Mr. Mikerin’s emails and financial information relating to his
allegedly illegal payment scheme, it has failed to produce any audio or video recordings of these
illicit payments, including payments exchanged in a hotel room and during other meetings
confirmed by the government. See Transcript of Vadim Mikerin’s Detention Hearing Before the
Honorable Judge William Connelly at 17, ¶¶ 5-24, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-
00529-TDC (ECF No. 13) (attached as Exhibit 22); see Campbell Civil Complaint at 49.
Additionally, the government has failed to produce any recordings of telephone or in-person
communications between Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Fisk’s widow, Deborah Payne, in furtherance of
the alleged specifically charged conspiracy regarding these allegedly illegal payments. Mr.
Lambert’s counsel has requested these specified materials in multiple communications to the
government demanding production of all Rule 16 and Brady material, including in three letters
9
specifically requesting audio or video recordings relating to improper or illicit payments or
requests for payments by and to Mr. Mikerin, Tenex, Tenam and/or any individuals associated
with them. February 19, 2019 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 23); March 6, 2019 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 24); April 2, 2019 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 25).
C. Source Documents and Materials Regarding Witness Statements That the

Prosecution Disclosed to Mr. Lambert, Including Those Identified as
“Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment Material”
In the year that followed Mr. Lambert’s indictment, the government produced certain
discovery to Mr. Lambert, including short summaries of almost two dozen witness interviews.
See February 2, 2018 DOJ Letter; January 7, 2019 Letter of the U.S. Department of Justice
(attached as Exhibit 26); March 13, 2019 Letter of the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 27). In particular, these disclosures include succinct government-created summaries of
statements of numerous alleged co-conspirators or associated individuals, including Mr.
Condrey, an alleged co-conspirator and the government’s main cooperating witness, Mrs.
Condrey, whom the government previously charged and believed was a co-conspirator, Mr.
Mikerin, the Russian co-conspirator purported to be at the center of the alleged scheme, Mr.
Campbell, the secret government operative, Deborah Payne, the wife of alleged co-conspirator
and secret government asset Mr. Fisk, Mr. Rubizhevsky, an alleged co-conspirator, and other
TLI employees with knowledge about the allegedly improper payments. 2 While the government
itself disclosed that at least 17 of these witnesses made statements consisting of “Potential Brady,
2
The summaries further include statements by current and former TLI employees, current and
former TENAM employees, government agents and other third parties involved in the facts at
issue.
10
Giglio or Impeachment Material,” it failed to provide Mr. Lambert with the actual FBI 302s,
notes, memoranda or other original source materials which the government had relied upon to
produce its succinct summaries. February 2, 2018 DOJ Letter. Additionally, while the
government did provide, pursuant to Rule 16, a copy of the FBI 302 containing Mr. Lambert’s
statements to the government, it failed to produce the actual government notes of the FBI’s
interview of Mr. Lambert, which had occurred the day before the government agent the FBI 302
summary.
Mr. Lambert’s counsel had specifically requested these and “all . . . [FBI] 302 and
interview memoranda” on two occasions back in 2016, before Mr. Lambert was even indicted,
and after Mr. Lambert’s counsel had made a comprehensive declination presentation to the
Government. See July 20, 2016 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 28); July 25, 2016 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as
Exhibit 29). Mr. Lambert’s counsel had further reiterated his specific request for these source
materials shortly after Mr. Lambert was indicted and before the government made its initial
discovery production. See January 17, 2018 Email of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of Justice
(attached as Exhibit 30). Mr. Lambert’s counsel continued to request production of all Rule 16
and Brady materials again on July 18, 2018, September 9, 2018, October 3, 2018, March 6, 2019,
and most recently on April 2, 2019. See July 18, 2018 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department
of Justice (attached as Exhibit 31); September 6, 2018 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department
of Justice (attached as Exhibit 32); October 3, 2018 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of
Justice (attached as Exhibit 33); March 6, 2019 Letter of Pillsbury to the U.S. Department of
Justice (attached as Exhibit 34); April 2, 2019 Pillsbury Letter. To this date, however, with the
sole exception of the FBI 302 of Mr. Lambert’s interview, the government has not provided any
11
FBI 302s, interview notes or interview memoranda regarding these witness statements, including
those identified as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment Material.”
ARGUMENT
Mr. Condrey, Mrs. Condrey, Mr. Mikerin and secret government assets Mr. Fisk and Mr.
Campbell are at the core of the government’s alleged payment scheme relating to Mr. Lambert.
Mr. Condrey, Mrs. Condrey, Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Fisk have all at one time been charged as Mr.
Lambert’s co-conspirators. Mr. Fisk, who Mr. Lambert just learned from the government was
one of the government’s own secret operatives, was also the same individual who allegedly
recruited Mr. Lambert and Mr. Condrey into the illicit scheme at the same time he was working
for the FBI. And both secret government operatives, Mr. Fisk and Mr. Campbell, are alleged to
have been involved in making payments to Mr. Mikerin. Nonetheless, the government has
declined to produce any Rule 16 and Brady materials about Mr. Fisk’s role as a secret
government asset during the time he is alleged to have been part of the charged conspiracy, and
has declined even to identify the agents with knowledge of the relationship between the FBI and
Mr. Fisk. Further, the government has refused to produce Rule 16 and Brady materials in the
form of recordings relating to allegedly illicit payments made or received by these and other
individuals. Finally, the government has refused to provide Rule 16 as well as Brady source
materials regarding the witnesses it disclosed to Mr. Lambert’s counsel, including those it
identified as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment” witnesses, as well as the interview
notes of Mr. Lambert’s statements to the government. The government’s failure to produce these
records, despite Mr. Lambert’s multiple requests, violates the government’s disclosure
obligations under Rule 16 and Brady. Accordingly, the Court should compel the government to
promptly produce these materials to Mr. Lambert.
12
I. Rule 16 and Brady Compel the Production of Evidence
Rules 16(a)(1)(A) and (B) require the government to disclose to the defendant the
substance of any relevant oral statements made by the defendant in response to interrogation by a
government agent, as well as the portion of any written record containing the substance of any
such statements. Additionally, Rule 16(a)(1)(E) requires the government to permit a defendant
to inspect documents “if the item is within the government’s possession, custody or control and .
. . the item is material to preparing the defense.” For a defendant to show that an item is
“material” under Rule 16, “[t]here must be some indication that the pretrial disclosure of the
disputed evidence would have enabled the defendant significantly to alter the quantum of proof
in his favor.” United States v. Ross, 511 F.2d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S.
836. “[E]vidence is material as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important
role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or
assisting impeachment or rebuttal.” United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 621 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348, 351 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). When a party fails to meet
their Rule 16 discovery obligations “the court may: (A) order that party to permit discovery or
inspection.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(A).
Similarly, Brady and its progeny require the government to disclose favorable evidence
to the accused where such evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). A Brady violation entails three showings: (1) the information
not disclosed must be “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory . . . or . . .
impeaching,” (2) the information must have been suppressed or withheld by the prosecution, and
(3) the information must be “material” to guilt or punishment. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263,
281-282 (1999). Favorable evidence includes not only evidence that tends to exculpate the
13
accused, but also evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a government witness. See
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972); Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 (2012).
Evidence is material where “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been
disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); see Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-470 (2009). A
“‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). The failure to disclose material favorable
evidence violates due process “irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution,”
Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, and without regard to whether the evidence was actually known to the
individual prosecutor, or merely to “others acting on the government’s behalf in the case . . . .”
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).
II. The Government’s Failure to Produce Discovery Materials Regarding Mr. Fisk’s
Role as a Secret Government Operative Violates Rule 16 and Brady
Information and records regarding Mr. Fisk’s recently revealed role as a covert
government asset are relevant to Mr. Lambert’s defense and need to be immediately disclosed to
Mr. Lambert pursuant to Rule 16 and Brady.
There is no doubt that information and records regarding Mr. Fisk’s role as a secret
government operative are material to Mr. Lambert’s defense. First, Mr. Fisk is alleged to be Mr.
Lambert’s co-conspirator in the charged illegal payment scheme. Second, Mr. Lambert has now
been told that Mr. Fisk was working as a secret government asset during the exact same time he
allegedly made the very same illicit payments to Mr. Mikerin that are at issue in this case. Third,
Mr. Fisk was still serving as a covert FBI operative when he expanded the scheme to Mr.
Lambert and allegedly recruited him into the illicit payment scheme. And fourth, Mr. Fisk was
supposedly engaged in these activities at the exact same time that Mr. Campbell, the FBI’s other
14
secret operative, was also allegedly making illicit payments to Mr. Mikerin and reporting about
this same payment scheme back to the FBI. Accordingly, materials regarding Mr. Fisk’s role as
a secret government operative will be corroborative of Mr. Lambert’s defenses, and will be used
by Mr. Lambert in uncovering information to identify potential witnesses, support defense
witnesses’ testimony and assist Mr. Lambert in impeaching government witnesses at trial. See
Caro, 597 F.3d at 621.
By its own belated disclosure, the prosecution understood the significance of the fact that
Mr. Lambert’s alleged main co-conspirator was secretly working for the government at the same
time he is alleged to have engaged in the very criminal acts that are at issue in this case,
including recruiting Mr. Lambert to join the conspiracy. Why else would it have finally
disclosed the information to Mr. Lambert? For over a year, the government concealed that
information –which should have been disclosed as soon as Mr. Lambert was indicted– ultimately
choosing to provide a summary disclosure one month before the scheduled trial date. That
disclosure, however, is virtually useless to Mr. Lambert for purposes of trial because the
government has refused to produce anything of evidentiary value, including the identity of the
FBI agents responsible for the relationship between the FBI and Mr. Fisk, or any of the
documents or recordings relating to Mr. Fisk’s work as an FBI source.
Of course, if Mr. Fisk were still alive, he would know the identity of the FBI or other
government agents with whom he communicated or had a relationship while serving as a secret
government asset, as well the content of any such communications and the nature of any relevant
materials. But Mr. Fisk is dead. Thus, because Mr. Fisk is unavailable, discovery of information
and materials regarding Mr. Fisk’s role as a covert government operative and the true focus of
the FBI investigation is clearly necessary for Mr. Lambert to pursue and investigate the
15
information recently disclosed by the government. For instance, Mr. Lambert would use these
records and information to learn the nature and extent of any communications between Mr. Fisk
and FBI or other government agents, as well as of any documents reflecting, among other things,
any directions or instructions that Mr. Fisk may have received from the FBI or other government
agencies. At the very bare minimum, Mr. Lambert is entitled to learn the identity of the FBI or
other government agents with whom Mr. Fisk communicated and had a relationship while
serving as a covert government asset. Without the identity of the FBI agents and the documents
reflecting the FBI’s relationship with Mr. Fisk, Mr. Lambert has no ability to pursue this line of
defense, and the jury cannot properly assess Mr. Fisk’s role and credibility or the credibility of
the FBI investigation. These are the very same materials and information that the government
would have produced in discovery if Mr. Fisk were still alive and had been charged, as the
government assured the Court it would have done had Mr. Fisk lived.
Thus, the government’s failure to produce materials regarding Mr. Fisk’s role as a secret
government operative violates the government’s discovery obligations under Rule 16 and Brady.
The government cannot satisfy these obligations by sitting on the information and then making a
last-minute disclosure of no evidentiary value. Accordingly, the Court should compel the
government to promptly provide these materials to Mr. Lambert.
III. The Government’s Failure to Produce Mr. Mikerin’s Audio or Video Recordings
Violates Rule 16 and Brady
Recordings of illicit payments, or requests for payments, by and to Mr. Mikerin, Tenex,
Tenam or any individuals associated with them consist of Rule 16 and Brady material. Thus, the
government’s failure to produce audio or video recordings regarding these payments violates the
government’s disclosure obligations under Rule 16 as well as Brady and its progeny.
16
According to the government, Mr. Lambert allegedly conspired with Mr. Condrey, Mr.
Fisk and Mr. Mikerin to make illicit payments to Mr. Mikerin so that he would use his influence
to assist TLI in securing business with Tenex. Thus, recordings of, or about, illicit payments
requested by, or made to, Mr. Mikerin are central to the alleged criminal scheme and material to
Mr. Lambert’s defense. Similarly, any recordings about requests for, or payments to, Tenex,
Tenam or any associated individuals go to the core of the government’s allegations about Mr.
Mikerin’s improprieties at Tenex, and are therefore material to Mr. Lambert’s defense. This is
even more so when alleged payments were made by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Fisk, the
government’s own secret operatives, to further the illicit scheme that the government relied upon
in its attempt to “flip” Mr. Mikerin. Most significantly, communications relating to illicit
payments between Mr. Mikerin and Mrs. Payne, the widow of the FBI operative and co-
conspirator who supposedly recruited Mr. Lambert into the alleged scheme (and any recordings
of these communications), are central to the government’s allegations that Mr. Lambert
conspired with Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Fisk, and are material to Mr. Lambert’s defense. These
recordings would assist Mr. Lambert in identifying any other individuals who may have
witnessed, or had knowledge of, payments to or from Mr. Mikerin, and in providing potentially
exculpatory information regarding the legitimate reason for the payments, or about Mr.
Lambert’s lack of involvement and knowledge in making them. Additionally, recordings may
well be corroborative of defense witnesses’ testimony. These recordings would also provide
potential impeachment material.
In sum, as outlined above, there are numerous and various ways in which Mr. Lambert
could make good use of the information included in these video and audio recordings about
matters directly related to the charged conspiracy. Names, statements and identities of the
17
individuals present during the allegedly illegal payments may open a myriad of doors to bolster
Mr. Lambert’s defense arguments and attack the government’s theory. There is simply no good
reason why the government should not be compelled to turn over to Mr. Lambert all the
materials it possesses relating to Mr. Mikerin and the very illegal scheme of which he pled guilty
and in which Mr. Lambert is now alleged to have participated.
Recordings of allegedly illicit payments, or requests for payments, by and to Mr.
Mikerin, Tenex, Tenam or any individuals associated with them are certainly material to the
allegations in the indictment and material to Mr. Lambert’s defense. For example, recordings of
Mr. Mikerin’s conversations with Mrs. Payne about allegedly illicit payments made by her secret
FBI source husband would be material and particularly favorable to Mr. Lambert because they
would provide documentary evidence to corroborate potential testimony by defense witnesses.
Mr. Lambert is prepared to explain to the Court in further detail, on an ex parte basis, how these
recordings are exculpatory and material to Mr. Lambert’s defense.
Thus, the government’s failure to produce audio and video recordings of illicit payments,
or requests for payments, by and to Mr. Mikerin, Tenex, Tenam or any associated individuals
violates Rule 16 and Brady. Accordingly, the Court should compel the government to promptly
provide these materials to Mr. Lambert.
IV. The Government’s Failure to Produce FBI 302s, Interview Memoranda and
Interview Notes Reflecting Witness Statements Violates Rule 16 and Brady
The vast majority of the cursory statements that the government disclosed to Mr. Lambert
were identified by the government as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment.” 3 The
3
Presumably, the government would have also identified all of the witness statements that it
subsequently chose to disclose to Mr. Lambert as “potentially Brady, Giglio or impeachment”
had Mr. Lambert not alerted the government that he was seeking to obtain the witness
statements’ underlying source materials.
18
government’s brief summaries of what it believes original source materials say are insufficient to
satisfy the government’s obligations when it possesses the underlying source materials from
which these summaries were presumably crafted. Thus, the government’s failure to produce the
underlying FBI 302s, interview memoranda and interview notes violates the government’s
disclosure obligations under Rule 16 as well as Brady and its progeny.
There is no doubt that the statements that the government cursorily summarized in its
disclosures to Mr. Lambert are both favorable to Mr. Lambert and material to his defense. The
government itself has characterized many of them as “Potential Brady, Giglio or Impeachment
Material.” February 2, 2018 DOJ Letter. For example, among other things, the government’s
brief summaries reflect excerpts of exculpatory statements of Mr. Lambert’s alleged co-
conspirators, including Mr. Condrey, the government’s main cooperating witness, as well as
statements by Mrs. Condrey, the only remaining available witness with direct knowledge of the
facts who can testify about Mr. Lambert’s lack of involvement in the alleged scheme. 4 They also
include the government’s own brief summaries of statements by other TLI employees with
knowledge of the allegedly illicit payments to Mr. Mikerin, which further bolster Mr. Lambert’s
defense arguments. Moreover, the disclosures include government-drafted summarized
statements of Mr. Campbell, the FBI’s own secret operative tasked with reporting to the
government about Mr. Mikerin’s alleged payment scheme. These statements support Mr.
