Tuesday, October 27, 2009

112 - Lawyers Accepting Dirty Money? Cannot be!

The debate grows in the United States whether lawyers can accept "dirty money" from their clients in order to secure accurate legal representation. Or are the lawyers money laundering for their clients?

The legal gymnastics are far from over. Below is the latest shot across the Bar bows. Given the fact that turkeys will never vote for Christmas, is there any doubt on what ruling will inevitably prevail?



111 - High Volume Grilling

Rumour has it that Yam Yam's Southern Cooking Barbecue of Portland, Oregon, laundered $300K of cocaine money a month.

In order to successfully pull off the ruse, Yam Yam's senior management would need to convincingly portray the illusion of that level of BBQ sales volume. Assuming a plate of grits goes for $6, that's 50,000 orders a month, or 1666 per day.

That's a very popular restaurant. I wonder if their bankers ever paid them a visit to see that astounding volume for themselves.

Common sense + Know Your Customer = Risk Management

110 - Paying Full Sticker Price

Scottrade had ample warning to modify its AML regime but chose otherwise. Somehow one employee tasked with the manual examination of tens of thousands of transactions per day doens't seem to pass the "reasonable efforts" test.

Now it faces a USD600,000 fine and increased scrutiny from regulatory agencies. Third party software providers smell blood and will be undoubtedly quoting their transaction monitoring systems at full sticker price.

The recent FATF paper on the Securities Sector will be of use at Scottrade.


==========


For Release:
Contacts:

Monday, October 26, 2009
Nancy Condon (202) 728-8379
Brendan Intindola (646) 315-7277

Scottrade Fined $600,000 for Inadequate Anti-Money Laundering Program

Firm Failed to Adequately Monitor for Suspicious Transactions

Washington, D.C. — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today that it has fined Scottrade $600,000 for failing to establish and implement an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) program to detect and trigger reporting of suspicious transactions, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act and FINRA rules.

FINRA requires brokerage firms to establish and implement anti-money laundering policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to detect and cause the reporting of any suspicious transactions that could be related to possible violations of laws or regulations - regardless of whether those transactions are associated with suspicious movement of funds into or out of accounts.

"Each firm's AML program must be tailored to its business model, including the technological environment in which the firm operates," said Susan L. Merrill, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement. "In this case, despite the large volume of on-line trading at Scottrade, the firm failed to establish any systematic or automated surveillance until 2005. Then, the automated system the firm implemented remained inadequate because it focused only on suspicious trading that was accompanied by suspicious money movement."

Specifically, FINRA found that between April 2003 and April 2008, Scottrade failed to establish and implement an adequate AML program tailored to its business model, which primarily consists of providing an on-line platform for customers trading in securities. In 2003, Scottrade handled about 49,000 customer trades per day, and its volume grew to about 150,000 daily trades in 2007. Among the risks inherent to Scottrade's brokerage model and the firm's substantial trading volume are an increased risk of identity theft, account intrusions and the use of customer accounts to launder money using securities or other financial instruments, or to violate securities laws.

FINRA has advised firms that in designing their AML program, they should consider factors such as their size, location, business activities, the types of accounts they maintain and the types of transactions in which their customers engage. FINRA also has instructed on-line firms such as Scottrade to consider conducting computerized surveillance of account activity to detect suspicious transactions.

From April 2003 through January 2005, Scottrade did not have any systematic or automated program designed to detect potentially suspicious money movement or securities transactions. Instead, the firm used a manual system to monitor accounts for suspicious activities. This system relied almost exclusively on internal personnel, including branch, cashiering and margin employees, to identify and refer potentially suspicious activity to the firm's risk management department for further review.

Until June 2004, Scottrade's AML compliance officer/director of risk management was the sole employee specifically charged with investigating referrals to determine whether activity was "suspicious" and therefore reportable. In June 2004, the firm hired a risk management analyst to assist with this review. Neither the compliance officer, the analyst nor anyone else at Scottrade specifically monitored transactions for potentially suspicious trading activity. FINRA found that the sheer volume of on-line trading, along with the firm's reliance on inadequate internal resources, rendered the lack of an automated system to detect suspicious activity unreasonable.

In February 2005, Scottrade implemented a proprietary, automated system to monitor for suspicious transactions that was inadequate because it was primarily designed to monitor for and detect suspicious money movement.

Under Scottrade's automated filter-based system, when suspicious activity triggered one of the filters, it generated an alert to the AML analysts responsible for investigating the alerts. The analysts only reviewed for potentially suspicious trading activity if there was money movement into or out of an account that independently triggered one of the filters. On average, 1,300 alerts were generated monthly, but not all alerts were reviewed. In September 2006, the firm implemented a proprietary volume report for purposes of detecting "pump-and-dump" account intrusions and unauthorized trading activity resulting from such account intrusions. Scottrade did not utilize this volume report to detect suspicious trading activity by bona fide account holders.

FINRA also found that Scottrade's AML procedures failed to provide adequate written guidance to its employees as to how to detect or review transactions for potentially suspicious activity and failed to provide adequate written guidance to its AML analysts for detecting and investigating potential suspicious trading.

In concluding this settlement, Scottrade neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA's findings.

