Sections:
|
Hsu Section
CBS News website 07 SEP 2007
SourceWatch on Norman Hsu
Norman HsuFrom SourceWatchNorman Hsu is a "wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry",[1] former president of the Chinese-American Association,[2] and a "major Democratic Party fundraiser". Hsu has been described as a "Democratic megadonor and clothing company mogul"[3] and an "apparel magnate with a fat Rolodex".[4]
[edit]
Fugitive in plain sightHsu is a fugitive, "wanted by authorities for skipping out on an agreement to serve up to three years in prison after pleading no contest to grand theft swindling charges," the Los Angeles Times reported August 29, 2007.[5] "For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish," the Times Chuck Neubauer and Robins Fields wrote.[6] "On Tuesday, [August 28, 2007,] E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time. Hsu remembers the episode as part of a settlement with creditors when he also went through bankruptcy," Neubauer and Fields wrote. [edit]
Fundraiser"Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York," Neubauer and Fields wrote.[6] "In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving," Neubauer and Fields wrote.[6] "As a Democratic rainmaker, Hsu -- who graduated from UC Berkeley and the Wharton School of Business -- is credited with donating nearly $500,000 to national and local party candidates and their political committees in the last three years. He earned a place in the Clinton campaign's 'HillRaiser'[7] group by pledging to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid. ... Records show that Hsu helped raise an additional $500,000 from other sources for Clinton and other Democrats," Neubauer and Fields wrote.[6] "Records show that Hsu has emerged as one of the Democrats' most successful 'bundlers,'[8] rounding up groups of contributors and packaging their checks together before delivering the funds to campaign officials. Individuals can give a total of $4,600 to a single candidate during an election cycle, $2,300 for the primaries and $2,300 for the general election."[6] According to campaign-finance records, Hsu "made his first campaign contribution, in the amount of $2,000, to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry on July 21, 2004. Mr. Hsu has since donated $225,000 to Democratic candidates."[9] [edit]
Campaign contributionsSince 2004, other than Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu has contributed to or raised funds for the following:[6][9]
[edit]
Profiles[edit]
Philanthropy
[edit]
Miscellaneous"News stories in the mid-1980s said [Hsu] criticized trade policies that made it harder to import goods from China.[1] Robert Novak column 01 JUL 2007
Patrick Kennedy's billionaire Billionaire financier Stephen Schwarzman was listed as one of the hosts of a 40th birthday party for Democratic Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island on Thursday night at the New York Yacht Club in Manhattan. An individual ticket cost $1,000, with $5,000 required to be a VIP.
Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of the Blackstone Group, made newspaper front pages when it was reported he would earn $7.5 billion from the public offering of his private-equity firm. Other big-money Democrats listed on the invitation included David Boies, Norman Hsu, Felix Rohatyn, Bernard Schwartz, Todd Slotkin and Kenneth I. Starr. The principal host was the congressman's father, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The location of the party could be found only by phoning a Washington telephone number to R.S.V.P. NewsMeat - Contributions by Norman Hsu search
Finance information Chaka Fattah for Mayor of Philadelphia pdf file
2006 CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION FOR Fattah for Mayor (Chaka Fattah) City of PhiladelphiaDepartment of Records Contributions Mr. Mark E. Sherman, Real Estate Developer Philadelphia, PA 19119-3708 $3,000.00 12/31/2006 Schedule I - Part D Sherman Properties Mr. Michael T. Rooney Philadelphia, PA 19146-1452 $100.00 12/28/2006 Schedule I - Part B Mr. Rafael S. Collazo, Attorney Philadelphia, PA 19147-1960 $500.00 12/28/2006 Schedule I - Part D Gardner Caron Douglas Mr. Raymond Perelman, Business Executive Philadelphia, PA 19103 $1,000.00 12/26/2006 Schedule I - Part D Self-Employeed Mr. Robert Rovner, Attorney Feasterville Trevose, PA 19053-6456 $1,500.00 12/5/2006 Schedule I - Part D Rovner Allen & Rovner Philadelphia, PA 19149 Mr. Scott Bass, VP of Operations Philadelphia, PA 19119-1422 $5,000.00 12/31/2006 Schedule I - Part D Keystone Mercy Health Pla Mr. Sean M. Reilly, President Philadelphia, PA 19111-4824 $1,000.00 12/26/2006 Schedule I - Part D Roscommon International Mr. Steven Scott Bradley, CEO Philadelphia, PA 19106-2609 $2,500.00 11/21/2006 Schedule I - Part D Bradley & Bradley Associa Philadelphia, PA 19106 Mr. William A. Graham IV, Broker Gladwyne, PA 19035-1428 $2,500.00 12/12/2006 Schedule I - Part D The Graham Company Philadelphia, PA 19102 Mrs. Sallie Korman, Executive Fort Washington, PA 19034 $5,000.00 12/26/2006 Schedule I - Part D Korman Residential Proper Trevose, PA 19053 Mrs. Susan Kline Klehr, Homemaker Philadelphia, PA 19103-6122 $5,000.00 12/19/2006 Schedule I - Part D Homemaker Naomi Cohen, Civic Volunteer New York, NY 10023 $5,000.00 12/16/2006 Schedule I - Part D Self ivic Volunteer Nathan Johnson, Attorney Voorhees, NJ 08043 $1,000.00 12/21/2006 Schedule I - Part D Self Employeed Ninth Decade Fund Philadelphia, PA 19103 $5,000.00 12/13/2006 Schedule I - Part C Norman Hsu, President New York, NY 10012 $1,000.00 12/27/2006 Schedule I - Part D Components Limited Generated: 4/12/2007 8:28:29 PM Page 8 of 13 Congresswoman Doris Matsui (24)
Congresswoman Doris Matsui of California was the guest of honor at a luncheon given by Mr. Norman Hsu. The event was held on Monday,6/27/05 in Manhattan. Volume: 62705MH Senator Debbie Stabenow Breakfast (22) Mr. Norman Hsu hosted a breakfast for Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. The event was held at the St. Regis Hotel in New York May 4, 2005. Volume: 50405HS. NY State Board of Elections search on Hsu
From PA State campaign finance records search on Hsu
LA City Ethics Commission records, search on Norman Hsu
From Freerepublic on the Spiderman-Hsu Connection
Dateline Los Angeles, CA
Spiderman creator Stan Lee was deposed on Feb. 23, 2005 in connection with the civil suit Paul v Clinton.
In light of the recent revelations of Hillary donor, Norman Hsu, who has reportedly fled justice to parts unknown, it might be interesting to see Lee's deposition in which he talks about "switching checks."
In Dec. of 2005, Hillary's treasurer, Andrew Grossman, signed a conciliation agreement with the FEC, admitting that $721,000 was deliberately hidden in FEC reporting. The campaign was fined $35,000 and told to file a fourth amended report.