Lambert’s defense as well. Although it goes without saying that the government’s statements
will somewhat aid Mr. Lambert in both identifying potential defense witnesses and preparing
them for trial, Mr. Lambert is entitled to the full source materials from which the government
4
Mr. Fisk and Mr. Mikerin, the only other witnesses with direct knowledge of the facts who
could provide exculpatory testimony will not be present during Mr. Lambert’s trial. Mr. Fisk
died in 2011 and Mr. Mikerin is believed to be somewhere in Russia.
19
created its statements. Mr. Lambert may well need to use these undisclosed materials to impeach
the government’s main cooperating witness and any other government witness whose statements
have been succinctly summarized in the government’s disclosures. Consequently, there is
certainly more than a reasonable probability that these undisclosed exculpating source materials
will directly affect the outcome of Mr. Lambert’s trial.
As disclosed by the government, however, their carefully crafted summary statements are
merely cursory, often limited to single-paragraph summaries, and at times even so succinctly
described as not to provide any substantive information at all. See, e.g., February 2, 2018 DOJ
Letter (summarily providing that counsel for Mr. Condrey and TLI “denied wrongdoing” on
behalf of Mr. Condrey). Clearly, Mr. Lambert cannot effectively use paraphrased information or
briefly-outlined summaries of third-party statements to uncover additional admissible evidence,
identify the best defense witnesses, prepare direct and cross-examinations, develop defense
arguments, or confront a witness with their prior statements, when the source materials from
which those statements were crafted are readily available and in the government’s possession.
See United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the government is
required to make Brady disclosures that are “sufficiently specific and complete” to permit
effective use by the defense). Similarly, these statements are so generally summarized that Mr.
Lambert cannot realistically be expected to use a bullet-point outline of information to
potentially impeach a government witness’s broader and likely more expansive testimony at trial.
See Jean v. Rice, 945 F.2d 82, 85-87 (holding that the government’s failure to turn over video
tapes of the government witness’s hypnosis was a Brady violation because it prevented the
defense from impeaching the witness’s statements). Moreover, without access to the source
materials reflecting the full and actual statements, it is practically impossible for Mr. Lambert to
20
identify any discrepancies between the extremely cursory summary that the government
provided to Mr. Lambert and a witness’s actual statements, as well as between the witness’s
statements as reported and their potential testimony at trial. See United States v. Deli, 151 F.3d
938, 942-44 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that although the government had produced an interview
summary, the government’s refusal to turn over the interview notes violated Brady because
discrepancies existed between the summary memorandum and the notes). Significantly, the
Department of Justice Manual too recognizes that prosecutors should turn over discoverable
information “in its original form” unless the disclosure would “create security concerns or when
such information is contained in attorney notes, internal agency documents, confidential source
documents, Suspicious Activity Reports, etc.” U.S. Department of Justice Manual, Section 165.
And even if discoverable information is not provided in its original form and is instead provided
in a letter to defense counsel, the Justice Manual provides that “prosecutors should take great
care to ensure that the full scope of pertinent information is provided to the defendant.” Id.
Thus, the government’s failure to produce FBI 302s, interview memoranda and interview
notes reflecting the witnesses’ actual statements violates both Rule 16 and Brady. Accordingly,
the Court should compel the government to promptly provide these materials to Mr. Lambert. 5
V. The Government’s Failure to Produce Interview Notes of Mr. Lambert’s Statements

to the Government Violates Rule 16
5
In the alternative, Mr. Lambert respectfully requests that the Court, at a minimum, conduct an
in camera review of the FBI 302s, interview notes and any other interview memoranda to
assess whether they accurately match the content of the government-created summaries, or
contain discrepancies that would aid Mr. Lambert’s defense. See, e.g., Brown, 303 F.3d at 588
(noting that the district court had previously compared, in camera, the agent’s notes and the
FBI 302 report); United States v. Rudolph, 224 F.R.D. 503, 514 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (holding that
“if an in camera inspection can allay some of defendant’s concerns and avoid unnecessary
error at this early stage, the court is willing to undertake the task of reviewing” the
investigative agents’ rough notes).
21
Mr. Lambert’s statements to the FBI agents during the government’s raid of TLI’s offices
are unlikely to have been accurately and completely captured in the FBI 302. Thus, the
government’s failure to produce the FBI agents’ interview notes reflecting Mr. Lambert’s actual
statements violates the government’s disclosure obligations under Rule 16.
It is undisputed that Mr. Lambert’s statements to the FBI are Rule 16 material per se. See
Rules 16(a)(1)(A) and (B). Thus, Mr. Lambert is statutorily entitled to them. However, the FBI
302 supposedly reporting Mr. Lambert’s statements, which was transcribed the day after the
agents interrogated Mr. Lambert, contains surprisingly few statements in quotations. Instead, the
report mostly consists of the FBI agent’s own recharacterization of what Mr. Lambert allegedly
told the government. Consequently, on its face, the FBI 302 does not accurately reflect Mr.
Lambert’s actual statements. See United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2002)
(holding that the government must produce interview notes if “the content of those notes have
[not] been accurately captured in a type-written report, such as a 302”). Thus, because the four-
page FBI 302 includes just a few quotes directly attributed to Mr. Lambert, it is highly probable
that significant discrepancies and omissions exist between the FBI 302 and Mr. Lambert’s actual
responses as transcribed in the interview notes. See United States v. Coe, 220 F.3d 573, 583 (7th
Cir. 2000) (alluding that only the presence of “minor” discrepancies between the interview notes
and the written reports would dispense the government from its obligation to turn over the notes).
Therefore, the government’s failure to produce the FBI interview notes reflecting Mr.
Lambert’s actual statements violates Rule 16. Accordingly, the Court should compel the
government to promptly provide these materials to Mr. Lambert. 6
6
In the alternative, Mr. Lambert respectfully requests that the Court, at a minimum, conduct an
in camera review of the FBI interview notes to assess whether they accurately match the
22
WHEREFOR, Mr. Lambert respectfully requests that the Court schedule an oral hearing
on this motion and issue an Order compelling the government to promptly produce certain Rule
16 and Brady evidence, as further set forth herein.
Date: April 15, 2019 /s/ William M. Sullivan, Jr.

William M. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. (No. 17082)
Thomas C. Hill, Esq. (No. 05703)
Fabio Leonardi, Esq. (No. 07206)
Telephone: (202) 663-8027
Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
wsullivan@pillsburylaw.com
thomas.hill@pillsburylaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Mark Lambert
content of the FBI 302 or contain discrepancies that would aid Mr. Lambert’s defense. See,
e.g., Brown, 303 F.3d at 588; Rudolph, 224 F.R.D. at 514.
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 15th day of April 2019, I caused the foregoing Motion
Requesting an Order Compelling the Government to Produce Certain Rule 16 and Brady
Evidence and accompanying Memorandum of Law to be filed electronically using the Court’s
CM/ECF system, which automatically sent a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.
Date: April 15, 2019 /s/ Fabio Leonardi

Fabio Leonardi, Esq.
Telephone: (202) 663-8027
Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
24
EXHIBIT 2
2
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:15-cr-00332-TDCDocument
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 127ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 228ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 329ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 430ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 531ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 632ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 733ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 834ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed 10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page 935ofof21159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page10
36ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page11
37ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page12
38ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page13
39ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page14
40ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page15
41ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page16
42ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page17
43ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page18
44ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page19
45ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page20
46ofof21
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
4 Filed
Filed10/29/14
04/26/19 Page
Page21
47ofof21
159
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
@@-
David Gadren
Special Agent
Office of Inspector General
United States Department of Energy
7c;~
Subscribed and sworn before me this _L_-_l_day of October, 2014.
~~~I
CHARLES B. DAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
EXHIBIT 3
3
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:14-mj-02424-CBD
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed04/26/19
10/29/14 Page
Page49
1 of
of1159
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District of Maryland
United States of America )

v. )
) Case No.
Carol Condrey
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On or about the date(s) of 1996 through the present in the county of Montgomery in the
_______ District of , the defendant(s) violated:
Code Section Offense Description

18 U.S.C. 1349 Conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
This criminal complaint is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
~ Continued on the attached sheet.
David Gadren, Special Agent, DOE-OIG

Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
City and state: Greenbelt, MD Charles B. Day, U.S. Magistrate Judge

EXHIBIT 4
4
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:15-cr-00336-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
10/29/14 Page
Page 51
1 ofof1159

for the

v. )
) Case No.
Daren Condrey
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
1, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
______ District of , the defendant(s) violated:

IiContinued on the attached sheet.
JiPc!1J-Sign-atu-::---
David Gadren, Special Agent, DOE-OIG

Printed
nameandtitle
Date: t2/:ct/ ZOe! I

Printed
nameandtitle
EXHIBIT 5
5
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:15-cr-00332-TDC
ENTERED Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
10/29/14 Page
Page 53
1 ofof1159
FILED -- RECEIVED
-LOGGED --
-~Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint
oel 2 \) W\4
for the
BV

v. )
) Case No.
Boris Rubizhevsky
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
_______ District of , the defendant(s) violated:

IYf Continued on the attached sheet.
David Gadren, Special Agent, DOE-DIG

Date:

EXHIBIT 6
6
..• '
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
10 Filed
Filed04/26/19
11/21/14 Page
Page55
1 of
of 2159
___ FilED ENTERED
___ LODGED __ ,RECEIVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 2 0 ZU14

AT GfiEEN8ELT
CLEA\< u.s. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * BY
DEPUTY
*
v. * CRIMINAL NO. 14-2423-CBD
*
DAREN CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
ORDER GRANTING
CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. S.l(d) AND
EXCLUSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. &316l(h)
Upon consideration of the Government's Consent Motion for Continuance Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) and Exclusion of Time Pursuant to 18 U.S.c.
93161 (h)(7) (the "Consent Motion"), the Court makes the following findings:
1. On October 19, 2014, the Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with
conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.c. 9 1349 and arrested. Thereafter, the
Defendant was released without supervision. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for
November 19,2014, in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c).
2. However, in the Consent Motion, the parties have expressed that they need
additional time to discuss a possible resolution of this matter. For this reason, they have requested
a continuance ofthe preliminary hearing until January 19,2015, as well as an exclusion of the time
between November 19,2014 and January 19,20 IS, from the computation of the time within which
to file an indictment or information for Speedy Trial Act purposes.
3. For the reasons stated above and in the Consent Motion, the Court concludes that,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 (d), there is good cause to grant the continuance of
the preliminary hearing until January 19, 2015, as consented-to by the Defendant. Further, and
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
10 Filed
Filed04/26/19
11/21/14 Page
Page56
2 of
of 2159
for those same reasons, the Court concludes that, pursuant to 18 U.S.c. g3161 (h)(7), the ends of
justice would be served by excluding time as requested by the parties, and that those ends do here
outweigh the interest of the public and the Defendant (who consents to this exclusion of time) in
the filing of an indictment or information within thirty days.
WHEREFORE, in the interest ofthe Defendant and the interests of the public, it is this
.
(.1~
day of November, 2014,
HEREBY ORDERED that:
(i) the preliminary hearing in this matter shall occur on January 19,2015, at 4!Ul) frY)
[p.m./a.m.] in Courtroom '"'\B~nd
(ii) all time from November 19,2014 until January 19,2015, is excluded from the 30-day
period in which an indictment or information charging the Defendant with the commission of an
offense would otherwise be filed.
2
EXHIBIT 7
7
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
13 Filed
Filed04/26/19
03/18/15 Page
Page58
1 of
of 3159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

*
*
DAREN CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
THIRD CONSENT MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM P. 5.1(d) AND
EXCLUSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7), the
United States of America, by and through its attorneys, hereby moves for an Order (i) continuing
the preliminary hearing in the above-captioned matter and (ii) excluding time under the Speedy
Trial Act. The Defendant, by and through his attorney Robert Bonsib, has consented to the relief
requested herein. In support of this motion, the Government states as follows:
conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and arrested. Thereafter, the
Defendant was released without supervision.
2. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c), a defendant charged by criminal
complaint who is “not in custody” is entitled to a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause
within 21 days of his initial appearance. Thus, in the instant case, a preliminary hearing was
scheduled for November 19, 2014. The Government moved for a sixty-day continuance of the
preliminary hearing to January 19, 2015, which motion was granted. The Government then
moved for a second continuance of this preliminary hearing for another sixty days until Thursday,
March 19, 2015, which motion was also granted. In the present motion, the Government, with
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
13 Filed
Filed04/26/19
03/18/15 Page
Page59
2 of
of 3159
consent of defense counsel, moved for a third sixty-day extension, until May 18, 2015. Such a
continuance is appropriate because (i) the Defendant consents to such relief and (ii) good cause
exists, as additional time is necessary to provide the parties an adequate opportunity to explore
potential resolution of this matter. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d). In the instant case, the
government and defendant are engaged in ongoing discussions which may resolve this matter
pre-indictment.
3. Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, “[a]ny information or indictment charging an
individual with the commission of an offense” must be filed within 30 days of his arrest. 18
U.S.C. § 3161(b). Thus, in the instant case, any indictment or information was to have been filed
on or before November 28, 2014, absent an order from the Court extending the timeframe within
which to indict the Defendant or charge him by information. This Court’s prior order extended
that deadline to January 19, 2015, and again until March 19, 2015. The Government now moves
to further exclude time within which an indictment or information must be filed under the Speedy
Trial Act from March 19, 2015, until May 18, 2015. Such an exclusion of time is appropriate
because (i) the Defendant consents and (ii) the “the ends of justice [would be] served” by
providing the parties this additional time to discuss a potential resolution of this matter prior to the
filing of any indictment or information. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7).
4. For the foregoing reasons, the parties request the Court to order the time within
which to indict or file an information be tolled from March 19, 2015, until May 18, 2015, and that
the Court continue the preliminary hearing in this matter until March 18, 2015.
5. Attached for the Court’s review and convenience is a Proposed Order that
conforms to the relief requested herein.
2
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
13 Filed
Filed04/26/19
03/18/15 Page
Page60
3 of
of 3159
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order (i) excluding
the time within which to file an indictment or information from March 19, 2015, to May 18, 2015,
under the Speedy Trial Act, and (ii) continuing the preliminary hearing in this matter until May 18,
2015, in conformance with the Proposed Order submitted herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
Rod J. Rosenstein
United States Attorney
By: /signed/
Adam K. Ake
James A. Crowell IV
Assistant United States Attorneys
3
Case
Case8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document63-1
13-1Filed
Filed
04/26/19
03/18/15Page
Page611of
of159
2


*
*
DAREN CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
ORDER GRANTING
CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 5.1(d) AND
EXCLUSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)
Upon consideration of the Government’s Third Consent Motion for Continuance Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) and Exclusion of Time Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§3161(h)(7) (the “Third Consent Motion”), the Court makes the following findings:
November 19, 2014, in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c). The parties
moved to continue that hearing for sixty days, up through January 19, 2015, which motion was
granted. The parties again moved to continue the hearing for an additional sixty days, up through
March 19, 2015, which motion was also granted.
2. In the Third Consent Motion, the parties have expressed that they request additional
time to discuss a possible resolution of this matter. For this reason, they have requested a
continuance of the preliminary hearing until May 18, 2015, as well as an exclusion of the time
between March 19, 2015 and May 18, 2015, from the computation of the time within which to file
an indictment or information for Speedy Trial Act purposes.

Case
Document63-1
13-1Filed
Filed
04/26/19
03/18/15Page
Page622of
of159
2
3. For the reasons stated above and in the Third Consent Motion, the Court concludes
that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(d), there is good cause to grant the
continuance of the preliminary hearing until May 18, 2015, as consented-to by the Defendant.
Further, and for those same reasons, the Court concludes that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7),
the ends of justice would be served by excluding time as requested by the parties, and that those
ends do here outweigh the interest of the public and the Defendant (who consents to this exclusion
of time) in the filing of an indictment or information within thirty days.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of the Defendant and the interests of the public, it is this
______ day of March, 2015,
(i) the preliminary hearing in this matter shall occur on May 18, 2015, at _______
[p.m./a.m.] in Courtroom _____; and
(ii) all time from March 19, 2015, until May 18, 2015, is excluded from the 30-day period
in which an indictment or information charging the Defendant with the commission of an offense
would otherwise be filed.