Investors can obtain more information about, and the disciplinary record of, any FINRA-registered broker or brokerage firm by using FINRA's BrokerCheck. FINRA makes BrokerCheck available at no charge. In 2008, members of the public used this service to conduct 11.6 million reviews of broker or firm records. Investors can access BrokerCheck at www.finra.org/brokercheck or by calling (800) 289-9999.

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is the largest non-governmental regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services. FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business—from registering and educating all industry participants to examining securities firms; writing and enforcing rules and the federal securities laws; informing and educating the investing public; providing trade reporting and other industry utilities; and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and registered firms. For more information, please visit our Web site at www.finra.org.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Articles of Interest 109 - Where there's smoke...

An otherwise excellent article from the Miami Herald stops short of asking who in their right mind approved an exemption for “Sir” Allen Stanford to funnel money from Florida to Antigua without the application of AML and other legislation.

Such a conduit was created in 1998 at a time when Antigua was in the crosshairs of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a money laundering sink and general den of iniquity. Did anyone in Florida think to revoke Stanford International Bank’s “special” permission to circumvent the rules? If that conduit had been turned off, would the hoax of SIB’s “certificates of deposit” been shut down as well?

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

- George Orwell (1903 – 1950), Animal Farm



This Article of Interest appears with many others in the ManchesterCF blog – http://manchestercf.blogspot.com



If you are not interested in receiving the “Articles of Interest” e-newsletter from ManchesterCF, please reply to this message and write in the subject heading “Remove Subscription”. Your e-mail address is never provided to outside third-parties. If you wish to forward this message, please include all contents of this message to the receiver. The contents of this electronic message are confidential and are intended for the recipient only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. All contents of this electronic message are protected by copyright where appropriate – © Copyright ManchesterCF 2009


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/v-print/story/1265650.html


Posted on Sat, Oct. 03, 2009
Allen Stanford Ponzi case puts lawyers in spotlight

BY MICHAEL SALLAH AND ROB BARRY
msallah@MiamiHerald.com

With federal agents threatening to put his bank out of business, Allen Stanford turned to the powerhouse Miami law firm of Greenberg Traurig. Stanford International Bank and other banks in Antigua were suspected of laundering money and were close to being cut off from the global banking community.

Not only did the firm save his bank, it helped Stanford eliminate his competition and become a top Antiguan regulator -- just years before prosecutors say he began stealing millions in one of the largest frauds in U.S. history.

Now a decade later, with Stanford charged in the massive criminal case, the law firm is being pulled into a widening inquiry of the $7 billion Ponzi scheme that wiped out thousands of investors.

Though not under criminal investigation, Greenberg Traurig is facing a legal review of its actions on this tiny island that was the center of his banking kingdom.

The court-appointed receiver trying to recover money for victims is demanding records of the legal work provided to the disgraced banker -- including that of Greenberg. The effort is the latest by the receiver to untangle the complex deals spun by Stanford as well as the conduct of his lawyers.

The demand for the records has put a rare spotlight on Greenberg Traurig and another firm, Hunton & Williams, which now holds the records.

``I'm sure one of the things they will look at is what did Greenberg Traurig know, and when did they know it, and did they have any liability?'' said Ross Gaffney, a former FBI agent who investigated Stanford.

Greenberg Traurig's effort to help Stanford in 1998 was one in a string of instances in which the Florida law firm propelled Stanford's business interests and helped rescue him from crisis.

The Miami Herald sought interviews with five lawyers who represented Stanford while working for the law firm, but only two responded.

Those lawyers, citing confidentiality concerns, declined comment, saying they were simply giving legal support and were unaware of any illegal schemes by Stanford.

Cesar Alvarez, the firm's chief executive officer, also declined to be interviewed.

THE MO
NEY PIPELINE

The request for the legal files represents one of the most aggressive moves waged by the receiver to search for assets from Stanford's far-flung banking network.

While he presses for the files, The Miami Herald found that at least two of the deals -- one in Miami and the other in Antigua -- provided cover for Stanford from regulators while he reaped millions from investors.

With the help of Greenberg lawyers, Stanford created a money pipeline between Miami and Antigua in 1998 that became a cornerstone of the banking empire.

With lawyer Carlos Loumiet negotiating with Florida regulators, Stanford set up a special trust office in downtown Miami that could move millions overseas without reporting anything to the government.

The unusual arrangement -- created over the objections of Florida's chief banking lawyer -- let Stanford open the office without submitting to fraud checks or money-laundering requirements.

Over the next decade, the Miami center sold millions in Stanford's key investments -- certificates of deposit -- the checks stuffed in pouches and sent in jets to Antigua.

The Miami office became ``the locomotive that pulled the train,'' said Steven Riger, a vice president at Stanford's Miami brokerage.

While the Miami office was the generator, Antigua was the recipient.

But as the Miami office was being created, a series of scandals on the island forced Stanford to call on his lawyers to help change the island's banking system -- and keep the pipeline alive.

The U.S. Treasury was considering blacklisting all offshore institutions in Antigua -- cutting off access to U.S. currency -- because of money laundering and fraud.

With his fortune at risk, Stanford waged an expensive effort to fight back. The banker met with Prime Minister Lester Bird and agreed to personally pay for a task force to rewrite the banking laws.