What bad luck for Hillary. Wouldn't you know it? The fourth amended report was the fourth FEC report that was a fraud. What are the chances of that? Perhaps the same odds as the former impeached president remaining faithful to his wife for about a month?
Among the fabrications in that Jan. 2006 report, was that Stan Lee donated $225,000 to the campaign. Lee did not donate that money, and Hillary knows he did not donate that money.
It seems that the people around Hillary are about as honest as their boss. Three days after the Aug. 12, 2000, the always predictible Hillary mouthpiece, Howard Wolfson, told the voters a couple whoppers. One was that Stan Lee had donated $100,000. The other was that the campaign would take no money from Peter Paul.
Hillary has never corrected the fourth false FEC report and has directed the entire fraud that is finally about to be revealed for all the voters to see in the Paul v Clinton case. Hillary and all of her pals will be under oath. Yes, of course, Hillary will fail to remember anything. But it is certainly a good thing that Peter has several hours of Hillary on home video. That darn video camera. A 3-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will be reviewing some video on Sept. 7 in Los Angeles.
After that fourth amended report, we caught up with Stan Lee by telephone at his home early in 2006. He was informed that his was listed as a $225,000 donor and claimed to be shocked. He apparently wasn't shocked enough. Despite Peter's written demand to him to correct the FEC record, Lee has done nothing about it. Hillary's fraud stands. Hmmmm, maybe we need a new superhero to come to the rescue. Perhaps a big athlete who uses steroids or tortures dogs and, when sufficiently irritated, turns into a nerdy accountant with horn rimmed glasses and a pocket protector. No, I guess I'll have to leave the superhero stuff to Lee.
You might enjoy this additional piece of Hillary trivia. Perhaps it will come in handy some day if you are on Jeopardy. Abdul Rehman Jinnah, a Clinton donor, sat at the head Clinton table at the Hollywood Gala on Aug. 12, 2000. Like Norman Hsu and Algore's nuns and all the rest of them, he fled. Title: Democratic fundraiser (Norman Hsu) is a fugitive in plain sight WASHINGTON -- For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish. "He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?" Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years. Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving. On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time. Hsu remembers the episode as part of a settlement with creditors when he also went through bankruptcy, Barcella said. The bulk of the campaign dollars raised by major parties comes from the same sources: business groups, labor unions and other well-heeled interests with a long-term need to win friends in the political arena. But the appetite for cash has grown so great that politicians are constantly pressured to find new sources of contributions. Hsu's case illustrates the sometimes-bizarre results of that tendency to push the envelope, often in ways the candidates know nothing about. As a Democratic rainmaker, Hsu -- who graduated from UC Berkeley and the Wharton School of Business -- is credited with donating nearly $500,000 to national and local party candidates and their political committees in the last three years. He earned a place in the Clinton campaign's "HillRaiser" group by pledging to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid. Records show that Hsu helped raise an additional $500,000 from other sources for Clinton and other Democrats. "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday. "During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them." Wolfson did not immediately respond Tuesday night to questions about Hsu's legal problems. Though he is a fugitive, Hsu has hardly kept a low profile. The website camerarts.com, which sells photographs taken at political events, features shots of Hsu at several fundraisers he hosted at Manhattan's elegant St. Regis hotel -- including a June 2005 luncheon for Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento). Hsu lives in New York City. Efforts to contact him were unsuccessful. Barcella said Hsu chose to respond through his lawyer. Records show that Hsu has emerged as one of the Democrats' most successful "bundlers," rounding up groups of contributors and packaging their checks together before delivering the funds to campaign officials. Individuals can give a total of $4,600 to a single candidate during an election cycle, $2,300 for the primaries and $2,300 for the general election. One example of the kind of first-time donors Hsu has worked with is the Paw family of Daly City, Calif., which is headed by William Paw, a mail carrier, and his wife, Alice, who is listed as a homemaker. The Paws -- seven adults, most of whom live together in a small house near San Francisco International Airport -- apparently had never donated to national candidates until 2004. Over a three-year period, they gave $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to candidates for state-level offices in New York. The family includes a son, Winkle Paw, who Barcella said was in business with Hsu. Another son works for a Bay Area school board, while one daughter works for a hospital and another for a computer company. "They have the financial wherewithal to make their own donations," Barcella said. "It didn't come from Norman." Eugene Lang College :: About :: Administration :: Board of Governors :: Board of Governors
www.newschool.edu/lang/about.aspx?id=10014 Board of Governors Arnold Aronson, Chair Board of Trustees at The New School University - NYC
From page source on at The Free Library - it would not load in my browser - all efforts to remain in 'fair use' territory taken
The New School will honor John L. Tishman, chairman and CEO of Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc. and vice chair of the Board of Trustees of The New School, at its 2006 LaGuardia Award Dinner on Wednesday, November 15, at the Mandarin Oriental New York.
The Fiorello H. LaGuardia Award recognizes individuals who, through their contributions, exemplify the compassion, courage, and determination of the city's legendary mayor. Proceeds from the evening provide support to over 130 academic scholarships at the university. [..] In January of this year, through Tishman's support, The New School launched the Tishman Environment and Design Center, which oversees the development of an environmental studies program at The New School. [..] At the LaGuardia Dinner, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver a keynote address in tribute to John Tishman, and New School President Bob Kerrey will host the evening. Event chairs include co-chairs American International Group, Inc.; The Durst Organization; Robert R. Dyson, The Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation; Julien J. Studley, The Julien J. Studley Foundation; and Daniel R. Tishman, Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc.; and dinner chairs Henry H. Arnhold, Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Holdings, Inc.; Paul W. Critchlow, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; Mr. and Mrs. Michael E. Gellert; Mr. and Mrs. Robert F. Hoerle; Norman Hsu; Sheila C. Johnson; and Bernard and Irene Schwartz. [..] Past recipients of the Fiorello H. LaGuardia Award include former President Bill Clinton, Merrill Lynch Chairman and CEO Stan O'Neal, former Senator George J. Mitchell, George David, Felix G. Rohatyn, Reuben and Arlene Mark, David Rockefeller, Henry Kravis, Arthur Levitt, Jr., Carl McCall, former Senator Patrick Moynihan, former Governor Mario Cuomo, and former Mayors David N. Dinkins and Edward I. Koch. From NYT blog - The Caucus - 20 AUG 2007
August 20, 2007, 9:27 pm
Kerrey Waits for Hagel to DecideBy Adam Nagourney Could Bob Kerrey — the former Nebraska senator, governor, one-time presidential candidate, almost New York City mayoral candidate and current president of the New School — be thinking about getting back into politics?