________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
2
EXHIBIT 8
8
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:14-mj-02424-CBD
Document
Document
63-1
10 Filed
Filed04/26/19
01/16/15 Page
Page64
1 of 3
159


*
*
CAROL CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
SECOND CONSENT MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM P. 5.1(d) AND
EXCLUSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7), the
United States of America, by and through its attorneys, hereby moves for an Order (i) continuing
the preliminary hearing in the above-captioned matter and (ii) excluding time under the Speedy
Trial Act. The Defendant, by and through her attorney Timothy Maloney, has consented to the
relief requested herein. In support of this motion, the Government states as follows:
Defendant was released without supervision.
2. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c), a defendant charged by criminal
complaint who is “not in custody” is entitled to a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause
within 21 days of his initial appearance. Thus, in the instant case, a preliminary hearing was
scheduled for November 20, 2014. The Government moved for a continuance of this preliminary
hearing for sixty days until Monday, January 19, 2015, which motion was granted. The
Government now moves for a second continuance for another sixty days until March 19, 2015.
Such a continuance is appropriate because (i) the Defendant consents to such relief and (ii) good
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:14-mj-02424-CBD
Document
Document
63-1
10 Filed
Filed04/26/19
01/16/15 Page
Page65
2 of 3
159
cause exists, as additional time is necessary to provide the parties an adequate opportunity to
explore potential resolution of this matter. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d).
3. Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, “[a]ny information or indictment charging an
individual with the commission of an offense” must be filed within 30 days of her arrest. 18
U.S.C. § 3161(b). Thus, in the instant case, any indictment or information was to be filed on or
before November 28, 2014, absent an order from the Court extending the timeframe within which
to indict the Defendant or charge her by information. The Court’s earlier order excluded the time
between November 19, 2014, and January 20, 2015. The Government now moves to exclude
time within which an indictment or information must be filed under the Speedy Trial Act from
January 20, 2015, through March 19, 2015. Such an exclusion of time is appropriate because (i)
the Defendant consents and (ii) the “the ends of justice [would be] served” by providing the parties
this additional time to discuss a potential resolution of this matter prior to the filing of any
indictment or information. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7).
4. For the foregoing reasons, the parties request the Court to order the time within
which to indict or file an information be tolled from January 20, 2015, to March 19, 2015, and that
the Court continue the preliminary hearing in this matter until March 19, 2015.
5. Attached for the Court’s review and convenience is a Proposed Order that
conforms to the relief requested herein.
2
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:14-mj-02424-CBD
Document
Document
63-1
10 Filed
Filed04/26/19
01/16/15 Page
Page66
3 of 3
159
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order (i) excluding
the time within which to file an indictment or information from January 19, 2015, to March 19,
2015, under the Speedy Trial Act, and (ii) continuing the preliminary hearing in this matter until
March 19, 2015, in conformance with the Proposed Order submitted herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
Rod J. Rosenstein
By: /signed/
Adam K. Ake
James A. Crowell IV
Assistant United States Attorneys
3
Case
8:14-mj-02424-CBDDocument
Document63-1
10-1Filed
Filed
04/26/19
01/16/15Page
Page
671ofof159
2


*
*
CAROL CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
ORDER GRANTING
CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 5.1(d) AND
EXCLUSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)
Upon consideration of the Government’s Second Consent Motion for Continuance
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) and Exclusion of Time Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) (the “Consent Motion”), the Court makes the following findings:
November 20, 2014, in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c). By Order
following a consent motion to extend deadlines, the preliminary hearing was earlier continued to
January 19, 2015.
2. In the Second Consent Motion, the parties have expressed that they need additional
time to discuss a possible resolution of this matter. For this reason, they have requested a
continuance of the preliminary hearing until March 19, 2015, as well as an exclusion of the time
between January 20, 2015, and March 19, 2015 from the computation of the time within which to
file an indictment or information for Speedy Trial Act purposes.

Case
8:14-mj-02424-CBDDocument
Document63-1
10-1Filed
Filed
04/26/19
01/16/15Page
Page
682ofof159
2
3. For the reasons stated above and in the Second Consent Motion, the Court
concludes that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(d), there is good cause to grant the
continuance of the preliminary hearing until March 19, 2015, as consented-to by the Defendant.
Further, and for those same reasons, the Court concludes that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7),
the ends of justice would be served by excluding time as requested by the parties, and that those
ends do here outweigh the interest of the public and the Defendant (who consents to this exclusion
of time) in the filing of an indictment or information within thirty days.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of the Defendant and the interests of the public, it is this
______ day of January, 2015,
(i) the preliminary hearing in this matter shall occur on March 19, 2015, at _______
[p.m./a.m.] in Courtroom _____; and
(ii) all time from January 20, 2015, through March 19, 2015, is excluded from the 30-day
period in which an indictment or information charging the Defendant with the commission of an
offense would otherwise be filed.
________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
2
EXHIBIT 9
9
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:14-mj-02424-CBD
Document
Document
63-1
12 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/01/15 Page
Page70
1 of 1
159
Case 8:14-mj-02424-CBD Document 11 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 2

_ALEO
_lOGGED
APR O} 20
jfo
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * ATGREENsar
* ClERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
v. CRIMINAL NO. CnD I;!.2424 DISTRICT OF MARYlAND

*
DEPUTY
*
CAROL CONDREY, *
*
Defendant *
*
*******
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
Pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and by leave of court
endorsed hereon the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland hereby dismisses the
Criminal Complaint now pending against Defendant Carol Condrey.
Rod J. Rosenstein
By: lsi Adam Ake

Adam K. Ake
Assistant United States Attorney
Leave of Court is granted for the filing of the foregoing dismissal of the above-captioned
Complaint.
~1L?(i)'-
D e Charles B. Day
.....,...
r-> CJ
United States Magistrate Judge C:l
-< =
U'
-c
u>.
-1{/)
\ co :z. ;0'
'"'" c=;s
Advice to U.S. Marshal: I. Defendant is not in custody. ~~&
\ ~:-'
;;0
w
-\tf)-q
o-~-
-1--
""T\''"'
-r~=)r'
~"-
1"T)'"
6-'- ;;-1
o rn-" """::!: NG
rn G0 -<0
-0 .,." 'P. ,S
c 'Y~
-1
: %-1
W
-< CJ
EXHIBIT 10
10
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
25 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
07/15/15 Page
Page 72
1 ofof39
159
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DIVISION
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Action No.
5 v. : TDC 15-0336
6 DAREN CONDREY, : Greenbelt, Maryland

7 Defendant. : Wednesday, June 17, 2015
8 __________________________/ 10:35 A.M.
10 TRANSCRIPT OF ARRAIGNMENT/GUILTY PLEA PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE D. CHUANG
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 APPEARANCES:
13 FOR THE GOVERNMENT: CHRISTOPER CESTARO, Esquire

DAVID SALEM, Esquire
14 EPHRAIM WERNICK, Esquire
Office of the United States Attorney
15 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Suite 200
Greenbelt, Maryland 20772
16
17 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT C. BONSIB, Esquire

Marcus & Bonsib
18 6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 116
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
19 301-441-3000
20
21
22
23 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LINDA C. MARSHALL,(301) 344-3229
24 COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOTYPE NOTES
25
8
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
25 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
07/15/15 Page
Page 73
8 ofof39
159
1 community. And in order to obtain an Indictment, the government
2 must present evidence to the Grand Jury that would convince at
3 least 12 of the grand jurors to find that there was probable
4 cause to believe that you committed the crime.
5 The Grand Jury upon receiving this evidence might or
6 might not indict you. Do you understand that you have a right
7 to be charged only by an Indictment?
8 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: You can proceed without an Indictment if
10 you waive or give up your right to the Indictment. And if you
11 do so, the case proceeds against you without having been
12 presented to a Grand Jury based simply on an Information, this
13 document filed by the United States Attorney, just as though you
14 had been indicted. Do you agree to waive or give your right to
15 be charged only by Indictment?
17 THE COURT: And have you discussed waiving your right
18 to Indictment by a Grand Jury with your attorney?
20 THE COURT: Has anyone made any threats against you to
21 cause you to waive your right to Indictment?
22 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Other than what is in the Plea Agreement,
24 has anyone made any promises to you to cause you to waive your
25 right to Indictment?
9
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
25 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
07/15/15 Page
Page 74
9 ofof39
159
2 THE COURT: Mr. Bonsib, is there any reason the
3 defendant should not waive Indictment in this case?
5 THE COURT: So, I do find that the defendant as
6 knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to Indictment and
7 will accept the signed waiver.
8 Now, Mr. Condrey, if you plead guilty, you will be
9 giving up some important rights, which I'd like to go over with
10 you. First, under our system of justice, even though you have
11 been charged with a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty.
12 You are not required to plead guilty and you have a right
13 to plead not guilty and persist in that plea throughout the
14 case. But by pleading guilty, you would be giving up that
15 right. Do you understand that?
17 THE COURT: Under our Constitution, when you are
18 charged with a crime, you have the right to a trial by a jury.
19 So, if you do not plead guilty, we'll have a panel of citizens
20 come from Maryland to the courthouse and we'll select 12 jurors
21 to sit in the jury box in the courtroom here to hear your case.
22 You and your attorney would have the right to participate in the
23 jury selection process to assure the jurors selected are fair
24 and impartial.
25 In order for you to be found guilty, the jury would

EXHIBIT 11
11
U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Ephraim (F,y) Wernick Fraud Section

Direct Dial: (202) 307-3952 Bond Building
1400 New York Ave., N. W.
Febmary 2, 201 8
VIAFEDEX
William M . Sullivan, Jr.

Pillsbmy Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Washington, DC 20036
Re: United States v. Mark T. Lambert, No. TDC-18-cr-12
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
fu connection with the agreed-upon Protective Order Governing Discovery [ECF No. 18]
(enclosed) in the above-captioned case, in response to your early-request for discove1y , dated
July 20, 201 6, and pursuant to Rule 16(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Fed. R.
Crim. P."), this letter accompanies and sets fo1ih the government's initial discovery in this case
and seeks reciprocal discove1y.
Initial Discovery
fu 201 6, the government provided you with limited pre-indictment discove1y, which
included the following documents:
• A September 23, 2011 email thread between Vadim Mikerin, Mark Lambe1t, and
Daren Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-003105 -TLI-003107;
• A December 2011 email thread between Vadim Mikerin, Mark Lambeit, and Daren
Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-004145 - TLI-004148;
• A March 28, 2012 email thread between Vadim Mikerin, Mark Lambe1t and Daren
Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-003272;
• A June 8, 2012 email thread between Mark Lambe1t and Daren Condrey, which was
Bates stamped TLI-003222 -TLI-003223;
1
• An August 2013 email thread between Vadim Mikerin, Mark Lambert and Daren
Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-004175 – TLI-004177;
• An excerpt of an October 17, 2013 text message communication between Mark

Lambert and Daren Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-003625; and
• A November 2013 email thread involving Vadim Mikerin, Mark Lambert and Daren
Condrey, which was Bates stamped TLI-003248 – TLI-003249.
Enclosed with this letter please find a thumb drive that contains 98,615 pages of
documents covering the following categories of materials (with Bates-stamped ranges for each
category in parentheses). The password to access the thumb drive is: AoNNHPMsJI$!
• Non-privileged documents obtained from Mark Lambert’s Comcast email account,

m.lambert@comcast.net (DOJ-0000000001 – DOJ-0000001556);
• Documents provided to the government by Daren Condrey (DOJ-0000001557 – DOJ-

0000001559);
• Non-privileged documents obtained during the execution of a search warrant on

TENAM’s office on October 29, 2014 (DOJ-0000001560 – DOJ-0000008220);
• Non-privileged documents obtained from Vadim Mikerin’s Gmail email account,

marvijodel@gmail.com (DOJ-0000008221 – DOJ-0000011082);
• Non-privileged documents obtained from Rod Fisk’s Gmail email account,

rfiskster@gmail.com (DOJ-0000011083 – DOJ0000041536);
• Non-privileged documents obtained during the execution of a search warrant on

TLI’s office on October 29, 2014 (DOJ-0000041537 – DOJ-0000045443);
• Additional non-privileged documents obtained from Rod Fisk’s Gmail email account,
rfiskster@gmail.com (DOJ-0000045444 – DOJ0000048473);
• Bank records and correspondence connected to a Latvian bank account associated

with Leila Global Limited (referenced in the Indictment as “Shell Company B”) that
were provided to the government by the competent Latvian authorities pursuant to a
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request (DOJ-0000048474 – DOJ-0000049241);
2
• Documents provided to the government by Sandy Spring Bank (DOJ-0000049292 –

DOJ-0000058243);
• Bank records and correspondence connected to Swiss bank accounts associated with
Ollins Development Inc. (referenced in the Indictment as “Shell Company C”) that
were provided to the government by the competent Swiss authorities pursuant to a
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request (DOJ-0000058244 – DOJ-0000059785);
• Documents provided to the government by TENAM Corporation (DOJ-0000059786

– DOJ-0000059912);
• Documents provided to the government by Transport Logistics International, Inc.

(“TLI”) (DOJ-0000059913 – DOJ-0000063826);
• Documents provided to the government by Deborah Payne Fisk (DOJ-0000063827 –

DOJ-0000064121);
• Additional documents provided to the government by TLI (DOJ-0000064122 – DOJ-

0000064221); and
• Documents provided to the government by Westerman Companies (DOJ-

0000064222 – DOJ-0000098615).
In addition to the hard drive, we are producing one (1) disc with the following electronic
files at this time:
• A recorded conversation by a FBI confidential informant of your client and Daren

Condrey on August 14, 2014 (DOJ-ADD-000001);
• Three (3) recorded phone calls that your client had with representatives of Sandy
Spring Bank in September 2011, December 2011, and March 2012 (DOJ-ADD-
000002 – DOJ-ADD-000004);
• Thirty (30) recordings of Vadim Mikerin that were turned over to the FBI by a FBI
confidential informant (DOJ-ADD-000005 – DOJ-ADD-000034); and
• A copy of a civil complaint filed against Vadim Mikerin, TLI, and Daren Condrey by
William Douglas Campbell on June 6, 2016 in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (1:16-cv-01888) (DOJ-ADD-000039 – DOJ-000069).
3
The government is also producing four (4) discs containing the complete video interview by law
enforcement of Vadim Mikerin on October 29, 2014 (DOJ-ADD-000035 – DOJ-000038).
In addition, the following hard copy documents are being provided to you at this time:
• A copy of your client’s criminal history report;
• A copy of Daren Condrey’s criminal history report;
• A copy of Vadim Mikerin’s criminal history report;
• A copy of Boris Rubizhevsky’s criminal history report;
• A copy of a FD-302 memorializing the interview of your client on October 29, 2014;
• A copy of the FD-26 memorializing your client’s provision of consent to obtain

certain electronic data on October 29, 2014;
• A copy of the plea agreement and statement of offense in the matter of United States
v. Boris Rubizhevsky, 8:15-cr-332-TDC (D. Md. June 15, 2015) (ECF No. 26);
v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-336-TDC (D. Md. June 17, 2015) (ECF No. 22);
v. Vadim Mikerin, 8:14-cr-529 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2015) (ECF No. 103);
• Affidavit of DOE-OIG Agent David Gadren in support of the complaint against

Vadim Mikerin, dated July 25, 2014, in Case No. 8:14-cr-529 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2014)
(ECF No. 8-1);
• Affidavit of DOE-OIG Agent David Gadren in support of the criminal complaint

against Daren Condrey, Carol Condrey, and Boris Rubizhevsky (with Mark Lambert
redacted), dated October 29, 2014;
• Affidavit of FBI Special Agent David Lehr in support of criminal seizure warrants,
dated October 29, 2014 and approved on November 5, 2014;
• Verified Complaint in United States v. Assorted Personal Property, 8:15-cv-1247-

TDC (April 27, 2015) (ECF No. 1); and
4
• A letter to the FBI from your client, signed under penalty of perjury, concerning his
“Claim of Ownership and Contesting of Forfeiture,” dated January 28, 2015.
This material is being provided to you with the understanding that your handling of
all discovery material will be subject to the Protective Order Governing Discovery (ECF
No. 18) in this case. You are reminded that much of the material being disclosed to you
includes sensitive information, personal identifying information, and could adversely
impact ongoing criminal investigations.
Please note that this discovery includes early disclosure of material that is not required
under the rules and discovery of other matters that have been under investigation that do not have
a direct relationship to the charges against your client. The fact that the government is providing
such discovery does not constitute an acknowledgement or admission on the government’s part
that such materials are admissible or relevant to the charges against your client nor does the
disclosure indicate that such materials constitute Brady, Giglio or impeachment material. In
addition, the disclosure of otherwise non-discoverable material at this time does not obligate the
government to provide all non-discoverable material in its possession nor does the government
represent the existence or non-existence of any other non-discoverable materials in its
possession.
