Still seems very shady. His defence, as portrayed in the article, seems to be that they 1) did not offer him a cooperating witness agreement which he would see

Still seems very shady. His defence, as portrayed in the article, seems to be that they 1) did not offer him a cooperating witness agreement which he would seem to have deserved and 2) was being asked to break serious laws in the country of residence. Conversely, the DoJ's defence, against as portrayed in the article, seems oddly nebulous, and in light of the later IRS decision, probably flat out wrong. Most odd.