Mr. Kerrey has made it known that he might be interested in running for the Senate seat in Nebraska should Chuck Hagel, a Republican, not seek re-election — and Democratic leaders have made it clear that they would like Mr. Kerrey to run. Mr. Kerrey, in an interview yesterday, said it was unlikely but not impossible. “At the moment,” he said, “I don’t think I’m going to run. But these moments don’t happen very often. It’s a possibility.” Unless Mr. Hagel seeks another term. “If Hagel runs, not only would I not run, I would write him a check,” Mr. Kerrey said. Supporter ($15,000 to $24,999)
From T.R. to F.D.R., from Grover Cleveland to Mario Cuomo, New York gubernatorial campaigns have been as noisy and electrifying as any in the nation. And while this year’s race may have lacked some suspense, it never lacked for drama. Or energy. The kickoff, the speeches, the bus tours, the strategy sessions, the debates, the press conferences, the conventions, the election, and everything between; “Making of a Governor” takes you into the adrenaline-fueled journey of the 2006 New York gubernatorial race.
Additional support provided by Mike Honda fundraiser - source document
Please join
Teamsters Joint Council 7 PAC * Lucia Cha & Dr. Jerry Hiura * Sandy Chau Arun Ganguly * Norman Hsu * Tae Yun Kim * Scott Tse * CC Yin
Comcast PAC * Deloitte & Touche PAC (Anna Mok) * Ari Arjavalingam * Anita Chan Hon. Hedy Chang * Florence Fang * Dennis de la Fong * Mark Fischer Colbrie * Michelle Hu *Ro Khanna * Hon. Liz Kniss * Richard Liu * Rick Lu * Randy Okamura * Dr. Samuel So
Congressman Mike Honda (CA-15)
DNC Vice-Chair Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Appropriations Committee
(6th Anniversary of his 60th Birthday) Fundraiser
Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:00pm – 3:00pm Home of Ta-lin and Joyce Hsu 97 Isabella Ave. Atherton, CA 94027
Requested Contributions: Platinum - $5,000 PAC/$2,300 Individual Diamond - $2,500 PAC/$1,000 Individual Gold- $500 PAC/$150 Individual
Please make checks payable to: Mike Honda for Congress 625 Third Street, NE Suite #2 Washington, DC 20002
To join the Host Committee or to RSVP, please contact Madalene Mielke at 202.547.6656 or madalene@arumgroup.com Contributions to Mike Honda for Congress are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:00pm – 3:00pm
___Visa ___Amex ___MasterCard
Please fax credit card information to: 202.547.8554 Please make personal or PAC checks payable to: “Honda for Congress” 625 3rd St. NE Suite #2, Washington, DC 20002 FEC ID # C00351379
Wilshire & Washington 24 MAR 2007
Clinton already has visited twice in preparation for her March 24 gala, which will be at the Beverly Hills home of Ron Burkle. Tickets are $4,600 for a VIP reception and dinner, and $2,300 just for the dinner. (The campaign is raising money both for the primary and the general election).
The chairs of Clinton's event are Burkle, Cheryl and Haim Saban, Steve Bing, Debra and Sim Farar and Daphna and Richard Ziman. Co-chairs are Susan and Scott Corwin, Kimberly Marteau and John Emerson, Carol Hamilton and David Khon, Norman Hsu, Noah Mamet, Lisa and Brad Mindlin, Jane and Marc Nathanson, Eric Smidt and Laura and Casey Wasserman. The host committee includes Eileen Austen, Jacqueline and Clarence Avant, Irv Bauman, Carol and Frank Biondi, Katie Buckland, Michel Chagouri, Lissa and Adam Chesnoff, Laura Chick, Bruce Cohen, Aileen Adams and Geoff Cowan, Gray and Sharon Davis, Alex De Ocampo, Tal Finney, Leah and Sam Fischer, Earl Gales, Chad Griffin, Laura Hartigan, Yashar Hedayat, Amy and Andy Heyward, Ruth Hunter and Sean Daniel, Marta Kauffman, Skip Keesal, Michael Kives, Toni Holt and Robert Kramer, Jennifer Long, Paul Marciano, Leah Mendelsohn, Tom O'Gara, Debra Olson, Richard Park, Kelly and Jamie Patricof, Rashel Pouri, Teddie and Michael Ray, Lynda and Stewart Resnick, Aviva and Dan Rosenthal, Lila Sadafi, Diane Lander Simon, Ari Swiller, Beverly Thomas, Sherri and Stanley Toy, William Wardlaw, Brian Weinstein and Denita and Anthony Willoughby. "Stay Armed, Stay Free..."
As seen at, Hogue, Inc.
Taiwan:
Guay Guay Trading Co., LTD. 11 F-3, #27, Lane 169 Kangning St. Shijr Jen Taipei County Taiwan R.O.C. Fax: 886 2 269 4000 Tel: 886 2 269 2000 E-Mail: [retracted for privacy concerns] Contact: Norman Hsu No idea if this is the same Norman Hsu! It does seem likely, however.... At ArniesAirsoft: OCT 2001 ( http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/?filnavn=/news/october01.htm )
Guay Guay updates: Norman Hsu of GuayGuay has emailed in and asked us to put up a few more updates concerning their AK RIS grip, after a large number of UK bods emailed him asking similar questions. Norman has kindly emailed over a bunch of photos for the grip, and some more technical data.
AK47 RIS specs and information:
Again, no idea if it is the same Norman Hsu... likeliness due to dates makes it possible Abdul Rehman Jinnah section
Search on Abdul Jinnah
Pakistani charged with illegal donations
WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- A Pakistani businessman living in California has become a fugitive to avoid prosecution for illegal contributions to prominent Democrats. Abdul Rehman Jinnah of Los Angeles is believed to have left the country, the Los Angeles Times reports. He has been indicted on charges of setting up straw contributors to political action committees for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Jinnah allegedly recruited relatives, friends and employees to donate money to and Clinton, and then reimbursed them. A federal official told the Times prosecutors had no evidence that the committees knew the contributions were illegal. Officials for both committees told the Times they did not know about the investigation or the indictments until the newspaper contacted them, and said the committees would not keep the donations. A legal resident of the United States, Jinnah had a number of businesses, including All America, a cell phone distributor, and a chain of yoghurt shops. Jinnah hosted fundraisers for Boxer and Clinton. He was also involved in organizing the Pakistani American Leadership Center, which helped form a Congressional Pakistani Caucus.