Subsequent Discovery
The government is in possession of certain computers, hard drives, and any other
evidence that was seized in connection with this investigation, which the government will make
available to you for inspection and copying upon request. The contents of these computers and
hard drives have been uploaded to our document database and will be provided to you during
discovery. Please contact me to arrange a mutually convenient time for your inspection of such
items.
Please note that taint terms were applied to remove potentially privileged materials from
our document database that were collected through the execution of search warrants. The
privilege review is ongoing and there remain approximately 38,152 documents that are in the
process of being reviewed by our filter team and may be subject to further productions to you on
a rolling basis.
Rule 16 Materials
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a), we direct your attention to some
specific materials that are being provided with this letter:
Oral, Written, or Recorded Statements of the Defendant – Rule 16(a)(1)(A) & (B)
Today’s discovery includes the following:
5
• Two FBI FD-302 interview memoranda, which memorialize your client’s non-custodial
statement and consent search of TLI emails on October 29, 2014. Please note that your
client advised FBI agents during the search that TLI uses Apple computers and Kerio for
its email server. Your client also provided the name of TLI’s director of IT services and
your client contacted the IT director and asked him to return to TLI to assist the FBI in its
search. When advised by FBI that the search warrant only applied to the Fulton office of
TLI and did not cover data stored off-site, your client asked whether he could just give
the data and was advised that he could provide consent. Your client then signed a FD-26
Consent to Search Form for the email accounts and account profile data associated with
Carol Condrey, Daren Condrey, Sergey Danilenko, Mark Lambert, and Mike Rosso.
• A recorded communication between a FBI confidential informant and your client (and
Daren Condrey) on August 14, 2014.
• Three audio recordings between your client and representatives of Sandy Spring Bank in
2011 and 2012.
• Also, please note that your client made the following statement during the search of
TLI’s offices on October 29, 2014 as he directed FBI agents to files entitled “Tenex
Remuneration”: “They will want to see – 1000%.”
• A letter addressed to the FBI, signed by your client under penalty of perjury, concerning
“Claim of Ownership and Contesting of Forfeiture,” dated January 28, 2015.
In addition, voluminous emails, letters, and other documents can be found among the documents
that are being disclosed today and will be included within the subsequent discovery production
of search warrant materials.
Prior Record – Rule 16(a)(1)(D)
A copy of your client’s criminal record is provided. The government understands that
your client has no known criminal convictions.
Documents and Objects – Rule 16(a)(1)(E)
As described above, the government is providing you with a number of documents
collected in the course of the investigation and we will be providing you with additional
documents under separate cover. We are further making computers, hard drives, and items that
were seized from TLI and your client available to you for inspection and copying. We are not
aware of any additional materials in our possession that were obtained from or belong to your
client. If the government comes into possession of additional information or determines that any
materials not previously turned over are material to preparing the defense or are likely to be used
in our case-in-chief, then we will provide them to you in a subsequent production.
Reports of Examinations and Tests – Rule 16(a)(1)(F)
At this time, the government does not believe that there are any examinations or tests that
are in the government’s possession and which would be material to the preparation of the
defense or are intended for use in the government’s case-in-chief.
6
Expert Witnesses – Rule 16(a)(1)(G)

The government may call experts to testify during the government’s case-in-chief. If the
government determines that it will call an expert to testify, then the government will provide you
with appropriate Rule 16 materials.
Rule 404(b) Evidence

The government intends to introduce at trial evidence concerning the following acts-
which are either crimes that are intrinsic to the charged offenses or are other crimes, wrongs, and
acts – as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
absence of mistake or accident:
• On a number of occasions between in or around 2004 and October 2014, your client
caused fraudulent TLI invoices and quotes to be created and sent to TENEX in Russia,
either by private mail courier or by e-mail, which included the cost of corrupt bribe and
kickback payments and thus caused TENEX to overpay for TLI’s services, in violation of
constitute mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
• Your client conspired with Daren Condrey and Vadim Mikerin to cause TLI to create and
receive fraudulent invoices, commit wire fraud, and act as an intermediary to make and
launder a corrupt payment of approximately $30,900 from Westerman Companies in
Ohio, which was received by TLI at its Maryland-based bank account, and then
forwarded on as part of a corrupt and fraudulent bribe and kickback payment of
approximately $57,713.42 on or about December 16, 2013 to Ollins Development Inc., a
shell company located in Switzerland that was identified as “Shell Company C” in the
indictment. This conduct constituted violations of the relevant conspiracy, wire fraud,
money laundering and FCPA statutes, located at 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1956(a)(2)(A)
and 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2.
• At various points between 2004 and 2014, your client caused TLI to make false
statements to the U.S. government and TLI counterparties concerning TLI’s compliance
with all U.S. laws, including anti-corruption laws and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,
in order for TLI to obtain business and necessary licenses and approvals, which could
constitute violations of, among other things, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
• At various points between in or around 2004 and 2014, your client committed bank fraud
when he authorized and otherwise facilitated Sandy Spring Bank to transfer funds from
TLI’s Maryland-based bank account to offshore accounts in furtherance of the criminal
scheme, knowing that such payments were corrupt and based on fraudulent invoices and
documentation he caused to be referenced and provided to bank representatives, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
• Your client made false statements to the FBI agents who interviewed him on October 29,
2014 when he denied his participation in the criminal scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1001.
• Your client caused TLI to file false tax returns, make false statements to the IRS, and
wrongfully deduct corrupt and fraudulent bribe and kickback payments from TLI’s taxes,
in violation of Title 26 of the United States Code.
7
• Your client also committed perjury and made false statements when denying culpability
in an affidavit to contest forfeiture in a letter to the FBI that he signed “under penalty of
perjury” on January 28, 2015.
The government reserves the right to provide you with notice of its intent to introduce additional
404(b) and bad acts evidence in advance of trial.
Potential Conflict of Interest
As discussed, we understand that Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP may have
represented TENEX, TENAM and/or Vadim Mikerin at various points between 2010 and 2014.
The details of such representation appear to have included the registration of TENEX/TENAM’s
U.S. presence as a corporation in the U.S. and real estate-related transactions associated with the
opening of TENAM. We have brought this prior representation to your attention because we
believe that Pillsbury’s past representation of TENEX, TENAM or Mikerin could create an
irreconcilable conflict of interest in your representation of Mr. Lambert if certain defenses or
arguments were raised at trial. One such conflict would arise if Mr. Lambert were to challenge
TENEX and TENAM’s status as a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of the Russian
government, through the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation (“Rosatom”). In an effort to
resolve this potential conflict, we suggest entering into a stipulation about this undisputed facts.
Please let us know if you are amenable to such a stipulation or if you anticipate challenging
TENEX and TENAM’s ultimate ownership and control by Rosatom.
Potential Brady, Giglio or Impeachment Material
The government recognizes its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), and
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). The government also recognizes its obligations under
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). We
further recognize that our view of what evidence may constitute Brady or Giglio and yours may
vary. Accordingly, we urge you to thoroughly review the government’s body of evidence, which
is provided herein and under separate cover, and will be made available to you in accordance
with Rule 16. In addition to any such material which may be included in our document
productions, we are aware of the following information from witness interviews and attorney
proffers which we are bringing to your attention at this time. Among other things, this
information includes information that could be used to show your client’s coconspirators’ and
Vadim Mikerin’s involvement in the criminal scheme and is being disclosed at this time:
Carol Condrey
• Carol Condrey was a TLI employee and wife of Daren Condrey. Mrs. Condrey was
interviewed and denied any knowledge of kickback payments or bid rigging activities by
TLI in connection with TENEX contracts. She denied knowledge of Mikerin or the
marvijodel@gmail.com email account. She also denied knowledge of code words like
“LF,” “lucky figure” and “cake.” Mrs. Condrey also denied having seen an internal TLI
spreadsheet documenting “remuneration” payments, but stated that it was either Daren
Condrey’s or Mark Lambert’s after it was shown to her. She speculated that she was
90% sure it was Daren Condrey’s spreadsheet.
8
Daren Condrey
• Daren Condrey was a co-president and co-owner of TLI with your client. Mr. Condrey
pleaded guilty in connection with this matter, and a copy of his plea agreement and
statement of offense are included in this production.
• Robert Bonsib, Esq. is counsel for Daren Condrey, and Thomas Buchanan, Esq. is
counsel for TLI. During early conversations soon after Daren Condrey was charged by
criminal complaint in connection with this case, both Mr. Bonsib and Mr. Buchanan
denied wrongdoing on behalf of Daren Condrey before he proffered with the government,
admitted to his offenses, and entered into a plea agreement.
• During a proffer with the government on April 3, 2015, Daren Condrey explained that he
first became aware of TLI’s kickback scheme with Mikerin in approximately 2008. Mr.
Condrey stated that he learned of the kickback scheme from Rod Fisk and he could not
specifically recall if Mr. Lambert was present during that conversation, but assumed he
must have been or Mr. Lambert would have learned about the scheme shortly thereafter.
Mr. Condrey also explained that Vadim Mikerin always discussed kickbacks in person.
Rod Fisk was the person from TLI who always communicated with Mikerin about the
kickback scheme while Mr. Fisk was alive.
• During a proffer with the government on April 9, 2015, Mr. Condrey stated that the first
kickback conversation with Mr. Fisk occurred in approximately 2005 or 2006 and Mark
Lambert was likely present during the conversation but he could not specifically recall all
three men being present. In the same April 9, 2015 interview, Mr. Condrey stated that
kickbacks that did not involve Mr. Condrey would have predated 2004. Mr. Condrey
also stated that Mikerin communicated about kickbacks in-person and in writing.
• During an interview on May 5, 2016, Mr. Condrey stated that Mark Lambert was
responsible for 90% of wire transfers to TENEX and to the offshore companies for
“remuneration” payments.
Deborah Payne Fisk
• Deborah Payne Fisk was the wife of Rod Fisk, a co-owner and executive of TLI who was
identified in the Indictment as “Co-Conspirator One”. After Fisk died, Mikerin contacted
Mrs. Fisk to obtain from Mrs. Fisk’s home approximately $15,000 in cash, a personal
checkbook in Mikerin’s name, and apparently fraudulent invoices and other documents
that relate to the corrupt and fraudulent kickback scheme.
• Deborah Payne Fisk learned later in her marriage to Fisk that he had a relationship with
Mikerin, TENEX, and a host of “shell” companies that she could not understand. Mrs.
Fisk explained that she and Fisk became very close to Vadim Mikerin and his wife about
four to five years after TLI was established. After Fisk’s death, Mrs. Fisk reviewed
Fisk’s email account and noticed that he and Mikerin used code words and aliases when
they emailed one another. Mrs. Fisk also reviewed Fisk’s correspondence with others,
including a suspected mistress, and concluded that Fisk did not have a lot of love for the
United States. According to Mrs. Fisk, Fisk received some initial seed money to start
TLI from a Russian source and she believed that Fisk had grown increasingly loyal to the
Russians. She and Fisk visited Russia seven or eight times.
9
• According to Deborah Payne Fisk, Fisk’s termination from TLI was part of the agreement
for Daher’s acquisition of the company. Mrs. Fisk speculated that Condrey and Lambert
wanted Fisk out so that they could run a clean business.
Lauren Haas
• Lauren Haas was a receptionist at TLI. She stated that Lambert was in Kentucky a lot
during 2013, and estimated that he was traveling for approximately nine months.
Cheryl Moss Herman
• Cheryl Moss Herman was engaged by Rod Fisk to be a consultant for TENAM. Ms.
Herman stated that although she communicated primarily with Fisk and provided
consulting services for TENAM, she received payment from Sigma International, a
company that she did not recognize but later learned was associated with William
Douglas Campbell. According to Herman, Fisk helped Mikerin open the TENAM office.
Aliya Hulse
• Aliya Hulse was the office manager at TENAM. She initially met with Rod Fisk before
interviewing with Mikerin to get the job at TENAM. At first, she reported to Fisk who
was a consultant to TENAM.
• According to Ms. Hulse, Sigma International and its principal William Doug Campbell
were a consultant for TENAM. Campbell would meet with Mikerin and Fisk in closed
meetings, which was unusual at TENAM.
• After Fisk died, Mikerin approved Boris Rubizhevsky and his company NexGen taking
over the final months of a consulting agreement with TENAM.
• Ms. Hulse never suspected any illegal activity by Mikerin, Fisk or Campbell, but felt the
closed door meetings with Mr. Campbell and the contract with NexGen were strange.
Barry Keller
• Barry Keller was an executive with Westerman Companies and Worthington Industries in
Ohio. He was interviewed and stated that he first met Vadim Mikerin a couple of years
before 2010 and that he met Fisk around the same time. Fisk was close with Mikerin and
was typically with Mikerin when they met with Keller.
• Keller stated that Fisk was an intermediary and his consulting company was a paid
consultant by Westerman for contracts with TENEX. According to Keller, Mikerin
introduced Boris Rubizhevsky as the new consultant to act as the intermediary between
Westerman and TENEX in the same capacity that Fisk had worked previously.
• Keller stated that he sometimes emailed with Mikerin at Mikerin’s “Marvin Jodel” email
account, and Keller stated he believed that the email account belonged to another
TENAM employee.
• Keller met from time to time with “Daren” and Mark Lambert at TLI to obtain quotes for
transportation services, but Keller did not believe there were any contracts between
Westerman/Worthington and TLI. Keller did not know whether TLI paid consultants in
connection with TLI’s business with TENEX.
10
• Keller denied any knowledge of any illegal schemes or activities and he denied
knowledge of Wiser Trading Ltd., Leila Global Ltd. and Ollins Development, Inc. (“Shell
Companies A, B and C in the Indictment).
Norman Kent
• Norman Kent was a TLI employee. In 2012, he worked with Mark Lambert to open a
cylinder wash facility in Kevil, Kentucky. Lambert was usually working in Kevil at the
time.
Wendy Lichtenberg
• Wendy Lichtenberg was a TLI employee. She stated that Lambert worked on a cylinder
wash project in 2013 or 2014 and traveled to the site to set it up.
• At some point after the FBI executed the search at TLI, Lambert spoke with Lichtenberg
and said he was unaware of the payments to Mikerin.
Vadim Mikerin
• Vadim Mikerin was a Russian official at TENEX and TENAM. Mikerin entered into a
plea agreement with the government and pleaded guilty to a one-count Information
charging him with a Section 371 conspiracy to commit money laundering. A copy of
Mikerin’s plea agreement is included with this production.
• During plea negotiations, Mikerin’s counsel explained that he would not inculpate
anybody who had not already pleaded guilty in connection with the investigation,
including Mark Lambert.
• A video copy of Mikerin’s pre-arrest, non-custodial interview on October 29, 2014 is
provided with your initial discovery. During the interview, Mikerin referred to TLI’s
corrupt payments to offshore accounts as “commissions,” and stated that it was not
TENEX policy for such payments to be made and TENEX was not aware of them. At
one point in the interview, Mikerin was asked about Mark Lambert and Mikerin would
not state that Lambert was complicit in the wiring of funds to shell accounts. Mikerin
stated that Lambert did sit in meetings with Condrey and Mikerin when the arrangements
for “commission” payments were discussed.
• On October 14, 2015, the government engaged with Mikerin’s counsel to schedule an
interview. During the conversation, Mikerin’s U.S. counsel suggested reasons that
Mikerin may not want to schedule another interview, and suggested that one reason was
that he believed he had pleaded guilty to a crime of which he thought he was innocent.
Mikerin’s counsel never moved to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise suggested in
subsequent conversations that Mikerin believed he was innocent.
Tatiana Mikerina
• Tatiana Mikerina was the wife of Vadim Mikerin. She was interviewed and stated that
her husband Vadim Mikerin could not be involved in any wrongdoing.
Christopher Robinson
• Christopher Robinson was a TLI employee. He stated Mark Lambert set up the cylinder
wash facility in Kentucky.
11
• According to Robinson, Daren Condrey and Wendy Lichtenberg would have known
about the remuneration clauses in the Japanese Sumitomo contracts. Lambert may have
known but Robinson was not sure why Lambert would have known.
Mike Rosso
• Mike Rosso was the CFO of TLI. Rosso denied any knowledge of illegal kickbacks at
TLI.
