zlacker

I think you’re reading it wrong.

Say a foreign law enforcement entity is investigating Mr X, and asking a domestic authority for some information on Mr X.

The treaty says that generally speaking, the domestic authority should provide such assistance.

However, assume that instead another domestic law enforcement entity was asking the domestic authority for information on Mr X, but (under purely domestic jurisdiction) the domestic authority would be prohibited to provide such assistance for some reason (say, due to privacy laws, procedural protections, or so).

Then, the foreign law enforcement entity would not be entitled to the assistance, either.

>>FabHK+(OP)
I don't see how that changes anything I wrote. For example, take Bill Browder - Russia has been continuously harassing this man even getting an Interpol red notice to be issued against him to rendition him to Russia on trumped up charges because he stood up to Putin. So they issue a request to the bank with a validly issued subpeona in Russian courts. Since a bank would have to issue records to a domestic warrant, it'll now have to issue it for a foreign obtained warrant.

You kind of just reworded what I wrote but I don't see how it changes any of the concerns I expressed.