From PakSearch - infected file warning from AV when visiting, so be warned
20000503 G-77 will confer millennium peace award to Clinton KARACHI: The group of developing countries, commonly known as G-77, has decided to confer a millennium peace award on the US President Bill Clinton in view of his outstanding contribution towards peace-making efforts in the world. The decision was taken unanimously by the 133-member countries of the group during the 27th Steering Committee of G-77 Chamber of Commerce and Industry held from March 21-23, 2000 at Havana, Republic of Cuba. On a proposal put forward by Tariq Sayeed, Chairman, G-77 Trade Fair Authority and former chairman G-77 CCI, the steering committee passed the resolution in this regard. The award giving ceremony is proposed to be held at the Universal Amphitheatre in Universal Studios or the Coliseum in Los Angeles where the Presidents of Chamber of Commerce and Industry from 133 G-77 countries will participate. The ceremony will have multicultural entertainment programme with dances performed by natives of at least seven different countries. A meeting of the monitoring committee of G-77 CCI is scheduled to be held in Kampala, Uganda on May 29, 2000 where the above programme will be given a final shape. Fazal-ur-Rehman Dittu, President, FPCCI and Vice Chairman, G-77 CCI from the Asia and Pacific Region is also expected to attend the Uganda meeting. Rehman Jinnah, a US-based Pakistani and Adviser to the Chairman G-77 CCI of developing countries met President Bill Clinton along with the First Lady Hillary Clinton on April 28, 2000 and conveyed him the resolution passed by the G-77.ÑPPI From Pakistan Link 06 OCT 2000
NORTHRIDGE, CA: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton attended a luncheon at the residence of Mr. Rehman Jinnah here Thursday, September 28. About 100 community members were there to welcome the First Lady.
In his welcoming remarks, the host, Rehman Jinnah praised the First Family. He said Hillary Clinton is not an ordinary individual. “Rahter than rest on what she has already done, Hillary Clinton is looking for a new challenge,” Jinnah added. Rehman Jinnah is a Southern California-based businessman, who has hosted receptions for Vice President Al Gore and other high officials. He is Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Co-Chair of America Millennium. Mrs. Clinton in her short address, highlighted the achievements of the Clinton presidency, lauded the Gore-Lieberman Democratic Presidential ticket for its pledge to continue the policies. She said the economic policies of the Clinton administration have brought about an unprecedented wave of prosperity in the country and around the world. “But, our opponents want to reverse the policies of this administration,” Mrs. Clinton added. She said President Clinton after his retirement will remain engaged in the peace efforts around the world, including South Asia. The lunch was also attended by California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Busmante, and other Democratic party officials. Sant Singh Chatwal
Sant Singh ChatwalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSant Singh Chatwal is a Sikh Indian-American businessman. According to The Indian Express, "he is a former Indian Air Force pilot who migrated to the United States in the 1980s and started the Bombay Palace chain of restaurants." Also President and CEO of Hampshire Hotels & Resorts, LLC, his company owns hotels in the United States, the United Kingdom and Thailand, with over 2,500 rooms in Manhattan. Bombay Palace has locations around the World; including Montreal, Toronto, New York, Washington DC, Beverly Hills, Houston, Budapest and Kuala Lumpur.
Chatwal is a Trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation, a Charitable foundation organized by President Clinton focusing on global issues of health security, economic empowerment (HIV/AIDS Initiative; Clinton Global Initiative, Urban Enterprise Initiative, Healthier Generation, etc.) He was the only Indian from the United States who was honored by the Govt. of Punjab (India) in April 1999 with the “Order of Khalsa” for his outstanding service to the community. Ironically, his own son,Vikram shaved off his beard and cut his hair (an act deeply offensive to Sikhs because of the religious importance of their hair) for glamour of the entertainment world. Chatwal has devoted resources to political causes, working very closely with the Democratic Party, in particular with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator Charles Schumer, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Joseph Crowley. In February 2006, Chatwal hosted an extravagant wedding in India for his son Vikram Chatwal. The wedding including a week of festivities spread out over a week and three Indian cities and a veritable fleet of chartered planes. Guests included Bill Clinton, Lakshmi Mittal, Deepak Chopra and the Prime Minister of India. [1] Ironically, Sant Chatwal had earlier filed for personal bankruptcy in New York to discharge millions in debt owed to various people and entities including the US government. In court filings in the late 1990s he stated he had just ‘$100’ while living in a penthouse in New York’s expensive upper-Eastside. Among the many banks that saw their loans turn bad were Lincoln Savings Bank, First New York Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India and State Bank of India. He is now on "Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee".
Chatwals: Hoteliers with the Midas touch Jai Arjun Singh | June 04, 2005 It's a story the Chatwals enjoy relating. Back in 1987, just after hotelier Sant Chatwal had purchased the Tudor Hotel in Manhattan, they found an unanticipated side benefit: a large Raphael painting was discovered hanging in the centre of one of the walls. The painting was valued and found to be worth millions; it's still with the family, even though the hotel was sold off the very next year. "We took that as a good portent," chuckles Chatwal, now president, Hampshire Hotels and Resorts. "It suggested to us that our operations in the area were going to be a success." The Chatwals -- Sant and his man-about-town son Vikram -- have reason to reflect on that good omen now: just a few days ago, they finalised a deal for 300 rooms in Manhattan. This takes their total room count in the region up from 2,500 to 2,800, the highest number by any private hotel group. And they don't shy away from talking about their achievements. "This year the occupancy of our hotels in New York has been 93 per cent," says the senior Chatwal proudly, "That's around 10 percentage points above the average occupancy for the city." Things have changed in other ways too. Back in 1987, Vikram was a callow 16-year-old who would take out the garbage bags every day. Today he's playing a role in changing the focus of the business. Under him, the company's business plan has been restructured to give boutique and luxury hotels together a 50 per cent share. His pet project these days is the haute couture line of 'Dream' hotels, the first of which opened in New York in October last year. The hotel, conceptualised by Vikram and designed by David Rockwell, is targetted at "bohemian business executives, unconventional people looking for striking, other worldly designs." This is reflected in every aspect of the hotel, from the Serafina restaurant, which invokes the world of the great surrealist director Federico Fellini to the Ava lounge, with its French Riviera-inspired decor. But arguably the key attraction is the Chopra Center NY done in collaboration with the celebrated physician-author Deepak Chopra. "Our feeling was that after 9/11 New York needed someone like Deepak," says Vikram. "The healing centre adds value to the hotel -- it brings in a sense of spirituality and mysticism." There's a temptation to not take the Chatwals very seriously. One sees more of them on newspaper page 3s than in the business pages. There's a hint of boredom, a suggestion of "starting new projects just because they can", especially in Vikram's jet-setting lifestyle: he's moved adroitly from inaugurating new hotels to escorting Bill Clinton around to participating in social causes like the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He's even been a film star, in the broadest definition of that term -- having played the lead in the roundly vilified film One Dollar Curry. (Incidentally, another movie appearance is on the cards.) Some of the flamboyance is on display at our interview too. Vikram comes in, gives his dad a high-five, says, "How's it going, man?" in his clipped accent. Dad replies, "Long time no see, eh?" (They were posing for photographs with Clinton just a couple of days earlier.) The father-son duo play off each other, put on a thinly disguised veneer of seriousness, even act coy about being in front of the camera. It's hard to say whether this is what they're really like, or whether there's an element of media-directed artifice involved. The truth, like the Raphael, probably hangs somewhere in between. But study the picture more closely and you'll find a disconnect between image and actuality. "Vikram and I might be very high-profile in terms of media coverage," admits Sant Chatwal, "but one of the major reasons for our success is that we're not a mom-and-pop store. In fact, we are personally involved only when it comes to the highest-level decisions -- acquisitions and so on. The business itself has a solid, professional structure -- we have a high-power executive team with a combined experience of around 500 years." Vikram, curiously effete for a man with a playboy reputation (he was dubbed the "Turban Cowboy" by the international press, an epithet that, remarkably, he seems quite comfortable with), always seem to be looking somewhere just behind you (this fits the visionary tag though it could just as easily be eye-glaze). He speaks in aphorisms ("you don't get the good unless you know the bad"), talks thoughtfully about the projects he's currently working on and his vision for the company. More Dream hotels are in the offing; work is underway on one in Bangkok, while the Chatwals have already held numerous meetings to purchase property in India, to open such luxury hotels in the metros. "We'll have to adjust the specifics of hotel design and decor to match the Indian demographic," says Vikram, "but the basic concept will stay." He also plans to expand the bar/lounge segment for Hampshire Hotels. A 120-room luxury landmark hotel called the Lamb's Club has been earmarked for Times Square. Another hotel, an all-glass structure named The Night -- "where black will be the theme" -- will come up by September-end. The shift towards the luxury segment will continue, he says: "eventually boutique hotels should account for around 60 per cent of our business."Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links
Rediff News Bureau | June 15, 2007 12:36 IST Last Updated: June 15, 2007 22:08 IST When United States Senator Barak Obama entered the American Presidential race, he staked out his turf on the moral high ground with a call for a new kind of politics, devoid of personal attack and characterised by debates on the issues that matter.