• According to Rosso, TLI paid “remuneration” to Japanese companies Sumitomo and
Mitsubishi, in addition to TENEX. The remuneration payments were not hidden and
Rosso first learned about them when he interviewed with Condrey and Lambert.
• The TLI “remuneration” or “commissions” with TENEX were primarily negotiated by
Daren Condrey, and Mark Lambert was also involved. Rosso believed that the
remuneration and commission payments were paid to Russia, though he was familiar that
they may have been made to other companies that he thought were associated with
TENEX.
• Rosso worked with Condrey on the TENEX remuneration payments. Rosso had asked
Lambert about them, and Lambert told Rosso to talk with Condrey. Condrey maintained
a spreadsheet on the remuneration payments for the TENEX contracts.
Boris Rubizhevsky
• Boris Rubizhevsky was a consultant to TENAM who pleaded guilty to a one-count
Information charging him with money laundering. Mr. Rubizhevsky’s plea agreement is
included with this production.
• According to Mr. Rubizhevsky, he met Mikerin over 20 years ago and kept up with him
in hopes of doing business with TENEX.
• Rubizhevsky met Fisk in approximately 2008 or 2009. Rubizhevsky stated that the
meeting occurred at a Nuclear Energy Institute conference in Miami, Florida.
Rubizhevsky stated that he may have met Fisk at least one other time.
• After Fisk died, Mikerin approached Rubizhevsky about taking over a contract that
TENEX had with Fisk that had approximately three months remaining. Mikerin
explained that the contract would give Rubizhevsky an opportunity to establish relations
with TENEX and would entail Rubizhevsky working with a company called Leila Global
Limited (“Shell Company B” in the Indictment). Rubizhevsky asked Mikerin whether
the Leila was one of those “Cyprus deals,” and Mikerin replied, “come on!”
• According to Rubizhevsky, Mikerin told him that Leila (“Shell Company B”) was a
legitimate company with a good relationship with Rosatom and TENEX, and
Rubizhevsky needed to do business with Leila if he wanted to do business with Rosatom
and TENEX. Rubizhevsky explained that TENAM was merely a facilitator between US
companies and TENEX.
• Rubizhevsky’s company “NexGen Security” ultimately entered into contracts with
TENAM, Westerman Companies and Leila. According to Rubizhevsky, he felt that the
contracts provided him an opportunity to prove himself to all three companies. However,
12
he knew that the contracts were “shady,” and he never provided any real service other
than acting as a middleman to launder money, which he believed was intended to benefit
Mikerin and others. Rubizhevsky’s money laundering scheme included fraudulent
invoices. He laundered corrupt payments from Westerman to Leila, at the direction of
Mikerin. Rubizhevsky met with Westerman employees Barry Keller and Terry McGhee
one time in 2011 in Bremen, Ohio.
Charles Russell
• Former TENAM employee Charles Russell stated that he personally never observed
illegal activity while working at TENAM. He also stated that he was confident that FSB
officers had been placed within senior positions at TENEX.
• Russell also had familiarity with Rod “Frisk,” and stated that Frisk was a consultant who
helped establish TENAM’s office and was “always around.”
FBI Special Agent Timothy Taylor
• Special Agent Timothy Taylor testified before a Grand Jury on November 12, 2014,
which resulted in an indictment against Vadim Mikerin. During his testimony, Taylor
stated that evidence suggests that Fisk “corroborated” with Mikerin to establish TLI for
the purpose of handling the TENEX account and illegal activities that came out of that
relationship. Taylor also testified that as far back as TLI records at the time could show,
TLI had been kicking back 5-7% on all contracts with TENEX, and that documents
showed TLI principals had engaged in contracts concerning Wiser Trading (“Shell
Company A”) dating back to 2001. Special Agent Taylor testified that law enforcement
had traced close to $3 million in payments.
FBI Confidential Informant
• The FBI engaged a confidential informant (“CI”) in connection with a related
investigation involving Vadim Mikerin. The following information and statements
concerning the CI are derived from classified reporting that has been declassified and are
being provided to you at this time:
o The CI recorded a conversation with Daren Condrey and Mark Lambert on
August 14, 2014, a copy of which is enclosed.
o According to the CI, Mikerin engaged the CI and the CI’s company as a
consultant to TENEX, and Mikerin demanded the CI make corrupt kickback
payments to Mikerin and others, including through Wiser Trading Limited (“Shell
Company A”) in Cyprus and Leila Global Limited (“Shell Company B”) in
Latvia. The FBI authorized the CI to make certain kickback payments.
o According to the CI, Mikerin and another senior TENEX official, Sergey
Polgorodnik, made veiled threats multiple times to the CI to ensure that the CI
would make complete and timely kickback payments. Mikerin often mentioned
that the people involved were “serious” and “dangerous” and Polgorodnik asked
the CI in a very strict manner whether he could be trusted. The CI understood
that Mikerin and other senior TENEX officials were beneficiaries of the scheme
and that there may have been links to Russian organized crime.
13
o According to the CI, Rod Fisk initially introduced the CI to Mikerin. The CI and
Fisk became good friends after they met, which the CI believed was as early as
2002 or as late as 2004-05. The CI believed that Fisk introduced the CI to
Mikerin because the CI would be able to help TENEX with long-term
representation in the United States.
o According to the CI, the CI’s company paid Fisk approximately $10,000/month as
a consulting fee for Fisk’s assistance with the CI’s contracts with TENEX.
Mikerin asked the CI to consider hiring Fisk as a consultant with some of the
money that the CI was paid by TENEX. The CI began paying the consulting fees
to Fisk in or around early 2010 and the CI claimed that he paid the fee even one
month after Fisk’s death. According to the CI, the CI never discussed the
kickback scheme with Fisk and “danced around” the topic with him.
o According to the CI, at one point Fisk persuaded the Department of Energy to
arrange meetings for the Russian nuclear industry inside South Africa.
o During a corrupt kickback payment of approximately $50,000 that the CI paid
Mikerin in cash on or about January 23, 2011, the CI explained that he had
possession of TLI branded notebook. The CI stated that Fisk frequently gave
blank TLI notebooks to the CI, which the CI liked to use.
o In a prepared statement in 2018, the CI stated that he had gathered evidence for
the FBI that proved that Fisk’s company TLI had been compromised by a bribery
and kickback scheme.
Jencks Act Material
The government recognizes its obligations under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2. Jencks material will be provided to you consistent
with the government’s obligations. As you know, we are requesting reciprocal Jencks material
and request that you affirmatively represent that you have no Jencks material to produce if that is
the case.
Reciprocal Discovery
With this letter the government requests all reciprocal discovery to which it is entitled
under Rules 16(b) and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government also
requests notice of any intention of your client to rely upon an entrapment defense, a defense
involving mental condition or duress, and/or an alibi defense. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12.1, the dates, times, and places of the charged offenses are detailed within
the documents included within the discovery. Please contact me immediately if you believe that
this notice is insufficient.
As noted above, the enclosed materials and any future discovery provided to you that
may exceed the scope of discovery mandated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
federal statute, or relevant case law are provided voluntarily and solely as a matter of discretion.
By producing such materials to you, the government reiterates that it does not waive its right to
object to any future discovery requests beyond the ambit of its legal obligations.
14
As we get closer to trial, the government will provide you with access to our trial
exhibits. The government is compiling the exhibits from the larger pool of possible evidence.
You may consider the various specific items referenced herein to be among the likely exhibits at
trial.
Please let me know if you have any questions, encounter difficulties attempting to access
any of the material provided herein or in subsequent productions, or would like to further discuss
any of the matters raised above.
Respectfully,
_________________________
Ephraim Wernick
Assistant Chief
Criminal Division, Fraud Section
cc: David I. Salem and Michael T. Packard, AUSAs, U.S. Attorney’s Office for Maryland
Derek Ettinger, Trial Attorney, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section
Enclosure
15
EXHIBIT 12
12
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
9 Filed
Filed 03/22/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 192ofof28159 1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
4 )
Plaintiff, )
5 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. TDC-18-0011
vs. )
6 )
TRANSPORT LOGISTICS )
7 INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
8 Defendant. )
9 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - MOTIONS HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE D. CHUANG
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2018; 2:00 P.M.
11 GREENBELT, MARYLAND
12 A P P E A R A N C E S
13 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
14 OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: DAVID SALEM, MICHAEL PACKARD,
15 CHRISTOPHER CESTARO
6406 IVY LANE, SUITE 800
16 GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
(301) 344-4433
17
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
18
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
19 BY: THOMAS MATTHEW BUCHANAN
1700 K STREET, NW
20 WASHINGTON, DC 20006
(202) 282-5787
21
***Proceedings Recorded by Mechanical Stenography***
22 Produced By Computer-Aided Transcription
______________________________________________________________
23
MARLENE MARTIN-KERR, RPR, RMR, CRR, FCRR
24 FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE, STE 200
25 GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
(301)344-3499
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
9 Filed
Filed 03/22/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 493ofof28159 4
1 -- maybe you can pull the microphone up a little higher. Tell
2 me what you know about this company now versus at the time this
3 was all happening. So, for example, was current management
4 part of the management structure when this was all going on, or
5 is it sort of under new management?
6 MR. CESTARO: Yes. So at the time of the conduct
7 that's alleged in the Information, there were individuals at
8 the company that were involved in that conduct, and so we were
9 holding the company responsible for the actions of those
10 individuals.
11 At this present time, the company has fully remediated and
12 the culpable individuals are no longer at the company; and so
13 the company is employing individuals that were innocent of the
14 conduct that was alleged in the Information.
15 THE COURT: So give me a better sense then. So, for
16 example, the current Board of Directors. The events of the
17 conspiracy runs through 2014. So are there any members of the
18 Board of Directors now who were members of the Board of
19 Directors four years ago or any officers?
20 MR. CESTARO: There are overlapping employees and
21 officers but it's not -- the individuals that are culpable of
22 the conduct, the individuals that were engaged and involved in
23 the conduct are no longer with the company.
24 THE COURT: Just the two individuals that have been
25 charged, or are there other people who were also involved?

Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
9 Filed
Filed 03/22/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 594ofof28159 5
1 MR. CESTARO: As far as the individuals that are
2 culpable, are the individuals that have been charged in this
3 matter.
4 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what you mean by
5 individuals who are culpable. I mean, no one is culpable until
6 they are convicted. So you're telling me that you know who was
7 involved and who wasn't involved, and none of the people who
8 currently work at the company were involved in any criminal
9 activity? That's your representation now?
10 MR. CESTARO: That is what our investigation has
11 determined at this point, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 But there are overlapping directors and officers from that
14 time?
15 MR. CESTARO: Yes, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: But in terms of being able to say, for
17 example, that no one from the company was involved, that's one
18 thing; but you could also -- you wouldn't by able to say there
19 is no one -- I mean, one question I think that crossed my mind
20 was, was there anybody in the leadership position at the
21 company who should have uncovered this?
22 And there certainly were people who were in place, you
23 said, so perhaps there were people who at least had the
24 potential for having uncovered this and who didn't, whether
25 they have been charged or whether anyone has found any evidence
EXHIBIT 13
13
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 196ofof24159
Vfi DIS/MTP: USA° 2014R00701

IN THE UNITED STATES:DISTRICT COURT ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 441
V . • CRIMINAL NO. -TVG 1Cr I 91
MARK T. LAMBERT, • (Conspiracy to Violate the Foreign

Corrupt Practices Act and to Commit
Defendant • Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371; Violation
of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,
• 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2; Wire Fraud,
• 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Money Laundering,
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A); Aiding and
• Abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 2; Forfeiture,
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and
• 982(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c))
*******
INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Violate the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act and to Commit Wire Fraud)
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland charges that:
Introduction
At times material to this Indictment:
Relevant Entities and Individuals
1. Transportation Corporation A, a company whose identity is known to the Grand
Jury, was a United States company headquartered in Maryland, and thus a "domestic concern,"
as that term is used in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), Title 15, United States Code,
Section 78dd-2(h)(1)(B). Transportation Corporation A was in the business of providing
logistical support services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United
States and to foreign customers, including to and from the Russian Federation.
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 297ofof24159
2. Defendant Mark T. Lambert ("defendant LAMBERT") was a citizen of the
United States and resident of Maryland. Defendant LAMBERT was an owner and executive of
Transportation Corporation A from in or about August 1998 through in or about September
2016. Defendant LAMBERT was also the co-President of Transportation Corporation A from
in or about January 2010 through in or about September 2016. Thus, defendant LAMBERT
was a "domestic concern" and an officer, employee, and agent of a "domestic concern," as those
terms are used in the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2(h)(1).
3. Daren Condrey ("Condrey"), who has been charged separately, was a citizen of
the United States and resident of Maryland. Condrey was an owner and executive of
Transportation Corporation A from in or about August 1998 through in or about October 2014.
Condrey and defendant LAMBERT were also the co-Presidents of Transportation Corporation
A from in or about January 2010 through in or about October 2014. Thus, Condrey was a
"domestic concern" and an officer, employee and agent of a "domestic concern," as those terms
are used in the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2(h)(1).
4. "Co-Conspirator One," a person whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was
an owner and executive of Transportation Corporation A with defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey from in or about 1998 to in or about December 2009, and a consultant to Transportation
Corporation A from in or about January 2010 through in or about 2011.
5. JSC Techsnabexport ("TENEX") supplied uranium and uranium enrichment
services to nuclear power companies throughout the world on behalf of the government of the
Russian Federation. TENEX was indirectly owned and controlled by, and performed functions
of, the government of the Russian Federation, and thus was an "agency" and "instrumentality" of
2
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 398ofof24159
a foreign government, as those terms are used in the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section
78dd-2(h)(2).
6. TENAM Corporation ("TENAM"), located in the United States, was a wholly-
owned subsidiary of TENEX established in or about October 2010. TENAM was TENEX's
official representative office in the United States. TENAM was owned and controlled by, and
performed functions of, the government of the Russian Federation, and thus was an "agency" and
"instrumentality" of a foreign government, as those terms are used in the FCPA, Title 15, United
States Code, Section 78dd-2(h)(2).
7. Vadim Mikerin ("Mikerin"), a national of the Russian Federation, was a Director
of TENEX from at least in or around 2004 through in or around 2011, and also was the President
of TENAM from in or around October 2010 through in or around October 2014. From in or
around 2011 through in or around October 2014, Mikerin was a resident of Maryland. Mikerin
was a "foreign official," as that term is used in the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section
78dd-2(h)(2).
8. "Shell Company A," a company whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a
shell company with a purported physical address in the Republic of Seychelles. Shell Company
A had bank accounts at financial institutions in Cyprus associated with a Russian national.
9. "Shell Company B," a company whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a
shell company with a purported physical address in the United Kingdom. Shell Company B had
a bank account at a financial institution in Latvia associated with a Russian national.
3
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 499ofof24159
10. "Shell Company C," a company whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a
shell company with a purported physical address in the British Virgin Islands. Shell Company
C had bank accounts at financial institutions in Switzerland associated with a Russian national.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
11. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"), as amended, Title 15,
United States Code, Sections 78dd-1, et seq., was enacted by Congress for the purpose of, among
other things, making it unlawful to act corruptly in furtherance of an offer, promise,
authorization, or payment of money or anything of value, directly or indirectly, to a foreign
government official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for, or directing business
to, any person.
The Scheme to Defraud and Make Corrupt Payments
12. At some point in or before 2009, defendant LAMBERT and Condrey learned that
Co-Conspirator One had agreed with Mikerin to make corrupt bribe and kickback payments in
order for Transportation Corporation A to obtain and retain business and contracts with TENEX.
Co-Conspirator One explained that the amount of each corrupt payment was based on an
agreement with Mikerin to kickback a percentage of certain contract awards that TENEX
awarded to Transportation Corporation A to benefit Mikerin, and that Mikerin would help
Transportation Corporation A win contract awards with TENEX if such corrupt payments were
made. Soon after learning of the corrupt and fraudulent scheme, defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey agreed to enter into the conspiracy with Co-Conspirator One to make corrupt and
fraudulent bribe and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts to benefit Mikerin in order to
help Transportation Corporation A obtain and retain business with TENEX.
4
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
01/10/18 Page
Page 100
5 of of
24159
13. In order to conceal and further the scheme, the co-conspirators, including
defendant LAMBERT and Condrey, used the terms "remuneration" and "commission" when
documenting the corrupt and fraudulent payments on an internal spreadsheet and when
communicating with unknowing Transportation Corporation A employees who unwittingly
processed the corrupt and fraudulent payments to offshore accounts.