The task force, which included Loumiet, met in Miami and Antigua's capital to look for ways to avert a shutdown of the banks.

Also on the panel: Greenberg lawyer Patrick O'Brien, a former Miami U.S. Customs chief who had led major drug crackdowns; and Lloyd Harrell, a former FBI agent from Texas. Another lawyer, Yolanda Suarez, had left Greenberg Traurig to become Stanford's legal counsel.

``The intention was to make the regulator independent of the government,'' said Lebrecht Hesse, an Antiguan official who helped draft the laws.

But the 1998 legislation ushered in a new regulatory agency -- with Stanford on the board -- in a move that gave Stanford sweeping protection from regulators for the next 10 years.

``Stanford effectively became the man who controlled the regulator,'' said Rodney Gallagher, a former member of the British High Commission in Barbados who investigated Stanford for money laundering.

One incident highlighted the power Stanford gained in Antigua owning the largest bank.

The new agency demanded all the island's secret offshore banking records, including those belonging to Stanford's competitors. But head regulator Althea Crick refused to turn them over.

What followed was an event that shook the island's politics and infuriated U.S. agents.

Harrell, O'Brien and others pulled up to the two-story government building that held the records and seized the filing cabinets after Crick left for the day, hauling them to another building, Harrell said.

Harrell, 70, said the takeover in February 1999 was approved by the new regulatory board, including Errol Cort, an advisor to Prime Minister Bird.

``It was of no benefit to Stanford,'' he said. ``It was not done under the cover of darkness. We needed those files on a daily basis.''

However, records show Cort was a director of Stanford Trust Company and one of Stanford's Antiguan lawyers. He did not respond to repeated interview requests. O'Brien, also a board member of the new agency, declined to be interviewed.

U.S. agents condemned the seizure, saying Stanford orchestrated the event for himself.

``It was outrageous,'' said Jonathan Winer, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Winer said he had warned members of the task force, including O'Brien and Cort, that the U.S. State Department considered Stanford to be playing a dangerous role.

``I said it was unacceptable what they were doing,'' he said. ``That was no clean-up of the laws, not when you have a private-sector person paying for it. I didn't care about the details; it was all dirty.''

In addition, Stanford -- who surrendered his banking license in Montserrat years earlier during a crackdown on money laundering -- had been the focus of recent investigations by British and FBI agents.

U.S. authorities struck back, condemning the records seizure and saying key provisions in the legislation weakened efforts to fight money laundering.

In April 1999, the U.S. Treasury fired off a rare warning to American banks, blasting Stanford's new role in the island's banking system.

``The Authority's board of directors includes representatives of the very institutions the Authority is supposed to regulate, thus raising serious concerns that those representatives are in fact in control,'' said William Baity, director of the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Baity also said the new legislation banned whistleblowers from going outside the regulatory system, a blow to law enforcement agents. British authorities followed suit with a similar warning days later.

As a compromise, Stanford stepped down from his position, and Antigua officials agreed to change the laws crafted by the task force. A year later, the island's banks were taken off the U.S. Treasury's trouble list.

But the momentum was in motion to help Stanford's bank for years to follow.

With the new regulatory agency enforcing new banking rules, most of the 56 offshore banks on the island were eliminated, swatting away much of his competition.

Harrell, the supervisor of banking, said the effort successfully ejected crooked Russian banks that were giving the offshore sector a bad name. He also credited O'Brien for drawing on law enforcement experience in investigating the problem banks.

``Nobody gives [Stanford] credit for what was trying to be done at the time,'' said Harrell. ``What we were trying to do was create an offshore sector that was a regulated sector.''

However, court records show Stanford's own bank was fabricating financial reports the same time he was taking over the regulatory agency.

Chief financial officer James Davis told prosecutors in August he and Stanford began doctoring bank reports in 1999 to show phony returns.

COVER ON THE INSIDE

With millions pouring into his Antiguan bank, Stanford switched to a new law firm, Hunton & Williams, after Loumiet joined the firm in 2001. By then, the foundation of Stanford's bank network -- including the lucrative Miami-Antigua connection -- was already laid.

Regulator Crick, who opposed the seizure of the offshore banking records, was ousted, replaced by Stanford's ally Leroy King in 2002.

King forged a close relationship with Stanford, providing cover to the banker -- and taking thousands of dollars in bribes, say U.S. prosecutors. Over the next six years, King took more than $200,000 from Stanford to run interference and make sure no one got too close to the banker's investment portfolio, the indictment states.

To complete their bond, Stanford and King struck a blood oath, cutting their fingers and pressing the flesh together in a pledge to never reveal their secret, said Davis, the Stanford financial officer.

Now indicted in the case, King refused to discuss the charges when a Miami Herald reporter went to his home in Antigua two weeks ago. A dual U.S. and Antigua citizen, King is fighting extradition to the United States.

Prosectors want to talk to King about the alleged bribes and the inner workings of Stanford's bank, which remained secret from U.S. regulators.

One of the big challenges for federal agents has been tracing the millions that flowed from the U.S. to Antigua over the years, especially from the Miami office. More than $800 million was generated in Miami through 2007 -- with estimates reaching $1 billion by the time the operation was shut down by federal agents in February.

Ralph Janvey, the court receiver, has been working with federal agents but is now pushing for more information directly from Stanford lawyers.

