Can't see the article because of my Ad Blocker, and I'll be damned if I white list them. They're the reason I HAVE an ad blocker.
If this is how anything got leaked to this blood-sucker, then there's going to be some heavy explaining to be done.
@Cyber Liberty I agree, if someone at FinSec gave all SARs related to a Michael Cohen to Avenatti, it will be a big problem. Sorry you couldn't read the article; the TLDR is that a reader who says he writes SARs said the docs had the right markers and language to be direct quotes. Because they're from different banks, he believed they wouldn't have come from the banks but from those with access, which would be:
"FinCEN staff, law enforcement who request them, regulators, the bank staff who filed them originally, and possibly independent auditors who come in to make sure banks are filing BSA paperwork properly. My guess would be it’s someone at FinCEN doing it, but I wouldn’t bet a massive amount of money on it."
I just thought it was interesting because it offered a possible line on the source. I hadn't read much about SARS and who has access to them until today. Apparently even the target of a SAR can't be told it exists, so Cohen might literally not have been aware the SARs had been filed.
Avenatti is a seriously smug and nasty b---ard, and he seems too smart to make a stupid blunder. I'm wondering if his excuse is that the Times was given the SARs and then showed them to him. Pretty poor rationale, if so. I can't wait to see where this goes.