14. In order to justify Transportation Corporation A's corrupt and fraudulent
payments to offshore accounts to benefit Mikerin, and to generate the money to make the
payments, defendant LAMBERT, Condrey and others, including Co-Conspirator One and
Mikerin, caused fake invoices to be prepared, which purported to be from TENEX to
Transportation Corporation A and which fraudulently described services that were never
provided by TENEX to Transportation Corporation A. Defendant LAMBERT, Condrey, and
others, including Co-Conspirator One, caused Transportation Corporation A to make the corrupt
and fraudulent payments after Transportation Corporation A received the fraudulent invoices.
15. Co-Conspirator One left Transportation Corporation A in early 2010, but
continued to work as a consultant to Transportation Corporation A. Upon Co-Conspirator
One's departure from Transportation Corporation A, defendant LAMBERT and Condrey
became co-Presidents of Transportation Corporation A and continued to conspire with Co-
Conspirator One to communicate with Mikerin and facilitate the corrupt and fraudulent bribe and
kickback payments.
16. Co-Conspirator One died in or around August 2011. After Co-Conspirator
One's death and continuing through in or around October 2014, defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey continued the corrupt and fraudulent bribe and kickback scheme and communicated
5
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
01/10/18 Page
Page 101
6 of of
24159
directly with Mikelin to obtain fraudulent invoices and facilitate the corrupt and fraudulent
payments.
The Conspiracy
17. From in or around 2004 and continuing through in or around October 2014, in the
District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
did knowingly and willfully, that is, with the intent to further the objects of the conspiracy,
combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with Condrey, Co-Conspirator One and others, known
and unknown, to commit offenses against the United States, namely:
a. to willfully make use of the mails and means and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, and
authorization of the payment of any money, offer, gift, promise to give, and authorization of the
giving of anything of value, to a foreign official, and to a person, while knowing that all or a
portion of such money and thing of value would be and had been offered, given, and promised to
a foreign official, for purposes of: (i) influencing acts and decisions of such foreign official in his
or her official capacity; (ii) inducing such foreign official to do and omit to do acts in violation of
the lawful duty of such official; (iii) securing an improper advantage; and (iv) inducing such
foreign official to use his or her influence with a foreign government and agencies and
instrumentalities thereof to affect and influence acts and decisions of such government and
agencies and instrumentalities, in order to assist defendant LAMBERT, Condrey, Co-
Conspirator One, Transportation Corporation A, and others in obtaining and retaining business
6
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
01/10/18 Page
Page 102
7 of of
24159
for and with, and directing business to, Transportation Corporation A and others, in violation of
Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2; and

5
b. to knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise a
scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of materially
false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses,
representations, and promises were false and fraudulent when made, and did knowingly transmit
and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, writings,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy
18. The manner and means by which defendant LAMBERT and others, including
Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, sought to accomplish the objects of the conspiracy included,
among other things, the following:
19. It was part of the conspiracy that defendant LAMBERT and others, including
Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, offered to pay, promised to pay, and authorized corrupt and
fraudulent bribe and kickback payments for the benefit of Mikerin, in exchange for Mikerin's
agreement to help Transportation Corporation A secure business and contracts with TENEX.
20. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant LAMBERT and others,
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, discussed in person, and through, among other
means, electronic mail ("email") and text messaging, making corrupt and fraudulent bribe and
kickback payments to offshore accounts to benefit Mikerin in order for Transportation
Corporation A to obtain and retain business with TENEX.
7
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
01/10/18 Page
Page 103
8 of of
24159
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, concealed their scheme by using code words like
"lucky figure," "LF," "lucky numbers," "cake," "remuneration," and "commission" when
communicating about the corrupt and fraudulent bribe and kickback scheme.
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, emailed with Mikerin at Mikerin's personal email
address to discuss the corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback scheme, in order to evade
detection by other TENEX officials and others who were not benefiting from the scheme.
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, caused fraudulent invoices to be created and
transmitted by email to others in order to document purported services that were not actually
provided to Transportation Corporation A and to justify the payment of corrupt and fraudulent
bribes and kickbacks to offshore accounts.
24. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant LAMBERT, Condrey, and
Co-Conspirator One kept track of the corrupt bribe and kickback payments that had been made
and were pending, and they agreed with Mikerin that the amount of each corrupt and fraudulent
payment was based on an agreed-upon percentage of certain TENEX contract payments to
Transportation Corporation A.
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, concealed their corrupt and fraudulent bribe and
kickback payments in a manner that allowed those payments to go undetected by certain TENEX
officials and caused TENEX to overpay for Transportation Corporation A's services.
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
Document
63-11 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
01/10/18 Page
Page 104
9 of of
24159
including Condrey and Co-Conspirator One, caused Transportation Corporation A to wire
corrupt and fraudulent bribe and kickback payments from Transportation Corporation A's bank
account in Maryland to offshore bank accounts associated with companies that had no legitimate
business relationship with Transportation Corporation A, such as Shell Company A in the
Republic of Cyprus, Shell Company B in Latvia, and Shell Company C in Switzerland, for the
purpose of executing and concealing the corrupt and fraudulent payments.
Overt Acts
In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to achieve the objects thereof, at least one of the
conspirators committed, and caused to be committed, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere,
at least one of the following overt acts, among others:
A. On or about September 23, 2011, Mikerin emailed defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey from Mikerin's personal email address to provide inside information from TENEX to
assist Transportation Corporation A obtain a new contract award over "the other two
competitors," in exchange for additional corrupt bribe and kickback payments. In the email,
Mikerin requested, in relevant part, that defendant LAMBERT and Condrey "initiate from your
side new quotations for filled and empty cylinders transportation" for 2012 and 2013 and
specified that the "rates should include new Lucky Figures."
B. On or about September 23, 2011, defendant LAMBERT replied to Mikerin's
email referenced in Paragraph A above, and defendant LAMBERT submitted a draft email for
Mikerin to review, which defendant LAMBERT intended to send to the TENEX senior official
and included the specific pricing terms suggested by Mikerin.
9
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 10
105ofof24159
C. On or about September 23, 2011, after Mikerin approved the draft language
proposed by defendant LAMBERT in the email referenced in Paragraph B above, defendant
LAMBERT emailed the exact language and pricing terms that Mikerin approved to the senior
official at TENEX, copying Condrey.
D. On or about September 27, 2011, defendant LAMBERT spoke by phone with a
representative from Transportation Corporation A's bank to authorize the wire transfer of
approximately $81,397.21 from Transportation Corporation A's bank account in Maryland to a
Shell Company B bank account in Latvia, and defendant LAMBERT confirmed on the call that
the payment was in reference to "Invoice No. 35558, dated September 22, 2011."
E. On or about September 27, 2011, Transportation Corporation A made a wire
transfer payment of approximately $81,397.21 from Transportation Corporation A's bank
account in Maryland to a Shell Company B bank account in Latvia.
F. On or about October 19, 2011, Condrey emailed defendant LAMBERT projected
pricing estimates for Transportation Corporation A to offer TENEX for 2011, 2012, and 2013,
and Condrey explained that "10% as TENEX Remuneration for each package" was built into the
prospective quotes to TENEX.
G. On or about October 20, 2011, defendant LAMBERT emailed Condrey with new
pricing estimates for Transportation Corporation A to offer TENEX for 2011 — 2014, which also
included "TENEX Remuneration" built into the prospective quotes to TENEX.
H. On or about December 2, 2011, Mikerin emailed defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey from his personal email address, with the subject line, "news and lucky figure," and
10
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 11
106ofof24159
stated, in relevant part, ". . . with the understanding of the forthcoming end of Q4 and CY2011
please tell me what lucky figure will be when we should start our process (docs, etc.)."
I. On or about December 20, 2011, as a follow-up to the "news and lucky figure"
email referenced in Paragraph H above, Condrey replied to Mikerin at his personal email
address, copying defendant LAMBERT, "I am off from work today. . . . Just shoot me an email
with your proposal, or you can call Mark [LAMBERT] at the office as he is fully informed, and
we can finalize how you want to proceed."
J. On or about December 21, 2011, Mikerin sent an email to defendant LAMBERT
and Condrey, in which Mikerin referenced the 'Lucky figures' being calculated for Q4 2011 . . .
[and] based on this the Invoice will be arranged just today and sent to you. [Y]our payment is
to be effected on [December] 23 in order to be ahead of the holiday season and to allow [Shell
Company B] to get the funds early next week. [I]f our Big Friend improves the issue some time
later and you are Ok with the results we will reestablish Lucky Figures for Q1 2012[.] I've just
got `Ok' to proceed with [Shell Company B] in the shortest possible time (hot market activities)
and kindly request you to confirm and give 'green light'."
K. On or about December 21, 2011, Condrey sent an email to Mikerin at his personal
email address in response to the email referenced in Paragraph J above, copying defendant
LAMBERT, to "confirm and give the 'Green Light," and to request the invoice.
L. Later that day, on or about December 21, 2011, Mikerin emailed Condrey from
his personal email address. Mikerin attached a document to the email, which purported to be
TENEX "Invoice No. 35685" and was dated December 12, 2011. The document fraudulently
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 12
107ofof24159
described services that were never provided to Transportation Corporation A to justify a corrupt
and fraudulent payment of approximately $125,930.53.
M. On or about December 22, 2011, defendant LAMBERT spoke by phone with a
the payment was in reference to "Invoice No. 35685, dated December 12, 2011."
N. On or about December 22, 2011, Transportation Corporation A made a wire
0. On or about March 27, 2012, Mikerin emailed defendant LAMBERT and
Condrey from his personal email account, and stated in relevant part, "Hello Daren [Condrey]
and Mark [LAMBERT], Thank you both for your visit [to] our 'noisy' location on Monday and
energetic lunch together. . . . Also a channel for 'lucky figures' process has been checked and
confirmed (no changes), so you will get an invoice for the amount M48,089.30 tomorrow.
Would you please to confirm that it'll be done before the end of the month of Q1 or early next
week[?]"
P. On or about March 28, 2012, Mikerin emailed Condrey from his personal email
account and attached a document, which purported to be TENEX "Invoice No. 1547-12." The
document fraudulently described services that were never provided to Transportation
Corporation A to justify a corrupt and fraudulent payment of approximately $48,089.30.
12
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 13
108ofof24159
Q. On or about March 29, 2012, defendant LAMBERT spoke by phone with a
the payment was in reference to "Invoice No. 1547-12, dated March 28, 2012."
R. On or about March 29, 2012, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
payment of approximately $48,089.30 from Transportation Corporation A's bank account in
Maryland to a Shell Company B bank account in Latvia.
S. On or about May 25, 2012, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
T. On or about June 8, 2012, defendant LAMBERT sent an email to Condrey,
stating in part, "I never thought [a senior official at TENEX] was our friend — which is strange
given the situation with Vadim [Mikerin] and his lucky numbers."
U. On or about August 30, 2012, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
V. On or about December 18, 2012, Transportation Corporation A made a wire
13
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 14
109ofof24159
W. On or about March 28, 2013, Condrey caused Transportation Corporation A
Invoice No. 13-104, dated March 27, 2013, to be sent by private mail courier to TENEX in
Russia to request payment for services rendered for $192,737.50.
X. On or about April 2, 2013, Mikerin emailed Condrey from his personal email
address, with the subject line "Figures," and stated, "[p]lease advise when Q1 `LF' can be done
to check on our side in advance."
Y. On or about April 3, 2013, Condrey sent an email to Mikerin in response to the
email referenced in Paragraph X above, and attached a draft of an internal spreadsheet that
documented Transportation Corporation A's contracts with TENEX and the corrupt and
fraudulent bribe and kickback payments that Transportation Corporation A owed TENEX under
the colurrut "7% Remun." Condrey stated, "See attached. If we receive payment of 13-104
[the invoice referenced in Paragraph W above] by April 26 (when due) then we may be able to
arrange full amount by end of April." Condrey explained that Transportation Corporation A
could make a corrupt payment without the kickback associated with Invoice No. 13-104 at that
time, or Transportation Corporation A could wait until TENEX paid amount invoiced in 13-104,
at which point Transportation Corporation A would be in a position to make the full corrupt
payment.
Z. On or about April 28, 2013, after TENEX had remitted payment to Transportation
Corporation A for Invoice No. 13-104, Mikerin emailed Condrey from his personal email
address, stating, "Please find the due Invoice. Please not[e] that the previous file was provided
with the NEW INSTRUCTIONS where to go ([Shell Company C] instead of [Shell Company
B]). . ." Mikerin attached a document that purported to be TENEX "Invoice No. 1368-04,"
14
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 15
110ofof24159
which was dated April 25, 2013 and fraudulently described services that were never provided to
Transportation Corporation A to justify a corrupt and fraudulent payment of approximately
$25,774.
AA. On or about May 6, 2013, defendant LAMBERT authorized Transportation
Corporation A's bank to wire transfer approximately $25,774 from Transportation Corporation
A's bank account in Maryland to a Shell Company C bank account in Switzerland.
BB. On or about May 6, 2013, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
payment of approximately $25,774 from Transportation Corporation A's bank account in
Maryland to a Shell Company C bank account in Switzerland.
CC. On or about July 11, 2013, defendant LAMBERT authorized Transportation
Corporation A's bank to wire transfer approximately $95,833.55 from Transportation
Corporation A's bank account in Maryland to a Shell Company B bank account in Latvia.
DD. On or about July 11, 2013, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
EE. On or about August 28, 2013, Mikerin emailed defendant LAMBERT, in
relevant part, ". . . please advise me (based on our short business meeting with Daren [Condrey]
last Tue.) how quick we can proceed with our "LF" matter, possible by the end of this week?
As agreed with Daren [Condrey] I sent an e-mail (with a doc enclosed) on Mon. [August 26,
2013] but didn't hear from him."

Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 16
111ofof24159
FF. On or about August 30, 2013, defendant LAMBERT authorized Transportation
Corporation A's bank to wire transfer approximately $94,102 from Transportation Corporation
A's bank account in Maryland to a Shell Company C bank account in Switzerland.
GG. On or about August 30, 2013, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
HH. On or about October 17, 2013, defendant LAMBERT and Condrey sent the
following messages to one another from defendant LAMBERT's personal email address to
Condrey's phone:
Condrey: I meet with Vadim [Mikerin] tomorrow. I told him we need to

talk about LF. We cannot stay competitive against others. . . .
LAMBERT: We need to figure out if [two senior officials at TENEX] know

about LF.
Condrey: They are part of group. [Other Tenex officials] not so much. My
guess.
LAMBERT: Yeah. Hard to tell. Sure [that one of the other TENEX officials] is
not.
Condrey: Yep.
On or about October 30, 2013, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
JJ. On or about March 28, 2014, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
16
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 17
112ofof24159
KK. On or about October 1, 2014, Transportation Corporation A made a wire transfer
18 U.S.C. § 371
17
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 18
113ofof24159
COUNTS TWO THROUGH EIGHT

(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 16 and 18 through 26 and Overt Acts A through K.1( of
Count One are incorporated here.
2. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere,
the defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
who was a domestic concern and an officer, employee, and agent of a domestic concern within
the meaning of the FCPA, willfully made use of, and aided, abetted, and caused others to make
use of, the mails and means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance
of an offer, payment, promise to pay, and authorization of the payment of any money, offer, gift,
promise to give, and authorization of the giving of anything of value to any foreign official, and
to any person, while knowing that the money and thing of value will be offered, given, and
promised, directly and indirectly, to any foreign official for the purposes of: (i) influencing acts
and decisions of such foreign official in his official capacity; (ii) inducing such foreign official to
do and omit to do acts in violation of the lawful duty of such official; (iii) securing an improper
advantage; and (iv) inducing such foreign official to use his influence with a foreign government
and instrumentalities thereof to affect and influence acts and decisions of such government and
instrumentalities, in order to assist defendant LAMBERT, Condrey, Co-Conspirator One, and
Transportation Corporation A, in obtaining and retaining business for and with, and directing
business to defendant LAMBERT, Condrey, Co-Conspirator One, Transportation Corporation
A, and others, as follows:
18
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 19
114ofof24159
Corrupt Means and Instrumentalities

Count Approximate Date
of Interstate Commerce
Wire transfer of approximately $81,397.21 from

Transportation Corporation A's bank account in Maryland
2 September 27, 2011
to a Shell Company B bank account in Latvia for the
benefit of Mikerin

3 December 22, 2011
benefit of Mikerin

4 March 29, 2012
benefit of Mikerin
Wire transfer of approximately $25,774 from

5 May 6, 2013
to a Shell Company C bank account in Switzerland for the
benefit of Mikerin

6 July 11, 2013
benefit of Mikerin
Wire transfer of approximately $94,102 from

7 August 30, 2013
benefit of Mikerin

8 October 1, 2014
benefit of Mikerin
15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2
18 U.S.C. §2
19
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 20
115ofof24159
COUNTS NINE AND TEN

(Wire Fraud)
1. Paragraphs 1 through 10, 12 through 16, and 18 through 26 and Overt Acts A
through KK of Count One are incorporated here.