His campaign apparently has not been listening: Members of the Senator's campaign staff have been circulating a document that, in its title, slightingly refers to Democratic rival Senator Hillary Clinton as the Democrat from Punjab -- a seeming slur on Clinton's ties with India and Indian Americans. The three page 'opposition research paper', titled Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties, which has begun circulating in the blogosphere, criticises the Clintons' links to India in an effort and attacks her record on outsourcing, and on protecting American jobs. The D-Punjab reference apparently refers to a joke Senator Clinton made last year, at a fund-raiser hosted by New York-based hotelier and top Democratic fund-raiser Sant Singh Chatwal. 'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,' she had said on that occasion. The document references the Clintons' recently released financial disclosure forms, to underline former President Bill Clinton's acceptance of $300,000 for paid speeches from Cisco Systems, a company that, the document notes, has 'shifted hundreds of jobs from America to India.' It further says Hillary Clinton accepted almost $60,000 in contributions from employees of Cisco Systems, 'which laid off American workers to hire Indian techies.' The document points out that Clinton 'invested tens of thousands' in an Indian bill payment company -- a reference to the former president's disclosure form that lists between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in Easy Bill Limited, an Indian company. The Obama campaign, ironically, is currently engaged in floating chapters of 'South Asians for Obama' across the country. The document, however, insidiously suggests that it is not all kosher to cozy up to the Indian community. The document begins thus: 'The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary's campaign fundraising. 'Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. 'Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.' Sant Chatwal merits three whole paragraphs in the document. After listing various fund-raisers hosted by Chatwal, as also steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal and the Hindujas, the document alleges Chatwal owed the city of New York more than $2 million in back taxes; that he fled prosecution for fraud in India; that he was arrested during his visit to India with then President Bill Clinton and charged with defrauding the New York City branch of the Bank of India [Get Quote] out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. The document says Chatwal posted bail, then fled to Vienna, eluding the authorities. It says, further, that in 1996, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp charged Chatwal, then a director with the bank, with obtaining improper loans from the First New York Bank for Business, causing the bank to lose more than $25 million. 'Chatwal, who was a director of the bank, arranged more than $14 million in loans to himself and his businesses, often with no collateral, says the FDIC. He didn't repay the loans and the bank failed,' the document says, citing a story in New York's Daily News newspaper of November 24, 2002. The Clinton campaign declined comment. The Times of India article
Sant Chatwal under scanner for helping Hillary
4 Sep 2007, 0330 hrs IST  ,IANSWASHINGTON: Indian American businessman Sant Chatwal helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary Clinton's campaigns even as he battled to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens, the Washington Post alleged on Monday. The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts, the daily said. Chatwal's case reached from India to New York City. The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursued him for about $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes, it said. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions from a failed bank where he served as a director. Across the ocean, three Indian banks forced him into US bankruptcy, and he was charged with bank fraud. He was out on bond when he showed up in India in 2001 during a visit by his long time friend Bill Clinton, the Post said. Yet none of the legal and financial woes - touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by opponents - raised red flags inside Democrat Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation, it said. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid, the daily said. According to the Post, asked whether anything in Chatwal's background caused concerns about his activities on behalf of the campaign, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer answered, "No". He declined last week to be more specific, saying only that major fundraisers are routinely vetted "through publicly available records". It also cited Rajen Anand, a long time friend of Chatwal and another Clinton fundraiser, as saying that the campaign encourages strict vetting for fundraisers. "They advise me to be very careful not to associate the campaign with people where there is something wrong," he said. Anand said, however, that Chatwal may have slid through any vetting because of his long time friendship with the Clintons. The Clintons maintained a close association with Chatwal; both attended one of his sons' weddings in 2002, and the former president attended another son's wedding in 2006. While Chatwal raised money for Clinton's New York Senate and presidential campaigns and Bill Clinton's charitable efforts, he settled the regulatory and tax cases one by one, mostly by working out plans to pay portions of the debts. He resolved the last of them this spring. "The man came to this country, accumulated an empire, lost it during the time of real estate, and has struggled and worked to try to pay off his debts," said the Post citing A. Mitchell Greene, Chatwal's lawyer for 25 years. "It has been a long battle, but he has cleared up all of his obligations, and in the process he is trying to accumulate his wealth again." Chatwal saw his fortunes sour when he began dabbling in New York real estate just as the market softened. He was forced into bankruptcy in 1995 by three Indian banks that claimed he owed them millions. During the 1990s, the IRS and New York City and state tax authorities also pursued liens, and Chatwal worked out deals to pay them back. When the rents from one apartment building he bought no longer covered the real estate taxes, Chatwal turned over the building to New York City to resolve a reported $2 million tax lien, his lawyer said. In 1997, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sued Chatwal over his role as a director and a guarantor of unpaid loans at the failed First New York Bank for Business. The government alleged that his loans had "resulted in losses to the bank in excess of $12 million", and it questioned his claims that he could not repay the debts. The regulators also questioned why he continued to rent a spacious penthouse in the midst of his turmoil. In September 2000, Chatwal hosted a half-million dollar fundraiser at that Upper East Side penthouse for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. A few months later the FDIC abruptly settled the case, agreeing on Dec 18, 2000, to let him pay $125,000 for the loans. The Post cited Greene as saying he believed that the actual losses caused by the loans were smaller but agreed that the bankruptcy resulted in a much smaller settlement. The lawyer also said there was nothing wrong with Chatwal raising political money even as he worked to clear up the legal and financial matters. National Jewish Outreach Program, March 2001
No Matter the Weather, NJOP
Come Together The weatherman's warning of 6 to 8 inches of snow had many hearts pounding nervously at the NJOP office. Everything was in place at the Waldorf-Astoria for the National Jewish Outreach Program's 7th Annual Dinner. Tables were set in elegant splendor, speeches were written and the Peking chicken was in the oven as the first, fluffy snowflake flittered down onto the city. Despite Old Man Winter's dirty trick, more than 500 supporters arrived at the historic hotel on February 5, 2001, to celebrate NJOP's Bar Mitzvah year.
