18 U.S.C. § 3512

Foreign requests for assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Execution of Request for Assistance.—(1)In general.—Upon application, duly authorized by an appropriate official of the Department of Justice, of an attorney for the Government, a Federal judge may issue such orders as may be necessary to execute a request from a foreign authority for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses, or in proceedings related to the prosecution of criminal offenses, including proceedings regarding forfeiture, sentencing, and restitution.(2)Scope of orders.—Any order issued by a Federal judge pursuant to paragraph (1) may include the issuance of—(A) a search warrant, as provided under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;(B) a warrant or order for contents of stored wire or electronic communications or for records related thereto, as provided under section 2703 of this title;(C) an order for a pen register or trap and trace device as provided under section 3123 of this title; or(D) an order requiring the appearance of a person for the purpose of providing testimony or a statement, or requiring the production of documents or other things, or both.(b)Appointment of Persons To Take Testimony or Statements.—(1)In general.—In response to an application for execution of a request from a foreign authority as described under subsection (a), a Federal judge may also issue an order appointing a person to direct the taking of testimony or statements or of the production of documents or other things, or both.(2)Authority of appointed person.—Any person appointed under an order issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may—(A) issue orders requiring the appearance of a person, or the production of documents or other things, or both;(B) administer any necessary oath; and(C) take testimony or statements and receive documents or other things.(c)Filing of Requests.—Except as provided under subsection (d), an application for execution of a request from a foreign authority under this section may be filed—(1) in the district in which a person who may be required to appear resides or is located or in which the documents or things to be produced are located;(2) in cases in which the request seeks the appearance of persons or production of documents or things that may be located in multiple districts, in any one of the districts in which such a person, documents, or things may be located; or(3) in any case, the district in which a related Federal criminal investigation or prosecution is being conducted, or in the District of Columbia.(d)Search Warrant Limitation.—An application for execution of a request for a search warrant from a foreign authority under this section, other than an application for a warrant issued as provided under section 2703 of this title, shall be filed in the district in which the place or person to be searched is located.(e)Search Warrant Standard.—A Federal judge may issue a search warrant under this section only if the foreign offense for which the evidence is sought involves conduct that, if committed in the United States, would be considered an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under Federal or State law.(f)Service of Order or Warrant.—Except as provided under subsection (d), an order or warrant issued pursuant to this section may be served or executed in any place in the United States.(g)Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any foreign authority or an interested person from obtaining assistance in a criminal investigation or prosecution pursuant to section 1782 of title 28, United States Code.(h)Definitions.—As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1)Federal judge.—The terms “Federal judge” and “attorney for the Government” have the meaning given such terms for the purposes of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.(2)Foreign authority.—The term “foreign authority” means a foreign judicial authority, a foreign authority responsible for the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses or for proceedings related to the prosecution of criminal offenses, or an authority designated as a competent authority or central authority for the purpose of making requests for assistance pursuant to an agreement or treaty with the United States regarding assistance in criminal matters.(Added Pub. L. 111–79, § 2(4), Oct. 19, 2009, 123 Stat. 2087.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsecs. (a)(2)(A) and (h)(1), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: United States v. Trs. of Boston Coll., 831 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Trs. of Boston Coll., 831 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Mass. 2011). · cites it 35× “” The subpoenae were issued by a commissioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3512 , the United Kingdom Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“UK-MLAT”), 2 and a sealed Order of this Court.”

United States v. Moloney, 685 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “The subpoenas were issued to Boston College (“BC”) by a commissioner appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3512 and the “US-UK MLAT,” the mutual legal assistance treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom.”

United States v. Trs. of Boston Coll., 718 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “In March 31, 2011, as provided in the US-UK MLAT and 18 U.S.C. § 3512 , 2 the district court appointed *18 a commissioner to pursue the UK’s request.”

Fed. Repub. of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Servs., Ltd., 27 F.4th 136 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “The new statute made explicit what courts had long held was authorized under § 1782 – for example, that a federal judge may order “the appearance of a person for the purpose of providing testimony or a statement, or requiring the production of documents or other things,” 18…”

United States v. McLellan, 959 F.3d 442 (1st Cir. 2020). “government issued two subpoenas through an appointed commissioner, see 18 U.S.C. § 3512 , to compel Boston College ("BC") to produce interviews from formerly active participants in the conflict that were compiled by one of BC's research projects.”

United States v. C.R., 792 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “…the two defendants sent to prison for sexually abusing and harassing her and from a defendant such as C.R. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3512 (b) (restitution and fines); § 3633 (order of restitution); § 3663A (mandatory restitution); § 3663 (procedure for restitution); § 3664 (rules…”

Zavadovsky v. Repub. of Austria (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 3× “§ 1782 and 18 U.S.C. § 3512 ,” “us[ed] an incorrect Austrian reference number,” and “sen[t] both Plaintiffs’ letters and criminal subpoenas in a single FedEx envelope.”

In Re: Request from the United v. (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “104-2 ("US-UK MLAT")1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3512 , a commissioner 1 Article 5 of the US-UK MLAT states: 1.”

the Univ. of Texas Sys. & the Univ. of Texas at Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of Texas & Marilyn Cameron (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “11 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3512 ........................”

Application of the United States of Am. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) (D.D.C. 2018). “Over a month later, on November 29, 2017, the l\/lagistrate Judge denied the amended application on the ground that the government’s argument, if accepted, would subject to § 2703(d) “every entity which now offers free WiFi,” a conclusion ' The government sought this order,…”

Application of Jason Leopold & Buzzfeed, Inc. for Access to Certain Sealed Court Records (D.D.C. 2020). “§3123 ; and for records, at the request of foreign governments, under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (“MLATs”), 18 U.S.C. § 3512 . On a retrospective basis, the Court “provided an unprecedented level of transparency into the process of judicial review of the [U.”

Repub. of Turkey (N.D. Ill. 2021). “18 U.S.C. § 3512 (a)(1). The respondents contend that the petitioner's bypass of the MLAT process is evidence of the improper purpose of its application.”

— 18 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(1) — 1 case

United States v. Trs. of Boston Coll., 718 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2013). “In March 31, 2011, as provided in the US-UK MLAT and 18 U.S.C. § 3512 , 2 the district court appointed *18 a commissioner to pursue the UK’s request.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.