In August 2011, Borer and another person owed Wells Fargo Bank approximately $1.32 million in outstanding loans. In March 2012, Borer's sister, who was acting as their bookkeeper, received approximately $1.1 million, which related to a judgment from a Honduran court, in her Massachusetts bank account. The share of these funds belonging to Borer and the other person was $486,000. A few days later, Borer sent an e-mail to his sister to "keep [the] bulk" of their funds in her account because "Wells Fargo might be conducting an asset search on us to try and recover on the judgments. Just transfer what is needed to pay bills as they arrive." Borer's sister distributed their funds from her account as he requested.On or about May 24, 2012, Borer's sister prepared a false personal financial statement for Borer, stating that he and the other person only had $4,200 of cash in the bank. Borer provided the statement to Wells Fargo, which relied upon it to negotiate their debt. On Oct. 31, 2012, Borer executed a settlement agreement with Wells Fargo, in which the bank agreed to forgive Borer's personal obligations in exchange for a payment of only $50,000. Wells Fargo would not have settled for $50,000 had it known that Borer and the other individual had received $486,000 in cash from the Honduran judgment.
Although the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rules of Practice do not address the admissibility of foreign-language material, the Commission has held that "the party proposing the admission of a foreign-language document into evidence must provide a verbatim translation by a qualified interpreter," observing that this "common-sense requirement is essential to safeguard the ability of the Commission to give meaningful review." The Commission has applied this requirement in other contexts as well. For example, regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 require that all filings under the Act "be in the English language" or the "party must submit instead a fair and accurate English translation of the entire" document, except that a summary of the foreign language document may suffice in some circumstances. Additionally, federal courts have held that "[i]t is clear, to the point of perfect transparency, that federal court proceedings must be conducted in English."4= = = = =Footnote 4: United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2002). See also id. at 6 n.4 (noting the "well-settled rule that parties are required to translate all foreign language documents into English" according to Puerto Rico court rules); Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 2004) (in an immigration proceeding, copy of passport was properly excluded from evidence-per federal regulation-where no English translation or certification was offered); United States v. One 1988 Chevrolet Cheyenne HalfTon Pickup Truck, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1329 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (requiring a party to provide an English translation of a Spanish exhibit if it wished for it to be considered). But see Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1360 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) ("That some of the documents contained within the business records are written in a foreign language . . . does not defeat admissibility but instead affects only the probative value of such documents."), aff'd, 439 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006).