After enjoying a delightful cocktail reception, guests found their seats in the Grand Ballroom as Dinner co-chairs Simone and David Levinson opened the evening. Simone proudly noted that NJOP enriches so many lives by introducing them to beautiful Jewish rituals which provide "the power to make the mundane holy." For instance, David clarified, "with the introduction of the Sabbath, NJOP transforms ‘just another Friday night' into a weekly holy celebration...with the introduction of a mezuzah, the scroll placed on a doorpost, NJOP transforms a dwelling into a personal sanctuary."
Following this beautiful opening, Rabbi Buchwald "donned a different hat" and led Hatikva and The Star Spangled Banner in lieu of Cantor Sherwood Goffin, who was ill at home. Rabbi Yaakov Nasirov, of Congregation Anshei Shalom, then inaugurated the meal with a unique Afghani chant and the blessing over bread.
Thanking everyone for trudging through the snow, Rabbi Buchwald noted that in proper perspective, a local snowstorm was nothing in comparison to an earthquake. Daman and Sant Singh Chatwal, honorees of the evening, were absent from the Dinner, he explained, because they were in India with Mrs. Chatwal's mother, who lay in a coma after the recent earthquake. To show NJOP's appreciation for Mr. Chatwal's generous support, Rabbi Buchwald requested that donations be made to the World Jewish Service for Indian relief efforts.
The power of philanthropy, family, and love for the Jewish people unified those in attendance. Rabbi Buchwald proceeded to honor the memory of someone who embodied those attributes, his late cousin, the real estate legend, Edward S. Gordon, z"l. In January 1987, when Rabbi Buchwald shared his dream of establishing NJOP with Mr. Gordon, he did not hesitate to pledge his support. More than founder and contributor, Edward Gordon served as "a resourceful fund-raiser, making introductions, organizing solicitation meetings and encouraging NJOP to set the same exacting standards that he had set in his own business." While Mr. Gordon passed away this past September, his generosity to NJOP will continue through a charitable foundation which he established.
Sam Domb is also driven by his love for the Jewish people, Rabbi Buchwald observed as he introduced the evening's Master of Ceremonies. Orphaned as a babe from his mother by the Wermacht, four year old Sam escaped a firing squad and hid in the woods, miraculously surviving the war. He went to Israel, fought in the Israeli army and was deeply involved in Israeli security matters. In the United States he built a successful business and became a liaison for the Jewish community with governments worldwide. Still, Sam doesn't rest "because Sam Domb actually sees himself as the mother and the father of those lost Jewish children [who have not yet experienced the joys of Judaism]. For Sam Domb, nothing is too heavy, nothing is too burdensome, nothing is too much."
Having been presented with a beautiful mezuzah, as well as "Special Ambassador for NJOP" business cards, Sam Domb told the Dinner attendees about his love for NJOP and the Jewish people. Mr. Domb recounted his sleepless nights and the anguish he feels at the "Silent Holocaust" of assimilation. With sincerity evident in his voice, Mr. Domb implored the Dinner guests to "be courageous and support NJOP, because they provide the best dividend for the investment. There is an old Chinese saying: ‘A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step;' let's take that first step together." It is obvious to all that Sam Domb has taken great steps on his own. NJOP echos Mr. Domb's wish that Hashem continue to grant him good health so that he may continue to use his life to work for the Jewish people.
It was Sam Domb who introduced NJOP to Sant Chatwal at last summer's Hamptons Housewarming event. When Sam described NJOP's mission, Mr. Chatwal immediately responded with a donation of $10,000. To those gathered at the Dinner, Sam Domb explained that Mr. Chatwal felt an affinity with NJOP's goal to help Jews remain Jews because of the challenges he faces raising his own family with a strong ethnic and religious identity. Since Mr. and Mrs. Chatwal were in India, the honorary award, a crystal prism bearing the words Todah Rabah, was presented to their son Vikram. Humbly, the young turbaned Mr. Chatwal thanked Rabbi Buchwald, Sam Domb and those present for honoring his parents and noted that, as members of the Sikh community, the Chatwals shared many principles in common with the Jewish people. "Not only do men in both communities keep their heads covered, but they emphasize the same priorities of love and service to G-d, the importance of family and the value of hard work." Wo Hop To
Chinese Gangster "Shrimp Boy" Chow Comes Clean on HsuRaymond "Shrimpboy" Chow, an associate of democratic donor Norman Hsu, says he turned his life around after his bust for running a child prostitution ring and dealing heroin.  Raymond "Shrimpboy'' Chow, who was indicted on racketeering charges in 1992, shows the certificate that was awarded by San Francisco city Supervisor Fiona Ma. He was given the award by the city of San Francisco last year. (SFGATE) ABC7 San Francisco was able to track down Raymond Kwok Chow, alias "Shrimp Boy," this week. Shrimp Boy was an associate of Hsu's and was later busted for running a child prostitution ring. He was in the front seat of the car the day that Hsu said he was being kidnapped by Chinese gang members, via Bryan at HotAir: Hsu is the man who skipped out on two million dollars bail in San Mateo County Wednesday, only to be rearrested last night in Colorado, where he's now in the hospital. Despite his bust for running a child prostitution ring, "Shrimp Boy" was given an award by the City of San Francisco last year. SFGate reported: Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow and his tong are the proud recipients of an official certificate of honor from the city, an award arranged by Supervisor and state Assembly candidate Fiona Ma.The New York Times put a few more pieces together today on the Norman Hsu money trail. It is still not clear where all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars given to the democrats came from originally. Enter the Dragon HeadRaymond Chow says he's left his gangster days behind to help bring peace to Chinatown's streets. Is he for real?By MARY SPICUZZAPublished: August 1, 2007Raymond Chow ducked the instant rival gang members opened fire. But he suspects he survived the Golden Dragon Massacre, a shooting at a Chinatown restaurant that left five dead and about a dozen people injured, because of seating preference. He and his fellow gang members always sat in the corner. The infamous 1977 massacre was not Chow's first shootout, and it certainly wasn't his last. "Pretty much every street in Chinatown I have been [in a] shoot out, I have had a gun battle from the past," Chow said, walking along Waverly Place on a recent sunny afternoon. For him, it all comes back to this narrow street that dead-ends at the old Golden Dragon, which has since been renamed Imperial Palace Restaurant. "All that pretty much started in this alley," he said, pointing out various shootout locations from his past. Back then Chow was an ambitious rising star in the Hop Sing Boys — a gang linked to a fraternal organization named the Hop Sing Tong. The Hop Sing Boys were then fighting for control of the streets of Chinatown with rivals like the Wah Ching and Joe Boys. Many knew him by his nickname, Shrimp Boy. His grandmother had given him the moniker as a boy to ward off evil spirits — in the belief that evil spirits can't find little children if they don't know their names. Chow, who now stands about 5 