Loumiet and his firm have agreed to hand over records of legal work for Stanford's U.S. companies, but are fighting to keep details of Stanford's ventures in Antigua and other foreign countries confidential.

``There are legal issues regarding jurisdiction and client privilege that must be resolved before we proceed further,'' said Eleanor Kerlow, a spokeswoman for Hunton & Williams.

Judge David Godbey in Houston is expected to decide whether the firm must meet the receiver's demands.

Kristie Blumenschein, an attorney with the receiver's firm, said they are prepared to fight for the records.

Beyond searching for assets, Blumenschein said the receiver will be reviewing the actions of the lawyers dating to the 1990s. She would not elaborate, but experts said they expect Janvey to aggressively investigate any damage by lawyers in Antigua.

Thomas Tew, a Miami attorney and receiver in major fraud cases, said Janvey can also demand the lawyers be forced to testify about what they knew.

He said any conversations they had with Stanford about his ongoing crises are open to review, and not protected by attorney-client privilege.

``Those are what we call the keys to the kingdom, because so often they are the most candid conversations,'' Tew said. ``You want to understand and see what happened . . . that's why this is such a hot-button issue.''



© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Articles of Interest 108 - Lights! Cash! Action!

Two Los Angeles-area film executives have run afoul of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and American anti-money laundering laws, all to run Thailand’s annual film festival. Despite the limited information on the press release below, one can safely assume that a financial institution’s Politically Exposed Person analysis on the Thai governor’s daughter would have revealed the initial thread that could have unwound the crime. The Greens did not plan their international money laundering transactions particularly well.

“Hollywood is a place where they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul.”

- Marilyn Monroe (1926-1962), American actress



This Article of Interest appears with many others in the ManchesterCF blog – http://manchestercf.blogspot.com



If you are not interested in receiving the “Articles of Interest” e-newsletter from ManchesterCF, please reply to this message and write in the subject heading “Remove Subscription”. Your e-mail address is never provided to outside third-parties. If you wish to forward this message, please include all contents of this message to the receiver. The contents of this electronic message are confidential and are intended for the recipient only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. All contents of this electronic message are protected by copyright where appropriate – © Copyright ManchesterCF 2009


http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pr/press_releases/2009/09/09-14-09green-guily.pdf

______________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 (202) 514-2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888

FILM EXECUTIVE AND SPOUSE FOUND GUILTY OF PAYING BRIBES
TO A SENIOR THAI TOURISM OFFICIAL TO OBTAIN LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS


WASHINGTON – Gerald Green and Patricia Green, Los Angeles-area film executives, were found guilty late last Friday of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and money laundering laws of the United States, as well as substantive violations of the FCPA and U.S. money laundering laws in relation to a sophisticated bribery scheme that enabled the defendants to obtain a series of Thai government contracts, including valuable contracts to manage and operate Thailand’s yearly film festival, announced Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer and Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California George S. Cardona.

Patricia Green was also found guilty of falsely subscribing U.S. income tax returns in connection with this scheme. The Greens were found guilty by a federal jury in the Central District of California on Friday, Sept. 11, 2009, after a two-and-a-half week trial.

“As these convictions demonstrate, the Department of Justice will not waiver in its fight against corruption, whether perpetrated within our borders or abroad,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “The FCPA is a powerful tool that the Department will continue to use in an effort to stop individuals like the Greens who seek to further their own business interests through bribes paid to foreign officials.”

Gerald Green, 77, and Patricia Green, 52, both of West Hollywood, Calif., were charged on March 11, 2009, in a second superseding indictment with paying kickbacks to the former governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) in exchange for receiving contracts to manage and operate Thailand’s yearly “Bangkok International Film Festival,” as well as contracts to provide an elite tourism “privilege card” marketed to wealthy foreigners.

Specifically, according to the superseding indictment, the Greens paid approximately $1.8 million in bribes to the former governor through numerous bank accounts in Singapore, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Jersey in the name of the former governor’s daughter and a friend of the former governor. The contracts received by the Greens resulted in more than $13.5 million in revenue to businesses they owned.

The Greens were charged in count one of the second superseding indictment with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and money laundering laws of the United States. Counts two through 10 charged the defendants with individual acts in violation of the FCPA. Counts 11 through 17 charged the defendants with individual acts in violation of money laundering laws of the United States. Count 19 charged defendant Gerald Green with obstruction of justice and counts 20 and 21 charged Patricia Green with falsely subscribing a U.S. Income Tax Return, commonly known as Form 1120, knowing that the false and overstated figure included the bribes to the former governor, described as "commissions."

The U.S. dismissed count 18 of the superseding indictment, a substantive money laundering count, prior to the case going to the jury. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 19, the obstruction of justice count against Gerald Green.

Evidence introduced at trial showed that beginning in 2002 and continuing into 2007, the Greens conspired with others to bribe the former governor of the TAT in order to get the lucrative film festival contracts as well as other TAT contracts. As a result of the then governor’s position at the TAT, the former governor was able to influence the awarding of these contracts.

