The mysterious law enforcement official behind the leak of confidential documents on Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s business dealings is facing new pressure as sources debunk his rationale for leaking -- and one report suggests it won't be long before he's caught.

The leaker could face up to five years in jail if identified and prosecuted.

The individual, who has not been named, came forward in an interview with The New Yorker on Wednesday, taking responsibility for disclosing records that show Cohen used a shell company to receive payments from firms seeking access to the Trump administration -- including AT&T and a New York-based investment firm linked to a Russian oligarch.

The official told The New Yorker he did it out of concern over allegedly missing files. The documents in question are known as “suspicious activity reports,” or SARs, and were filed by a bank that Cohen used. Banks are required to file such reports when they notice transactions that may break the law -- and such records can be accessed by law enforcement.

The leaker claimed that two SARs detailing more than $3 million in additional transactions were missing from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN).

“I have never seen something pulled off the system,” the official reportedly said. “That’s why I came forward.”

But it now seems the files were merely restricted, not missing.

A FinCEN spokesperson, without directly citing the Cohen records, undercut the leaker's story in a statement on Thursday -- explaining that the agency can limit access to certain records when asked by law enforcement.

“Under longstanding procedures, FinCEN will limit access to certain SARs when requested by law enforcement authorities in connection with an ongoing investigation,” a FinCEN spokesperson said.

Fox News has learned that FinCEN limits access to SARs but does not delete or remove them from the database. In such cases, users trying to view a restricted file are told that it is unavailable for viewing at that time.

Further, BuzzFeed confirmed that Treasury Department officials restricted access to those files and did not remove them.

This revelation undercuts the narrative that the files’ absence should have set off alarm bells -- a claim that had already been initially greeted by skepticism from some experts, who noted that banks keep records of transactions anyway.
The leaker’s future may be bleak. Bloomberg reported late Thursday that his identity is unlikely to remain secret for long.
Experts told the outlet that anyone accessing FinCEN leaves an audit trail, so whoever searched for those associated with Cohen likely left a traceable digital record.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller already has it, clearly.

We hope. In Mueller We Trust, but even he can't restore deleted records.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller already has it, clearly.

We hope. In Mueller We Trust, but even he can't restore deleted records.

Anonymous wrote:Mueller already has it, clearly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Because the SAR that was leaked referenced the previous two SAR reports. And then when the leaker went looking for the previous two reports, they simply were not in the SAR system (as if they never existed).

Remember, only Treasury officials and law enforcement has access to this database. And only Treasury can manage the database. Therefore, someone at Treasury decide to completely remove the SAR reports from the system. The leaker's point is that this NEVER happens, even in sensitive cases. SAR reports remain in the system.

No, SARS can be protected from general access, to keep them from being leaked or accessed in appropriately. Case in point ...

Yes, they can be protected, but they are not removed from the database. That was the leaker's entire point - when they are protected, they are still shown in system but cannot be accessed.

These two SAR reports for Cohen were completely removed from the system, which the leaker and many other experts said was "unheard of." Therefore, the leaker inferred that someone is fudging with the SAR system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Because the SAR that was leaked referenced the previous two SAR reports. And then when the leaker went looking for the previous two reports, they simply were not in the SAR system (as if they never existed).

Remember, only Treasury officials and law enforcement has access to this database. And only Treasury can manage the database. Therefore, someone at Treasury decide to completely remove the SAR reports from the system. The leaker's point is that this NEVER happens, even in sensitive cases. SAR reports remain in the system.

No, SARS can be protected from general access, to keep them from being leaked or accessed in appropriately. Case in point ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Because the SAR that was leaked referenced the previous two SAR reports. And then when the leaker went looking for the previous two reports, they simply were not in the SAR system (as if they never existed).

Remember, only Treasury officials and law enforcement has access to this database. And only Treasury can manage the database. Therefore, someone at Treasury decide to completely remove the SAR reports from the system. The leaker's point is that this NEVER happens, even in sensitive cases. SAR reports remain in the system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Because the SAR that was leaked referenced the previous two SAR reports. And then when the leaker went looking for the previous two reports, they simply were not in the SAR system (as if they never existed).

Remember, only Treasury officials and law enforcement has access to this database. And only Treasury can manage the database. Therefore, someone at Treasury decide to completely remove the SAR reports from the system. The leaker's point is that this NEVER happens, even in sensitive cases. SAR reports remain in the system.

Anonymous wrote:Ronan Farrow has proven to be a good reporter. However, why did the guy give the reports to Avenetti? That really makes no sense. His story does not make sense either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Don’t really understand what happened here. Can anyone explain? How did someone know docs were missing? And if they were restricted wouldn’t there just be a kind of “you are not authorized to look at this please contact xyz if you have a need” message when someone tried to get them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the SARS weren't deleted - that's dumb. they were probably removed or restricted to prevent leaking. the whistleblower saw the 3rd report that was not restricted yet.

It’s probably in the New Yorker article, but in this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/whistleblower-leaked-damning-cohen-financial-documents-because-they-were-disappearing-from-government-financial-crimes-database.html?via=homepage_taps_top the whistleblower says that doesn’t happen.

This is a big deal. That you aren’t outraged suggest you’re part of the problem.