DOJ-OGR-00013868.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 246 2304 LCGVMAX1 could, the cover letter. Do we know why it's dated 2010? MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think that's a separate record. Because I think that record reflects that there was an opportunity to purchase the leasehold outright in 2010. It's a little bit of a complicated title. It's actually a leasehold. She does own the lease; it's effectively owning it, b.ut this land, think, has been in the possession of the Duke of Westminster since, you know, 1500. It's a very complicated chain of title in the UK. one person the land registry records. Bu to another. contracts were exchanged in January ‘97; transfer of that t THE COURT prove when Ms. itle And that '96, is act And that and the deal t the way it works is you pass the leasehold l closed in in March of : And again, proffer from co live there before 1996? MR. EVERDELL: who says -—- she didn't when she actually took We have a witness, Od a Maxwell purchased the home, That's right. liv possession of ther b for but unsel is that it is to prove that We have a witness, 1997, Kate, the propert from Fectively ownership under leasehold passed in -- the "O97, in and it was registered in a land registry as a the det because CY, right my question is not that it's to fense's she did not Kate, that's who has testified to events that allegedly took place in the Kinnerton Street property in "94 and "95. SOU THERN D STR CT RE PORT ERS, Ps (212) 805-0300 And these records show that she didn't own that DOJ-OGR- 00013868