Trial evidence also showed that in furtherance of the conspiracy, the Greens used different business entities, some with dummy business addresses and telephone numbers, in their dealings with the TAT in order to hide the large amount of money the Greens were being paid under the contracts. Moreover, the trial evidence showed that the Greens disguised the bribes as “sales commission” payments and made the payments for the benefit of the former governor through the foreign bank accounts of intermediaries, including bank accounts in the name of the former governor’s daughter and friend.

The conspiracy and FCPA charges each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and each of the money laundering counts carries a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison. The false subscription of a U.S. income tax return carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a fine of not more than $100,000. Sentencing has been set for Dec. 17, 2009, before the Honorable George Wu in the Central District of California.

This case was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Jonathan E. Lopez of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Searby of the Central District of California, with significant assistance from Fraud Section contract Attorney Allan J. Medina. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office and the IRS-Criminal Investigation Division, Los Angeles Field Office. Substantial assistance was also provided by the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, in particular Christopher P. Sonderby, the Department of Justice Attaché and Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinator – Asia; FBI Legal Attaché Daniel Kelly in Bangkok; and Fraud Section Paralegal Oneika Duncan.

###

09-952

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Articles of Interest 107 - Permanent Ink

Bulgaria had its financial intelligence unit under the State Agency for National Security (SANS). Those who read French will understand the irony.

The designers of this bureaucratic arrangement conveniently forgot that SANS has no authority to compel commercial banks to provide information, a key component of an anti-money laundering strategy based on large cash transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports.

As a result, anti-money laundering efforts in Bulgaria were completely useless for approximately one and a half years. Given Bulgaria’s reputation for institutionalised corruption and the linkages between organised crime and both former and current state security agencies, this is not a good thing.

If the FATF ever glances away from its obsession with Iran and weapons proliferation, perhaps they might decide to reach into the past, dust off the “Non-Compliant Countries and Territories” (NCCT) list and write the name “Bulgaria” at the top in permanent ink?

When will the FATF rescind the business of political opportunism and get back to the basic business of anti-money laundering?

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

- Will Rogers (1879 - 1935), quoted in Saturday Review, Aug. 25, 1962



This Article of Interest appears with many others in the ManchesterCF blog – http://manchestercf.blogspot.com



If you are not interested in receiving the “Articles of Interest” e-newsletter from ManchesterCF, please reply to this message and write in the subject heading “Remove Subscription”. Your e-mail address is never provided to outside third-parties. If you wish to forward this message, please include all contents of this message to the receiver. The contents of this electronic message are confidential and are intended for the recipient only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. All contents of this electronic message are protected by copyright where appropriate – © Copyright ManchesterCF 2009



http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2009-09-09&article=28661


Money Laundering in Bulgaria Unobserved for 1.5 Years

"As Bulgaria's agency for financial intelligence passed under the cap of the State Agency for National Security
(SANS) and the latter has no right to require information from commercial banks, nobody has watched for instances of money laundering in the poorest EU country for a year and a half," Bulgaria's finance minister Simeon Djankov said.

"We shall reestablish an anti-fraud agency with the finance ministry, which will be authorized to require information from the commercial banks," he added.

A new department with the finance ministry, headed by deputy finance minister Ana Mihaylova, will be monitoring the economic condition of Bulgaria and the foreign investors' attitudes towards Bulgaria.
"In August, analysts reported budgetary deficit of 105 m levs, which is five times less than it was in July," deputy finance minister Vladislav Goranov said. The fiscal reserve was 7.7 b levs end-August.

The funds in the fiscal reserve will be used to compensate the deficit in the social security payments from the state budget. At the end of last month, finance experts reported revenues to the budget of 16.7 b levs, or fifty-one percent of the planned collections for the year) and the expenditures were 17.1 b levs, or 56.3% of the preliminarily planned. At end-August, the total budget deficit was 490 m levs.

"If the tendency for budgetary stability continues over the next few months accompanied by measures to cut down expenditures and collection of the dividends from the state-run companies, we may succeed in saving this year's budget," Mr. Goranov said.
Katerina Ivanova

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Articles of Interest 106 - Spinning on the Axis of Evil

Robert M. Morgenthau is the successful District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, an office that often takes on global financial institutions and international cases with great success in the law courts of the United States.

Mr. Morgenthau spoke at the Brookings Institution yesterday regarding the growing economic and financial linkages between Iran and Venezuela, a country who now appears to spinning on the Axis of Evil.

Risk management professionals at financial institutions would do well to watch for any global political leader who stands before the cameras shaking the hand of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as that leader’s domestic banks will soon incur enormous difficulty in clearing USD payments, neutering their correspondent banking capabilities and damaging their economies.

It's silly to go on pretending that under the skin we are all brothers. The truth is more likely that under the skin we are all cannibals, assassins, traitors, liars, hypocrites, poltroons.

- Henry Miller, American author, (1891-1980)




Follow ManchesterCF on Twitter



If you are not interested in receiving the “Articles of Interest” e-newsletter from ManchesterCF, please reply to this message and write in the subject heading “Remove Subscription”. Your e-mail address is never provided to outside third-parties. If you wish to forward this message, please include all contents of this message to the receiver. The contents of this electronic message are confidential and are intended for the recipient only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. All contents of this electronic message are protected by copyright where appropriate – © Copyright ManchesterCF 2009


http://www.gfip.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=257&Itemid=74

The Link between Iran and Venezuela: A Crisis in the Making?

