?The CPS had two separate and distinct roles in this case. Firstly, acting on behalf of the USA in the extradition proceedings and secondly as the UK domestic prosecutor. ?In relation to acting on behalf of the USA, the CPS was sent some of the evidence gathered by the US authorities upon which a prime facie case was argued, as is normal procedure in extradition matters. We were never in possession of all the US evidence and have never claimed otherwise. In accordance with established working practices, this evidence could only be used and considered for the purpose of the extradition and not for any other process. The CPS extradition unit can not and does not share information as it is bound by a duty of confidentiality. ?In relation to our role acting as domestic prosecutor, the CPS was sent some evidence obtained by UK police and we advised in relation to that. It is not the role of the CPS to carry out investigations but rather to consider evidence provided by the police. At the time this advice was given, domestic prosecutors were aware of the nature of the evidence in the possession of the US but the material was never subject to review in this country as it forms part of the case built by the US. ?The CPS, in its domestic role, would not be party to evidence from a country requesting extradition and we have never said otherwise.?