feet 5 inches, also happened to be the smallest of five brothers, and the nickname stuck. Shrimp Boy built his reputation as one of Chinatown's most notorious gangsters, one with an extensive rap sheet including everything from extortion and armed robbery to attempted murder and involvement in the heroin trade. Then he got busted in the 1990s while reportedly trying to unite different Asian criminal organizations, or triads, to create an international empire with Peter Chong, a reputed crime boss with a group named Wo Hop To. It looked like Chow, who had spent most of his adult life in prison, was going to grow old there. That is, until Chong — who'd fled to Hong Kong — was extradited to the United States to stand trial. Chow was freed about four years ago after testifying against his former partner in crime. Now Chow says he's changed his ways — or is at least making different choices — and leading a law-abiding life. He says he wants to help the community he used to "terrorize" by working with youth to help keep them out of gangs. And he's also the new leader, or Dragon Head, of a prominent tong, the Hung Moon Ghee Kong Tong ("Supreme Lodge Chinese Freemasons of the World"). Chow's appearance has changed, too. He still wears a couple of earrings in one ear, but his head is now clean shaven and his tattoos are usually barely visible under his conservative business shirts and Chinese tops. Still, walking toward Uncle restaurant last month, he said his notorious reputation made for a rough transition when he was released from prison. "When I come out of jail and I walk [down the street], everybody scared to say hi to me," he said. "Nobody really want to talk." Now it seems as if the opposite is true. Each time we walked together around Chinatown, Chow was met with smiles, waves, and greetings called out from street corners and shop windows. Many called him "Big Brother," or "Dai Lo!" "Now, today, they call me Dai Lo, as love, it's respect, it's to honor me," the 48-year-old Chow explained. "For the older people, to honor me like that, I'm grateful. And I take them as my teacher, my friend, and my family." Of course, it's a word that Chow (born Kwok Cheung Chow) knows quite well. In the world of Asian organized crime, Dai Lo has another meaning: crime boss.
Raymond Chow traces his bad-boy roots back to his childhood in Hong Kong. He says that by age 9 he'd joined triads, longtime underground societies notoriously linked to organized crime — and activities like illegal gambling, extortion, and racketeering. And he got caught up in gangs again soon after his family moved to San Francisco. When Chow arrived in 1976, he was 16, didn't speak English, and was quickly drawn to the familiarity of thug life. "As a new immigrant, I come here and I feel I don't have that security, I don't feel the safety," Chow said. "That's why, the first thing is, I go back to where I come from. The gang." Chow insists that, as bad as he was, he only extorted from gambling dens and other illegal operations and not legitimate businesses. But he says he was sent to San Quentin State Prison at 18 after robbing law-abiding engineers at a party. As Chow tells the story, he'd been led to believe beforehand that he would be holding up a shady parlor. When he got to the party, he realized his error, but because his gun was "already drawn" he went ahead with the robbery. He was released after nearly eight years behind bars, but soon got into a fight and shootout with rival gang members. He served another three-year sentence and was released in the late 1980s. It was then that he started working with a man named Peter Chong, who allegedly was sent to San Francisco to gain a foothold in the United States for a Hong Kong-based triad known as the Wo Hop To. Chow, who already had plenty of experience with extortion and other illegal activities, was recruited to be Chong's lieutenant. Chow was, by all accounts, a very dedicated soldier who devoted his days to various criminal schemes. "After following him, he did nothing else but," said retired FBI Special Agent Joe Davidson, who helped do surveillance on Chow for several months when he was with Wo Hop To. "When the wire was up, that's all he did." And the two men grew extremely close — Chow introduced Chong as "uncle to us all" when his boss led a toast at his wedding. Together, Chow and Chong were rumored to be trying to unite triads under the umbrella of a global empire to be called the Tien Ha Wui, or "Whole Earth Association." As it grew, their Wo Hop To employed a level of sophistication FBI agents have compared to the mafia. They are believed to have gone beyond extortion and loan-sharking to arms dealing, the international heroin trade, and underage prostitution — not to mention orchestrating an arson attempt on one of Chong's properties. When the pair and their associates got busted in the early 1990s, Chow landed in federal court facing a litany of charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law providing extended penalties for those involved in criminal organizations. Chong, who was also indicted on numerous charges, skipped town and fled to Hong Kong. Shrimp Boy says he didn't resent the fact that Chong fled, leaving him behind to catch all the heat. But he felt Chong betrayed him by trying to "have his boys pin everything" on Chow. A federal judge sentenced Chow to more than 20 years in prison for gun charges. But nearly a decade later, Shrimp Boy got his revenge on his former criminal mentor. After Chong was extradited from Hong Kong to face charges in 2000, Chow agreed to testify against him about everything from an alleged murder-for-hire plot of a rival Boston gang leader to the Wo Hop To's involvement in the international heroin trade. Even though words like "honor" and "loyalty" come up in nearly every conversation with Chow, he says it wasn't a hard decision to dish dirt on his former "uncle." He says he believes it was Chong who stabbed him in the back by using their former underlings against him. "I don't do people wrong," he says. He proved to be the prosecution's star witness, even though his braggadocio on the witness stand raised eyebrows. According to court documents, at one point Chow said: "If you're asking me which gang did I join, I did not join any gang. I owned the gang. ... All those people who were walking the streets of the Bay Area, all them were controlled by me." Chong's defense has portrayed Chow as a career criminal willing to lie in court to avoid serving his time in prison. Lawyers for Chong filed a brief appealing his conviction in April 2004, accusing Chow of "obvious fabrication" and a "ludicrous attempt" to suggest Chong launched a murder for hire. "He has admitted longtime involvement in prostitution activities, and at the time of his arrest in 1992, owned a brothel in Pacifica staffed by girls as young as 13 or 14," the brief says of Chow. In exchange for his testimony, Chow was offered a reduced sentence. Some law enforcement officials at the time of Chow's release warned that the government was making a big mistake by sending a dangerous criminal back into the community. However, retired Special Agent Davidson says he believes Chow "did a good job" in court testifying against his former boss — adding that he had already served 11 years in prison. Davidson, who served on the organized crime squad and was based in San Francisco from 1980 until he retired in 2005, knows firsthand that Chow was no angel. Still, he thinks the feds did the right thing by making a deal with Chow. "If you're going to catch the devil, you gotta go to hell," Davidson said. "You gotta deal with demons to get the head demon. You're not going to deal with priests, or with schoolteachers."