Briefing by Robert M. Morgenthau
September 8, 2009



I would like to thank the Brookings Institute for inviting me to speak today. The issues I will discuss with all of you are the blossoming relationship between what might seem unlikely bedfellows…. the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whether we have a national security crisis looming on the horizon, and whether our national security and law enforcement communities are sufficiently focused on this threat.

Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courting phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political, and military partnership, and that both countries have strong ties to Hezbollah and Hamas. Now is the time for policies and actions in order to ensure that the partnership produces no poisonous fruit.


I.
Iran and Venezuela In Bed Together

The diplomatic ties between Iran and Venezuela go back almost fifty years and until recently amounted to little more than the routine exchange of diplomats. With the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 the
relationship dramatically changed. Today I believe it is fair to say they have created a flourishing partnership rooted in a shared anti-American rhetoric and policy.

As early as 2006, public signs of their alliance began to emerge. It was in this year that Venezuela joined Cuba and Syria as the only nations to vote against a U.N. Atomic Energy Agency resolution to report Iran to the Security Council over its failures to abide U.N. sanctions to curtail its nuclear program. In 2007, during a Chavez state-visit to Tehran, the two nations declared an “axis of unity” against the United States. Additionally in the diplomatic arena, Ahmadinejad has made recent visits to Latin America, and Chavez has personally helped initiate relationships between Iran and Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

In June, while protesters lined the streets of Tehran demonstrating for democracy and basic political rights following the substantial allegations of fraud in the re-
election of Ahmadinejad, Chavez publicly offered him support. As the regime
cracked down on political dissent, jailing, torturing and killing protesters, Venezuela stood with the Iranian hard-liners.

Iranian investments inside of Venezuela are on the rise and ambitions of nuclear cooperation between the States are no secret.

Scores of Memoranda of Understanding between the two Nations have been signed in recent years relating to:

joint technology development
military cooperation
banking and finance
cooperation with oil and gas exploration and refining
mineral exploration
agricultural research

In April 2008, Venezuela and Iran entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pledging full military support and cooperation. It has been reported that since 2006 Iranian military advisors have been embedded with Venezuelan troops. Asymmetric warfare, taught to members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah and Hamas, has replaced U.S. Army field manuals as the standard Venezuelan military doctrine.

According to a report published in December 2008 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Venezuela has an estimated 50,000 tons of un-mined uranium. In the area of mineral exploration there is speculation that Venezuela
could be mining uranium for Iran.

On the financial front, in January 2008, the Iranians opened International Development Bank in Caracas under the Spanish name Banco Internacional de Desarrollo C.A. (BID), an independent subsidiary of Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI). In October 2008, The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed economic sanctions against these two Iranian banks – BID and EDBI - for providing or attempting to provide financial services to Iran's Ministry of Defense and its Armed Forces Logistics, the two Iranian military entities tasked with advancing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

My office has learned that over the past three years, a number of Iranian-owned and controlled factories have sprung up in remote and undeveloped parts of Venezuela. These factories have emerged in small towns in interior Venezuela
with a lack of basic infrastructure and simple amenities like restaurants and groceries. The lack of infrastructure is offset by what experts believe to be ideal geographic locations for the illicit production of weapons.

Evidence of the type of activity conducted inside the factories is limited. But given their location and secretive nature we should be concerned that illegal activity might be taking place. That is so, especially in light of an incident in December 2008, in which Turkish authorities detained an Iranian vessel bound for Venezuela after discovering lab equipment capable of producing explosives packed inside 22 containers marked “tractor parts.” The containers also allegedly contained barrels labeled with “danger” signs. I think it is safe to assume that this was a lucky catch and that most often shipments of this kind reach their destination in Venezuela.

And let there be no doubt that Hugo Chavez leads not only a corrupt government but one staffed by terrorist sympathizers. The government has strong ties to narco-
trafficking and money laundering, and reportedly plays an active role in the transshipment of narcotics and the laundering of narcotics proceeds in exchange for payments to corrupt government officials.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently published a study requested by Senator Richard Lugar examining the issue of illicit drugs transiting Venezuela. The study reported a high level of corruption within the government, military, and law enforcement that has enabled Venezuela to become a major transshipment route for trafficking cocaine out of Colombia. Intelligence gathered by my office strongly supports the conclusion that Hezbollah supporters in South America are engaged in the trafficking of narcotics. The GAO study also confirms allegations of Venezuelan support for FARC, the Colombian terrorist insurgency group which finances its operations through narcotics trafficking, extortion and kidnapping.

In July of this year, in a raid on a FARC training camp, Colombian military operatives recovered Swedish-made anti-tank rocket launchers sold to Venezuela in the 1980s. Sweden believes the recovery demonstrates a violation of the end-
user agreement by Venezuela, given that the Swedish manufacturer was never authorized to sell arms to Colombia. Venezuelan Interior Minister Tareck El Aissami, a Venezuelan of Syrian origin, lamely called the allegations a “media
show,” that is “…part of a campaign against our people, our government and our institutions.”

But Venezuela’s link to terrorist organizations does not stop with FARC. Particularly alarming, within the ranks of Chavez’s corrupt government lie supporters of Hezbollah.