The Scheme to Defraud
2. Between in or about 2011 and in or about 2014, the defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud TENEX, and to obtain money and property
by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises.
Execution of the Scheme to Defraud
3. On or about each of the dates set forth below, in the District of Maryland and
elsewhere, defendant LAMBERT and others, including Condrey and Mikerin, for the purpose of
executing the scheme described above, and attempting to do so, did knowingly and with the
intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud TENEX, and for
obtaining money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and promises were
false and fraudulent when made, and did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted, by
means of wire communication in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and
sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, as follows:
20
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 21
116ofof24159
Count Approximate Date Transmission
An email was sent from the Russian Federation

9 December 21, 2011 to Condrey in Maryland, attaching a document
purporting to be TENEX Invoice No. 35685
TENEX wire transferred payment of

10 April 15, 2013 $192,737.50 from the Russian Federation to a
Transportation Corporation A bank account in
Maryland in satisfaction of Invoice No. 13-104
18 U.S.C. § 1343
21
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 22
117ofof24159
COUNT ELEVEN
(Money Laundering)
1. Paragraphs 1 through 16 and 18 through 26 of Count One are incorporated here.
2. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere,
defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
did knowingly transfer and attempt to transfer funds, that is wire transfers of U.S. currency in the
following amounts, from a place in the United States, that is the District of Maryland, to a place
outside the United States, that is Switzerland, as set forth below, with the intent to promote the
carrying on of specified unlawful activity, that is, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2; and violations of the wire fraud statute, Title
18, United States Code, Section 1343; to wit, a wire transfer on May 6, 2013 of approximately
$25,774 from Transportation Corporation A's bank account in Maryland to a Shell Company C
bank account in Switzerland.
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A)
18 U.S.C. § 2
22
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 23
118ofof24159
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further finds that:
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2, notice is hereby given to the defendant that the
United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence in accordance with Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1), and Title 28, United States Code, Section
2461(c), in the event of the defendant's convictions of the offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1956(a)(2)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, as set forth
in Counts One through Ten of this Indictment.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Forfeiture
2. As a result of the offenses charged in Counts One through Eight of this
Indictment, the defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived
from proceeds traceable to any such violation.
Wire Fraud and Money Laundering Forfeiture
3. As a result of the offenses charged in Counts One, Nine, and Ten of this
Indictment, the defendant,
MARK T. LAMBERT,
shall forfeit to the United States (1) any and all property obtained directly or indirectly as a result
of any such violation, (2) any and all property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part
to commit and to facilitate the commission of any such violation charged in this Indictment; and
23
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
1 Filed
Filed 01/10/18
04/26/19 Page
Page 24
119ofof24159
any property, real or personal, which was involved in such an offense or was traceable to such an
offense.
Substitute Assets
4. If any of the property described above in paragraphs 2 and 3 above as being subject
to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of any defendant --
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
982(b) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), incorporating Title 21, United States
Code, Section 853, to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant.
18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1)

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)
Sandra L. Moser Steph n M. Schenning

Acting Chief, Fraud Section Acting United States Attorney
Criminal Division District of Maryland
Department of Justice
A TRUE BILL:

SIGNATURE REDACTED Date: January 10, 2017
Fcifjperson
24
EXHIBIT 14
14
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page121
1 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page122
2 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page123
3 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page124
4 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page125
5 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page126
6 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page127
7 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page128
8 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page129
9 ofof24159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 130
10 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 131
11 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 132
12 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 133
13 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 134
14 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 135
15 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 136
16 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 137
17 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 138
18 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 139
19 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 140
20 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 141
21 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 142
22 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 143
23 ofof24
159
Case
Case
8:18-cr-00012-TDC
Document
63-1
58 Filed
Filed 04/26/19
04/03/19 Page
Page 144
24 ofof24
159
EXHIBIT 15
15
that have been cleared for production by a filter team and is being made in accordance with the
agreed TIFF protocol to facilitate your review of the documents. We understand that
approximately 11,003 documents are currently undergoing a filter review and we will produce
the remaining non-privileged documents from this data set to you as they are released by the
filter team. Please note that one document, DOJ-0002747026, was an attachment to an email,
and was flagged as containing a virus during electronic file processing. While some metadata
from this document was captured, the suspected file was removed from the data set that is being
produced to you.
The government also is providing you with additional information from witness
statements to the government or that were relayed to the government by TLI as part of the
company’s internal investigation. Please note that, as with previous disclosures, this discovery
includes early disclosure of material that is not required to be made under the rules and do not
necessarily relate to the charges against your client. The fact that the government is providing
this discovery to you does not constitute an acknowledgment or admission on the government’s
part that such materials are admissible or relevant to the charges against your client, nor does the
disclosure indicate that such materials constitute Brady, Giglio or impeachment material. In
addition, the disclosure of otherwise non-discoverable information or material at this time does
not confer any substantive rights upon the defense nor does it obligate the government to provide
other non-discoverable material to you.
Carol Condrey: Among other things, we understand that Carol Condrey stated the following in
sum and substance to TLI outside counsel:
• Daren Condrey usually provided Tenex invoices to Carol for payment;
• Daren Condrey kept track of Tenex remuneration on his worksheet;
• Rod Fisk was TLI’s contact person for Tenex; and
• Some wire requests were in her handwriting.
Sergei Danilenko: Among other things, we understand that Sergei Danilenko stated the
following in sum and substance to TLI outside counsel:
• Danilenko believed that TLI won bids from Tenex because TLI was the most
competitive, and sometimes the only, company competing for certain bids from Tenex;
• Daren Condrey probably approved the remuneration payments because it was a program
that he inherited from Rod Fisk; and
• He could not imagine that Vadim Mikerin had any influence on Tenex contract awards.
Tiffany Eaton: Among other things, we understand that Tiffany Eaton stated the following in
• Daren Condrey was the person at TLI who usually dealt with Tenex;
• Daren Condrey was very protective of the Tenex contracts; and
• She understood that remuneration was paid on both Japanese and Russian contracts.
Jack Edlow: Among other things, Jack Edlow stated the following in sum and substance during
an interview by FBI and DOE-OIG law enforcement agents:
• Edlow met with Vadim Mikerin on or about February 12, 2014. During the meeting,
Edlow offered Mikerin the opportunity to partner with Edlow International. Mikerin was
2
receptive, but stated that Tenam had nothing to do with the transportation of nuclear
materials. Mikerin also complained that he only had a few contracts to handle, and that
the majority of contracts were made by Tenex around him.
Lauren Haas: Among other things, we understand that Lauren Haas stated the following in sum
and substance to TLI outside counsel:
• Daren Condrey dealt more with contracts and customers than Mark Lambert; and
• Carol Condrey was in charge of wiring funds and making sure invoices were paid.
Haas also told law enforcement agents during her interview on March 23, 2016, that Tonia
Lambert had told her that Daren Condrey positioned things to incriminate Mark Lambert because
Daren Condrey wants to clear himself.
Wendy Lichtenberg: Among other things, we understand that Wendy Lichtenberg stated the
• Daren Condrey was the only person who handled the Tenex contracts;
• She did not know that Tenex received remuneration until approximately mid-2014 when
she started getting Tenex contracts; and
• Vadim Mikerin usually interacted with Daren Condrey.
Mallery McCarthy: Among other things, we understand that Mallery McCarthy stated the
• Tenex mail was generally addressed to Daren Condrey and when Vadim Mikerin called
TLI, he would usually ask to speak to Daren Condrey.
Vadim Mikerin: In addition to what was previously disclosed concerning statements by Vadim
Mikerin, Mikerin made the following statements in sum and substance during an interview with
law enforcement on April 3, 2018:
• In 2003 or 2004, when Mikerin initiated his business dealings with TLI, his primary point
of contact was Rod Fisk who Mikerin said was a trusted friend who provided professional
guidance.
• Mikerin met Fisk in or around 1996, and it was around this time that Fisk came to
Mikerin with the idea for the “Lucky Fund,” or “LF,” which Mikerin claimed was a way
to make free money from business dealings that could be invested. Mikerin stated that
Fisk would invest the funds and Mikerin could draw on it eventually. When asked about
his previous statement that the LF money would be “spread between friends,” Mikerin
explained that he was only referring to Fisk.
• Mikerin stated that Fisk tasked Mikerin with finding the offshore accounts. Mikerin
stated that he had never seen any of the LF money after it was sent to the offshore
accounts. Mikerin stated that the LF fund was not his money but he was hopeful that it
would find its way back to him.
• Mikerin stated that he found “Wiser Trading,” “Ollins Development,” and Leila Global”
from Friday newspaper advertisements for money transfer services, which he described
as “legitimate brokers.” Mikerin noticed that the email address as@aha.ru, an email
address listed for M-Solutions was also an email associated with his acquaintance,
Alexey Sarul, and an email address that belonged to an administrator of the system. He
3
explained that Sarul helped with administrative matters when money sometimes got stuck
in the system.
Chris Robinson: Among other things, we understand that Chris Robinson stated the following in
• Daren Condrey generally handled any contractual issues. Daren kept the contracts from
everyone else at TLI, and did not disclose them to TLI operations personnel until
approximately May 2014; and
• Chris Robinson drafted Tenex invoices based on the contracts and he gave them to Daren
Condrey to send to Tenex. All Tenex communications and invoices went to Daren
Condrey and Carol Condrey handled the wires. Daren Condrey was the main point of
contact for Tenex and he did not think that Mark Lambert had much involvement with
Tenex.
Alex Rogers: Among other things, we understand that Alex Rogers stated the following in sum
• Daren Condrey dealt with Tenex far more than Mark Lambert, he was not sure whether
Mark Lambert ever dealt with Tenex;
• Mark Lambert was focusing on the new cylinder wash business; and
• Remuneration payments did not raise a red flag for Rogers, as TLI had several
remuneration agreements with different customers.
Mike Rosso: Among other things, we understand that Mike Rosso stated the following in sum
• He never saw the Tenex contracts and Daren Condrey kept them close to his vest;
• When Tenex would call Daren Condrey to ask for the remuneration payments, Condrey
would verify the amount and Carol Condrey would make the payment;
• Daren Condrey was the person at TLI who usually dealt with foreign customers;
• Rosso said that he could have first learned about “remuneration” from Wendy
Lichtenberg, in addition to Daren Condrey and Mark Lambert; and
• Carol Condrey was more experienced with foreign wire transfers so Rosso let Carol
Condrey handle them.
Please note that we understand TLI’s external counsel showed certain documents to your client,
as well as Carol Condrey and Sergei Danilenko during their interviews. Our understanding is
that those documents have already been produced to you and can be located within the following
production ranges: DOJ-0000063229 – 0000063231 and DOJ-0000064122 – 0000064221.
Attached with this production is an updated master index and electronic index, which
includes entries for documents being produced with this production and additional specificity in
the description fields for the subcategories of documents in the second and fourth productions.
Please also let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further.
4
Respectfully,
/s/ Ephraim Wernick___________

Ephraim Wernick
Assistant Chief
cc: Derek Ettinger, Trial Attorney

David Salem, Assistant United States Attorney
5
EXHIBIT 16
16
U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Ephraim (F,y) Wernick Fraud Section

Direct Dial: (202) 307-3952 Bond Building
1400 New York Ave., N. W.
March 13, 201 9
VIA EMAIL AND COURIER
William M. Sullivan, Jr.

Thomas C. Hill
Rachelle Rennagel
Fabio Leonardi
Pillsbmy Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Washington, DC 20036
Re: United States v. Mark T. Lambert, No. TDC-18-cr-12
Counsel:
We write to provide additional discove1y pursuant to the operative Protective Order

Governing Discovery in this case [ECF 18] and to provide you with infonnation pursuant to the
Comi's Memorandum Order, dated Febrnary 27, 2019 [ECF 48]. We also write to respond to
recent requests memorialized in your letter, dated March 6, 2019.
Discovery Production
Enclosed please find one thumb drive with documents obtained during the course of the
investigation and an updated index. The thumb drive includes the following documents:
• Materials from the seizure of an offsite TLI server in 2014 of five email accounts that
have recently been released from a privilege review (DOJ-0002998401 -DOJ-
0003011445);
• Bank Ce1iifications for Sandy Spring Bank returns for accounts ending in 2901 and
1501 (DOJ-0003011446 -DOJ-0003011451);
• Subscriber records for Mark Lambe1i provided to the Government by Broadview

Networks (DOJ-0003011452);
• Google certificate of authenticity of business records for Vadim Mikerin’s Gmail

account at MarviJodel@Gmail.com (DOJ-0003011453 – DOJ-0003011455);
• Google certificate of authenticity of business records for Rod Fisk’s Gmail account at
Rfiskster@gmail.com (DOJ-0003011456 – DOJ-0003011458)
The password to access these documents is: jn!JKwkAgp8Gm@LS
Updated Master Index
Attached also is an updated Master Index. Please note the following edits have been
made to previous entries:
• The identifying descriptions for 2.007 and 4.007 have been corrected to remove the
term “voluntary production” since those items were recovered as part of the search at
TLI.
• The entity/individual fields for 2.020 and 4.020 have been corrected to read
“TLI/Lambert” and not “Tenam/Mikerin.”
• The appropriate “Room” identifying information has been added to relevant

description fields based on room designations that were provided during the searches
that were conducted (e.g., Daren Condrey’s office was identified as “Room D” during
the search of TLI and the index now so indicates).
• The identifying information for 2.011, 2.012, 4.011, and 4.012 has been changed in
the description fields to indicate that the items were retrieved from the “safe” in
Mikerin’s office at Tenam, which was identified as “Room D.”
• The identifying information for 2.023 and 4.023 has been corrected to indicate that
the items were recovered from Tenam “Room C.”
• The identifying information for 2.024 has been corrected to indicate that the items
were recovered from Tenam “Room B.”
• The identifying information for 2.025, 2.026. 4.025 and 4.026 has been corrected to
indicate that the items were recovered from Tenam “Room F.”
the item that was seized had a total capacity of 16GB, not 60 GB, and was recovered
from Tenam “Room F.”
the item was seized from Mikerin’s residence, not Tenam.
2
Additional Disclosures
The government also is providing you with additional information concerning witness
statements. As with previous disclosures, this discovery includes early disclosure of material
that is not required to be made under the rules and do not necessarily relate to the charges against
your client. The fact that the government is providing this discovery to you does not constitute
an acknowledgment or admission on the government’s part that such materials are admissible or
relevant to the charges against your client, nor does the disclosure necessarily indicate that such
materials constitute Brady, Giglio or impeachment material. In addition, the disclosure of
otherwise non-discoverable information or material at this time does not confer any substantive
rights upon the defense nor does it obligate the government to provide other non-discoverable
material to you.
• Carol Condrey: On January 10, 2019, DOE-OIG Special Agent David Gadren and
FBI Special Agent Leon Leontyev interviewed Carol Condrey subject to a proffer
agreement, in the presence of counsel for the government and Mrs. Condrey. During
the interview, Mrs. Condrey stated that, at the beginning, Rodney Fisk was the only
conduit between TLI and Tenex, but when Mr. Fisk departed, this became Mark
Lambert’s and Daren Condrey’s responsibility. Carol Condrey also explained that
Mr. Fisk and Vadim Mikerin were close and that Mr. Fisk always seemed to want to
control Tenex’s business even after Mr. Fisk retired from TLI in 2010 and through his
death in 2011.
• Claus Karepin: On May 21, 2018, DOE-OIG Special Agent David Gadren and FBI
Special Agent Mike Peters interviewed Daher CFO Claus Karepin in the presence of
counsel for the government and TLI outside counsel. When asked about
“remuneration,” Mr. Karepin stated that he was under the impression, having spoken
to Mark Lambert and Daren Condrey previously, that TLI had contracts with various
customers that had a rebate clause. He stated that he heard about this practice from
Daren Condrey or Carol Condrey. He also stated that it was a standard term in the
industry and that he recalled a conversation where he learned about it from Daren
Condrey while visiting TLI at some point before 2014. He also stated that Mr.
