It is an unacceptable explanation. That is their explanation. It should not be your explanation.

It is all about the names. It is not about the hints. It is not about a treasure hunt.

I am glad you brought it to their attention.

Are you going to change any procedure at all?

I will tell you, the $6 billion that was produced was the result of a tough enforcement action that worked.

Responses of the Department of Justice to supplemental questions for the record from Senator Carl Levin.

I mean, you were very much aware of it, that there was an external released figure that is different from what you were showing internally. Why?

It is not a detail when you say positive results, black and white, from Switzerland, albeit, seasonal slow-down.

We just simply cannot spend years negotiating treaties, watch the treaty partner poke holes in them.

They are evading their taxes, their obligations to the people of the United States, to their own countrymen.

this is really egregious, by the way.

we need the cooperation of the banks in order to do that.

And there is also, however, a fear of an indictment, is there not?

In the first quarter, the NNA, net new asset, for Client 5 was actually split 60/40 between Americas and Switzerland.

If Switzerland had not received the re-allocation in that quarter, it would have shown a negative 1.5 billion in NNA.

It was the failure of the treaty process in UBS to work that led us to use the tools, the threat of indictment, and the John Doe summons request, that led then to the UBS outcome.

Frankly, you ought to know what it is. And we ought to argue. We ought to raise the fear of God that if you are going to aid and abet violations of American law, you are not going to be allowed to operate in America.

So now I want to discuss what actually happened with the regional credit for that net new asset amount from Client 5 in 2012.

The point is that you were denied access to those names after making a treaty request by a Swiss court; is that correct?

It is difficult for me to accept that, when you do not try to enforce a subpoena, when you do not go to a court when you have a subpoena which you have issued, to enforce it to get records, to help put the pressure on a bank.

OK. Well, that is what happened here.

And wouldn't we make a pretty clear point about our determination also about the Swiss being unhelpful if we file a request for extradition, in a criminal case, for people who have operated in the United States.

They should be subject to U.S. transparency and not shielded by Swiss secrecy.

The trouble is that the Justice Department has been deterred by the Swiss Government's law.

Client 1 opened the account in 2005, not in 1990.