In fact, Mr. El Aissami, who at one time headed Onidex, the Venezuelan passport and naturalization agency inside the interior ministry, is suspected of having issued passports to members of Hamas and Hezbollah. There are also allegations that El Aissami and others affiliated with Hezbollah are in charge of recruiting young Venezuelan Arabs who are then trained in Hezbollah camps in Southern Lebanon. Onidex is now headed by a very close friend of El Aissami; the two attended the same university and the friend is also reported to have ties to Hezbollah.

In June 2008, a Venezuelan national of Lebanese origin, Ghazi Nasr al Din, was added to the OFAC list of specially designated global terrorists and barred from accessing U.S. financial institutions and the U.S. banking system. He’s a
Venezuelan-based Hezbollah supporter who served in the Venezuelan Embassy in Syria, and was later appointed to the Venezuelan Embassy in Lebanon where we believe he currently serves as the Embassy’s Director of Political Aspects.

The relationship we are discussing today was underscored over the past few days during Chavez’s visit to the Middle East. This past weekend, after meeting with Ahmadinejad in Tehran, both leaders reiterated their pledge to stand up to
imperialist nations. Ahmadinejad said, “expansion of Tehran-Caracas relations is necessary given their common interests, friends and foes.” Without providing details, Chavez was quoted as saying that with Iran’s help he plans to build a “nuclear village” in Venezuela. Supporting Iran's claims that its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, Chavez stated, "there is not a single proof that Iran is building a… nuclear bomb.” The matters I am about to discuss belie that claim.


II.
Ties to Venezuela Make Iran More Dangerous

In the past year my Office has publicly announced two investigations that highlight the efforts of Iran to procure weapons materials despite U.S. and international economic sanctions designed to prevent Iran from developing long-range missile capacity and nuclear technology for military purposes. Our efforts uncovered a pervasive system of deceitful and fraudulent practices employed by Iranian entities to move money all over the world without detection, including through banks located in the jurisdiction I am responsible for protecting – Manhattan. Why did Iran go to these lengths? I believe the answer is simple: In order to pay for materials necessary to develop nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, and road-side bombs.

I believe the nature of Iran’s relationship with Venezuela makes for a more dangerous Iran. The Iranians, calculating and clever in their diplomatic relations, have found the perfect ally in Venezuela. Venezuela has an established financial
system that, with Chavez’s help, can be exploited to avoid economic sanctions. As well, its geographic location is ideal for building and storing weapons of mass destruction far away from Middle Eastern states threatened by Iran’s ambition and from the eyes of the international community.

To demonstrate the Iranian regime’s commitment to advancing its nuclear ambitions and long-range missile capacity, I would like briefly to describe the cases brought by my office. The tactics used in these cases are instructive and
should send signals to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and military commands throughout the world about the style and level of deception the Iranian’s employ to advance their interests. This is particularly important in examining the threats posed by the deepening ties between Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

In January of this year my office announced a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.K. bank, Lloyds TSB. From 2001 – 2004, Lloyds, on behalf of Iranian banks and their customers, engaged in a practice known as “stripping,” in which the bank intentionally participated in a systematic process of altering wire transfer information to hide the identity of its clients. This process allowed the illegal transfer of more than $300 million of Iranian cash despite economic sanctions prohibiting Iranian access to the U.S. financial system. We currently have investigations into similar misconduct by other banks.

In April of this year we announced the indictment of company called Limmt, and its manager, Li Fang Wei, a rogue provider of metal alloys and minerals to the global market. Limmt’s business included selling high strength metals and
sophisticated military materials, many of which are banned from export to Iran under international agreements. Limmt was also banned by OFAC from engaging in transactions with or through the U.S. financial system for its role in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran. Our investigation revealed that despite sanctions, Li Fang Wei and Limmt used aliases and shell companies to deceive banks into processing payments related to the shipment of banned missile, nuclear and so-called “dual use” materials to subsidiary organizations of the Iranian Defense Industries Organization. Please note the first version of this statement refers only to U.S. banks. In fact, banned materials were generally purchased in Euros and processed through European banks.

Based on information developed by my office, the Iranians with the help of Venezuela are now engaged in similar economic and proliferation sanctions-
busting schemes.

For years I have stressed the importance of transparency in financial transactions. In the realm of preventing money laundering and terror financing, the concept of “know your customer” is the starting point in any scheme designed to detect suspicious transactions. For wire transfers denominated in U.S. dollars, the transactions almost always clear through correspondent accounts in the United States, and usually at banks based in Manhattan. Ideally, Manhattan banks have a clear picture of the sender and beneficiary of the funds, even in cross-border transactions.

Venezuela is not currently the subject of a U.S. or international economic sanctions program that places significant restrictions on the ability of Venezuelan banks to conduct business with the United States, including accessing U.S. banks to clear international U.S. dollar transactions. Presently, banks in the U.S. processing wire transfers from Venezuelan banks rely almost exclusively on the Venezuelan bank to ensure the funds are being transferred for legitimate purposes. I have little faith that this is effectively being done, and the Iranians, aware of this vulnerability,
appear to be taking advantage of it.

