I wouldn't trust WikiPedia as the authoritative source either, however, the article pretty much summarized what I have always been told by legal counsel in this area. I have always been advised that email security disclaimers are an attempt to impose a contractual obligation unilaterally, therefore unenforceable. There is a legal term for this, but it escapes me. In the EU, the European Commission tells the courts to strike out any unreasonable contractual obligation on a consumer if he has not freely negotiated it, so I guess if MikesMark initiated the investigation electronically, and the BaFin replied via email, then a contractual obligation could exist? Either way I hope there is an investigation underway to put to rest if there has or has not been (in your words) PTSC Shenanigans. Later.