Condrey was responsible for TLI’s contract with TENEX.
• Norman Ravenscroft: On April 9, 2015, DOE-OIG Special Agent David Gadren

interviewed Norman Ravenscroft. During the interview, Ravenscroft stated that he
did not trust Mark Lambert or Rod Fisk. He also told Daren Condrey not to trust Mr.
Fisk. Mr. Fisk started taking over the Russia program before Mr. Ravenscroft left
TLI, and Mr. Ravenscroft observed that Mr. Fisk always went to dinner with Vadim
Mikerin and Boris Fomin when they came to the US. Ravenscroft was shown a
document where he appeared to initial a commission payment. When asked about the
payment, he explained that he did not remember the instance so it could not have
happened often, but he opined that Mr. Fisk would have represented the 5% payment
as being to Tenex and not to Mikerin personally. Mr. Ravenscroft said that he
probably figured that including the additional 5% commission into the proposal for
Tenex business wouldn’t have affected the income at all. Mr. Fisk had authority to
3
make the payment on his own. In 2007, NCS approached Mr. Ravenscroft about
ousting Mr. Fisk from TLI and Mr. Ravenscroft approached Daren Condrey to try to
get support for the removal of Mr. Fisk, but Mr. Condrey would not agree to Mr.
Fisk’s ouster. Mr. Ravenscroft said that he felt as if Mr. Fisk was starting a company
within TLI to transport spent fuel.
• TLI Search Warrant: Unsourced notes from the search and seizure at TLI on October
29, 2014 indicates that at approximately 7:08pm, Mark Lambert departed after
providing assistance. We understand that after his interview, Mr. Lambert directed
agents to relevant areas where evidence could be found.
Discovery Update
As discussed during our conference call on March 6, 2019 and in follow-up

communications, the government has identified the February 1, 2014 search warrant materials
that were referenced in communications in November and December 2018 and memorialized in
our February 12, 2019 letter. Early indications are that approximately 90% of the materials that
were seized during the February 1, 2019 search were included among items seized on October
29, 2014, and we are expediting the processing and filter review process to produce the new
materials to you.
The government also has identified a blackberry that was in the possession of Vadim
Mikerin when he was arrested. As we explained, that blackberry was password protected and
never could be opened by the government, but we still have the blackberry itself.
We also explained that we had received a laptop from Bill Moore in response to an early
subpoena. In addition, prior to Daren Condrey entering into a plea agreement with the
government, we understand that he provided a laptop to TLI in response to a subpoena to TLI.
Mr. Condrey’s laptop was imaged by TLI and TLI produced a copy of that image to the
government. That image was corrupted and could not be loaded, and TLI produced another
image to the government in mid-2015 that was not able to loaded, as well. In response to your
requests, we obtained a duplicate image from TLI. We are in the process of processing both
items for production or relevant materials.
Also, we would like to recap what we shared with you about FBI Staff Operations
Specialist Josh Gentry’s conversation with your client during a visit with his wife to Dragon
Distillery on or about October 8, 2016. SOS Gentry explained that during a tour of the distillery,
Mr. Lambert identified himself as a former Naval officer who worked with radios and
electronics, which SOS Gentry understood to mean signals intelligence. Mr. Lambert also
explained that he later worked in the nuclear industry and was involved in nuclear shipping at a
company called TLI. Agent Gentry did not solicit this information nor did he recognize that Mr.
Lambert was the same person who was under investigation by the FBI and DOE at the time.
4
Identification of Invoices, Communications, Contracts and Wire Receipts
Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Order, dated February 27, 2019 [ECF 48],
enclosed herein are lists that identify for you by Bates number (the relevant “PROD BEGDOC”
number): (1) “all fraudulent invoices produced in furtherance of the wire fraud and conspiracy to
commit wire fraud charges,” (2) “all written communications constituting false or fraudulent
statements by Lambert relating to the wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges,”
and (3) “all contracts allegedly obtained through, and all wire transfer receipts reflecting
kickback payments made in furtherance of, the wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud charges. As
you should know from your review of the database, there are multiple duplicates of these
materials that were captured from different sources and have been produced to you during
discovery. The government is disclosing one Bates-stamped version to identify each of the
relevant records, but the government reserves the right to introduce duplicate versions of such
materials at trial.
With respect to the first (1) category of invoices, we have identified both: (a) the inflated
TLI invoices that your client caused to be sent to TENEX during the relevant time frame, each of
which had corrupt bribe and kickback payments built-in to the invoiced payments to TENEX,
and (b) the fake “TENEX” invoices that your client and TLI knowingly received to conceal and
further the scheme. You can find the fake TENEX invoice specifically referenced in Count 9 of
the Indictment (“TENEX Invoice No. 35685”) at DOJ-0000043392, among other places in the
government’s production. You can find TLI Invoice No. 13-104, which was referenced in Count
10 of the Indictment at DOJ-0000042378, among other places in the government’s production.
With respect to the second (2) category of written communications, we have identified
the emails authored “by Lambert” that specifically and directly relate to the wire fraud and
conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges (though they also constitute evidence in support of the
other charges, as well). This notably does not include other written communications which your
client received or otherwise caused to be made in furtherance of the scheme, and it also does not
include routine business communications that were generally in furtherance of the scheme as
such a reading would include almost all Tenex/Tenam-related communications by your client.
Broadly speaking, your client’s statements to law enforcement on October 29, 2014, and all
emails, written statements and other documents he drafted concerning TLI’s business with
TENEX or TENAM could be construed as relating to the fraudulent conspiracy and scheme.
Finally, with respect to the third (3) categories of (a) contracts and (b) wire transfer
receipts, we have identified those contracts and addenda that were obtained through the
fraudulent scheme and also the actual “receipts” from relevant wire transfers. For ease of
reference, the contracts are highlighted in blue and the addenda are not highlighted. Not all of
the relevant contracts and addenda in the government’s possession are fully executed or
complete. With respect to the wire transfer “receipts,” we also are directing you, as a courtesy,
to additional supporting materials and note that further evidence can be found within the bank
statements from Sandy Spring Bank (DOJ-0000049292 – DOJ-0000058243; DOJ-0002733269 –
DOJ-0002733606), and the MLAT returns for Cypriot banks Alpha Bank (DOJ-0002452349 –
DOJ-0002454019) and Eurobank (DOJ-0002454020 – DOJ-0002459034); Latvian bank ABLV
(DOJ-0000048474 – DOJ-0000048478; DOJ-0000048499 – DOJ-0000048503; DOJ-
5
0000048639; DOJ-0000049018 – DOJ-0000049291; DOJ-0002970634 – DOJ-0002970644);

and Swiss banks Hyposwiss Private Bank and St. Galler Kantonalbank (DOJ-0000058244 –
DOJ-0000059785; DOJ-0002970645 – DOJ-0002970648).
Response to March 6, 2019 Letter
I. Alleged “Brady and/or Giglio Material”
As an initial matter, the government rejects the characterization that the government
“correctly noted” that certain prior disclosures constitute Brady or Giglio material. We have
acknowledged your extraordinarily broad discovery requests and attempted to comply with many
of them, even if they ultimately may not be relevant and quite clearly would be objectionable and
lead to inadmissible material and information at trial. Indeed, as the government explained in
our February 2, 2018 discovery letter, “this discovery includes early disclosure of material that is
not required under the rules and discovery of other matters that have been under investigation
that do not have a direct relationship to the charges against your client. The fact that the
government is providing such discovery does not constitute an acknowledgement or admission
on the government’s part that such materials are admissible or relevant to the charges against
your client nor does the disclosure indicate that such materials constitute Brady, Giglio or
impeachment material.”
In your letter, you specifically requested a “non-privileged memorandum” prepared by

Winston & Strawn following its interview of Daren Condrey as part of the law firm’s internal
investigation for TLI. As we discussed at length leading up to and after receipt of your request,
the government was never in possession of this memorandum and did not know its contents. On
March 10, 2019, the government obtained a copy of the Winston & Strawn memo, which noted
that it was, in fact, “privileged.” As we explained the government did not solicit the privileged
memo, but TLI outside counsel nevertheless voluntarily produced the memorandum to the
government, which we then produced to you.
In contrast to the specific request above, you also made an extraordinarily broad request
for “all documents and materials reflecting the information that you have identified as Brady
and/or Giglio material in your February 2, 2018 letter, including all documents and FBI 302s
reflecting the statements of” 17 individuals. As noted above, the government never identified
such materials as Brady or Giglio material, but the government nevertheless took an expansive
view of the materials and information, and explained that the summarized information could be
used to show your client’s coconspirators’ and Vadim Mikerin’s involvement in the criminal
scheme. However, the government is not obligated to provide you with more information than
what has been provided, and certainly there is no requirement that the government produce “all
documents and materials reflecting the information” or “all documents and FBI 302s reflecting
the statements.”
II. Improper Payments
In your letter, you also made an overbroad request for “additional materials, including
documents and audio and/or video recordings, relating to improper or illicit payments or requests
6
for payments, by and to Mr. Mikerin, Tenex, Tenam and/or any individuals associated with
them,” which is well beyond the scope of the case and the charged offenses against your client.
We have produced voluminous discovery and information relating to the charged offenses
against your client, and the government even provided you with certain information concerning a
FBI confidential informant to the extent that it could possibly be relevant to any of your client’s
coconspirators or arguably be helpful to your defense.
III. Emails
As explained during our March 6, 2019 call, we have produced all of the emails that were
seized and obtained during the investigation and that are associated with Mr. Mikerin and Mr.
Fisk in connection with the charged offense. The government is under no blanket obligation to
provide you with additional email addresses for Mr. Fisk, Mr. Mikerin, Mr. Condrey or Mrs.
Condrey to the extent such emails exist.
IV. Government Agents
The government is not obligated to provide you with names of specific agents who were
involved in the investigation. However, in response to your request, the government will provide
you with the names of the following agents who participated in the following interviews that are
relevant to the charges against your client:
• FBI Special Agents Daryl Anderson and Timothy Taylor met with Deborah Payne
Fisk in October 2011.
• FBI Special Agent Timothy Taylor and DOE-OIG Special Agent David Gadren
participated in interviews of Vadim Mikerin.
• FBI Special Agent Timothy Taylor and DOE-OIG Special Agent David Gadren
participated in interviews of Daren Condrey.
• FBI Special Agents Lynn Raymundo, Gary Stark, Michael Saar, Leon Leontyev and
DOE-OIG Special Agents Rebecca Freund and David Gadren participated in
interviews of Carol Condrey.
• FBI Special Agents Jack Peterson and Brendan Bowers participated in the interview
of Mark Lambert. Other agents, including FBI Special Agent Robert Keller, heard
Mr. Lambert make statements during the search of TLI, including “They will want to
see 1000%,” when referencing a file in a Tenex drawer with a folder entitled
“TENEX Remuneration 2008/2010.”
The government will identify agents and other witnesses when it produces the witness list
in advance of trial.
7
V. Interview Notes
Agent notes will be provided in accordance with the government’s discovery obligations.
VI. Translated Transcripts of Jail Calls
The government has produced all of the jail calls of Vadim Mikerin that are in our
possession. The government is not obligated to translate, let alone produce, translated transcripts
from this voluminous material.
VII. Personal Devices
As explained on March 6, 2019 and detailed above, Daren Condrey produced a laptop to
TLI outside counsel prior to his entering into a plea agreement with the government. TLI then
produced corrupted hard drives that could not be uploaded. In response to your repeated requests
for this material, the government sought an additional image of the laptop from TLI, which is
being reviewed for responsiveness and any arguably relevant material will be produced to you.
All other arguably relevant disclosures concerning “personal devices” have already been
provided to you.
VIII. Unredacted Court Documents
This request is overbroad and vague. If you specify which redacted court documents you
seek to have unredacted and provide us with the pertinent justification, we can then meaningfully
engage on this topic.
IX. Search Warrants and Arrests
This request is overbroad and vague. If you specify which redacted search warrant and
arrest documents you seek to have unredacted and provide us with the pertinent justification we
can then meaningfully engage on this topic.
Please let us know if you have any questions, encounter difficulties attempting to access
any of the material provided herein or in subsequent productions, or would like to discuss this
further.
Respectfully,
/s/ Ephraim Wernick___________

Ephraim Wernick
Assistant Chief
cc: Derek Ettinger, Trial Attorney

David Salem, Assistant United States Attorney

Evidence Exhibits For Uranium One and Mark Lambert Uranium One Trial 159-Pages Filed April 26th 2019

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evidence Exhibits For Uranium One and Mark Lambert Uranium One Trial 159-Pages Filed April 26th 2019

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 63-1 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 159

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT MARK LAMBERT’S

accompanying memorandum of law.

Date: April 15, 2019 /s/ William M. Sullivan, Jr.

Counsel for Defendant Mark Lambert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT MARK LAMBERT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

reflecting Mr. Lambert’s own statements made to law enforcement.

(attached as Exhibit 2) (“Mikerin Motion Transcript”); Complaint of William Douglas Campbell,

covertly recruit confidential informants in what appears to be an attempt to entangle a Russian

payment scheme. See, e.g., Superseding Indictment; Campbell Civil Complaint.

Mr. Mikerin is a Russian national formerly employed with JSC Techsnabexport

(“Tenex”), a Russian company. See Superseding Indictment at 3, ¶ 7. In or about 2010 or 2011,

Condrey, Attachment A at 9-11, United States v. Daren Condrey, 8:15-cr-00336-TDC (ECF

after Mr. Fisk’s death in 2011. See Superseding Indictment at 5, ¶ 16.

Moreover, according to the government, an additional participant in Mr. Mikerin’s

Department of Justice (attached as Exhibit 10).

under 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Mikerin Plea Agreement.

Criminal Complaint, United States v. Carol Condrey, 8:14-mj-02424-CBD (ECF No. 1)

government disclosure to Mr. Lambert providing otherwise, no representations, express or

testifying at trial as a cooperating witness.

v. Mark T. Lambert, 8:18-cr-00012-TDC (ECF No. 1) (attached as Exhibit 21). A superseding

III. Withheld Discovery

A. Mr. Fisk’s Secret Role as a Government Operative

“were he still alive . . . .” Mikerin Motion Transcript at 10, ¶¶ 14-16.

B. Audio and Video Recordings of Vadim Mikerin

specifically requesting audio or video recordings relating to improper or illicit payments or

C. Source Documents and Materials Regarding Witness Statements That the

Exhibit 27). In particular, these disclosures include succinct government-created summaries of

statements of numerous alleged co-conspirators or associated individuals, including Mr.

those identified as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment Material.”

identified as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment” witnesses, as well as the interview

promptly produce these materials to Mr. Lambert.

I. Rule 16 and Brady Compel the Production of Evidence

role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or

inspection.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(A).

not disclosed must be “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory . . . or . . .

“‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).

Mr. Lambert pursuant to Rule 16 and Brady.

by Mr. Lambert in uncovering information to identify potential witnesses, support defense

Caro, 597 F.3d at 621.

documents or recordings relating to Mr. Fisk’s work as an FBI source.

government to promptly provide these materials to Mr. Lambert.

potential impeachment material.

and in which Mr. Lambert is now alleged to have participated.

Recordings of allegedly illicit payments, or requests for payments, by and to Mr.

would provide documentary evidence to corroborate potential testimony by defense witnesses.

recordings are exculpatory and material to Mr. Lambert’s defense.

provide these materials to Mr. Lambert.

were identified by the government as “Potentially Brady, Giglio or Impeachment.” 3 The

disclosure obligations under Rule 16 as well as Brady and its progeny.

defense arguments. Moreover, the disclosures include government-drafted summarized

have been succinctly summarized in the government’s disclosures. Consequently, there is

will directly affect the outcome of Mr. Lambert’s trial.

briefly-outlined summaries of third-party statements to uncover additional admissible evidence,

Lambert cannot realistically be expected to use a bullet-point outline of information to

V. The Government’s Failure to Produce Interview Notes of Mr. Lambert’s Statements

statements violates the government’s disclosure obligations under Rule 16.

government to promptly provide these materials to Mr. Lambert. 6

16 and Brady evidence, as further set forth herein.

Date: April 15, 2019 /s/ William M. Sullivan, Jr.