The ostensible reason the Iranian-owned bank Banco Internacional de Desarrollo (BID) was opened in Caracas was to expand economic ties with Venezuela. Our sources and experiences lead me to suspect an ulterior motive. A foothold into the Venezuelan banking system is a perfect “sanctions-busting” method - the main motivator for Iran in its banking relationship with Venezuela. Despite being designated by OFAC we believe that BID has several correspondent banking
relationships with both Venezuelan banks and banks in Panama, a nation with a long-standing reputation as a money laundering safe-haven.

This scheme is known as “nesting.” Nested accounts occur when a foreign financial institution gains access to the U.S. financial system by operating through a U.S. correspondent account belonging to another foreign financial institution.
For example, BID who is prohibited from establishing a relationship with a U.S. bank could instead establish a relationship with a Venezuelan or Panamanian bank that has a relationship with a U.S. bank. If the U.S. bank is unaware that its foreign correspondent financial institution customer is providing such access to a sanctioned third-party foreign financial institution, this third-party financial institution can effectively gain anonymous access to the U.S. financial system.

In Venezuela, Ahmadinejad and the hard-line Mullahs have found an ally who has stood by them as they crushed political freedoms and defied world consensus on its nuclear program. Both countries have pledged mutual scientific, technical and financial support. There is little reason to doubt Venezuela’s support for Ahmadinejad’s most important agenda, the development of a nuclear program and long-range missiles, and the destabilization of the region. For Iran, the lifeblood of their nuclear and weapons programs is the ability to use the international banking system to make payments for banned missile and nuclear materials. The opening of Venezuela’s banks to the Iranians guarantees the continued development of nuclear technology and long-range missiles. The mysterious manufacturing plants, controlled by Iran, deep in the interior of Venezuela, give even greater concern.

III.
With Iranian assistance Venezuela is bound to become a destabilizing force in Latin America

So why is Chavez willing to open up his country to a foreign nation with little in shared history or culture? I believe it is because his regime is corrupt, hell-bent on becoming a regional power, and fanatical in its approach to dealing with the U.S. The diplomatic overture of President Obama in shaking Chavez’s hand in April at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago is not a reason to assume a diminished threat from our neighbor to the south. In fact, with the groundwork laid years ago, we are entering a period where the fruits of the Iran-Venezuela bond will begin to ripen.

That means two of the world’s most dangerous regimes, the self-described “axis of unity,” will be acting together in our backyard on the development of nuclear and missile technology. And it seems that for terrorist groups they have found the perfect operating ground for training and planning, and financing their activities through narco-trafficking.

Sound like the making of a story you’ve heard before? In 1962, President Kennedy stared down a nuclear threat to the United States when a leftist populist leader with a strong anti-American streak joined forces with the Soviet Union to
bring nuclear weapons in close proximity to our borders. JFK ended the Cuban missile crisis through resolve and tough diplomacy. Although the same threat level does not yet exist in Venezuela, the United States needs to be focused on Iran’s expansionism wherever it occurs.


Conclusions

The Iranian nuclear and long-range missile threats and creeping Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere cannot be overlooked. My office and other law enforcement agencies can play a small but important role in ensuring that money
laundering, terror financing, and sanctions violations are not ignored, and that criminals and the banks that aid Iran will be discovered and prosecuted. We all know that stopping the flow of illicit funds has a direct correlation to curbing
wrongful conduct. But certainly law enforcement in the U.S. alone is not enough to counter the threat effectively.

As for Venezuela, the world must no longer assume that Chavez is bluffing when he speaks. It is important that the public generally, and responsible government officials in particular, be aware of the growing presence of Iran in Latin America. And it is necessary to urge Venezuela’s neighbors to understand the sinister implications of Iran’s presence in the region. Brazil, whose constitution prohibits nuclear weapons, can play a significant role in influencing Chavez. Finally, the U.S. and the international community must strongly consider ways to monitor and sanction Venezuela’s banking system. Failure to take action in this regard will leave open a window susceptible to money laundering use by the Iranian government, the narcotics organizations with ties to the Venezuelan government, and the terrorist organizations that Iran supports openly.


###


Selected Sources

Iran-Venezuela ties serve strategic aims,” United Press International,
August 14, 2009

The dragon in the backyard, Economist, August 13, 2009

Chavez to visit Iran next September,” El Universal, Caracas, August 18,
2009

Drug Control, U.S. Counternacotics Cooperation with Venezuela Has
Declined
,” United States Government Accountability Office, July 2009

Swedes quiz Venezuela on weapons,” BBC News, July 27, 2009

Iran Seen Through Venezuelan Eyes,” Moises Naim, Foreign Policy, June
25, 2009

Banking 101 with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” Nicholas
Hanlon, The Meges Apericas Report, May 7, 2009

Venezuela’s Chavez courts Iran as US shows concern,” Associated Press,
May 3, 2009

Venezuela’s Tarek El-Aissami,” Nicole M. Ferrand, Middle East Analysis,
March 4, 2009

Turkey holds suspicious Iran-Venezuela shipment,” Selcan Hacaoglu,
Associated Press, January 6, 2009

A Nuclear Profile,” Nima Gerami and Sharon Squassoni, Carnegie
Endowment For International Peace, December 18, 2008

Chavez’s Dangerous Liaisons: Venezuela teams up with Russian and Iran,”
Jaime Daremblum, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2008