It's been about four years since Chow got out of prison. He still doesn't have a full-time job. He dutifully follows the conditions of his supervised release, checking in with immigration officials at least three times a week — Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays — and wears a monitoring device around his ankle. When I asked how he makes a living, he says he's been working as a business consultant for friends, adding that his rap sheet has made finding a 9-to-5 job difficult. He drives a slick, black Mercedes-Benz, but says his friend's family sold it to him at a discount. "I'm broke," he said. Obviously, being broke would be a big change from his lucrative past. He's said that, by age 17, he was extorting about $30,000 a week as protection money from illegal mah jong parlors. One recent check-in with the woman who works at the front desk in the immigration office went like this: Woman: "Mr. Chow, did you bring us employment verification this time?" Chow: "What's that?" Woman: "Employment verification? Are you still ... ?" Chow: "Not yet." Woman: "Not yet. Are you still ... ?" He assured her he'd have something soon. Still, there wasn't a hint of antagonism in their conversation. She even admired his deep-red shirt with a dragon on it ("A gift from China," he said), and encouraged him to wear it when he met with the SF Weekly photographer. "Red looks good on you," she said with a smile. Chow says he's looking for a full-time job but, for now, has been keeping busy with his volunteer work and his responsibilities as Dragon Head of the Hung Moon Ghee Kong Tong. He's been Dragon Head for only about a year, but under his watch his tong has already received a certificate of honor from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, thanks to Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. Chow insists that he refuses to fail Ma and the other community leaders who believe in him, that he now understands vengeance isn't about machine-gun shootouts. "My best revenge is my success," he said. Over the past month, he invited me to join him as he helped hand out bags of jasmine rice donated by members of a Buddhist temple to senior citizens in Chinatown. He talked with children and teens at a barbecue hosted by United Playaz, a violence-prevention program with the slogan "It takes a thug to save a thug." And he was one of the speakers at a 200-person banquet held in July at the Four Seas Restaurant on Grant Avenue, where he talked about the importance of providing educational and recreational activities for youth, especially new immigrants. "Now, he's start[ed] doing a lot of things for Chinatown!" business owner Glenn Tom said proudly, nodding approvingly at Chow. Tom, who owns numerous businesses including the Cathay House Restaurant on California Street, has known Chow since he was a teenager. And he repeatedly said he's thrilled the longtime bad boy is finally following his advice "to behave and be a good boy." He even gave Chow a ring that matches his own — a gold one with a jade oval surrounded by diamonds. Sitting between Tom and Chow, their friend David Wong said he thinks Chow's demonstrated devotion to community service will win over the skeptics who believe he's still secretly "making some fast money" on the side. "From the bottom of my heart, I believe he is changing," said Wong, who runs the Ying On Labor & Merchant Association. He wants people to judge his friend not by his past, but by his actions. But not everybody is buying Shrimp Boy's story as a tale of redemption. For example, Chow also participated in a recent press conference with members of the new committee calling for the recall of Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin. Chow says he joined the committee because he's an advocate of the proposed 17-story city college building in Chinatown, a design Peskin has called a "monstrosity." But Peskin suspects Chow has other motives. "I think he's making a play for legitimacy in Chinatown by hopping on the issue du jour," Peskin said. "And I think his presence is bizarre and designed to intimidate." Chow says if more people believed that he'd gone clean, he'd be far away from San Francisco, living under an assumed identity in the federal Witness Protection Program. He says federal prosecutors initially promised him witness protection, but, in the end, they never came through. He suspects law enforcement is allowing him to walk the streets of San Francisco as bait — adding there's a long line of people looking for revenge. Brian Stretch from the U.S. Attorney's Office said that, as part of Chow's plea agreement, the government agreed to make an application for the federal Witness Protection Program and an S-visa on his behalf. However, Stretch said he couldn't provide additional information about Chow's situation because it's not public record. Some say he should have never been released and believe Chow is partly to blame for a flare-up of Chinatown criminal activity not long after he got out of prison. "He's the worst of the worst," California Department of Justice Special Agent Ignatius Chinn told local CBS affiliate KPIX last year. "They made a deal with the devil and now the devil's out."
Allen Leung played many roles in the community. He was a businessman who founded a martial arts studio with his brothers, as well as a travel agency that later became an import-export business. He sat on city commissions and task forces. He was also a leader in both Hung Moon Ghee Kong Tong and Hop Sing Tong. Whereas the criminal behavior of triads is quite clear, there's a bit more mystery around the activities in tongs. Tongs are generally fraternal organizations established for social and business purposes. Some (like the Hop Sing Tong) have been placed on the FBI's list of criminally influenced tongs, while others are seen as benevolent organizations devoted to promoting Chinese culture. Despite Leung's apparent power and respect, he also had enemies. In February 2006, a masked gunman entered Leung's Chinatown import-export business and repeatedly shot him in the head in front of his wife. The murder remains unsolved — a mystery with Chow at the center of it. In 2005, about a year before his execution-style killing, Leung went to the San Francisco Police Department and the FBI and told them he feared for his life, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. He also informed the FBI of an alleged extortion plot. He told a federal agent that Chow had shown up at Hop Sing Tong in late 2004, demanding $100,000, the Chronicle reported. At the time, Chow was also Leung's second in command at Hung Moon Ghee Kong Tong. In February 2005, several tongs and a restaurant were tagged with red paint, seen as a threat that danger was coming. Leung and other Hop Sing Tong board members called an emergency meeting, but voted to not provide the money. Soon after, Hop Sing's doorway was sprayed with bullets. The tong then received an anonymous letter, which had a New York return address but had been postmarked in San Francisco. The note, addressed to Leung and two other men, read: "Someone open fire at your front door, but you're just chicken shit, no response to it, just keeping your mouth quiet. Having this kind of leader makes all the tongs lose face. I have a poem to dedicate to you. It says you should be embarrassed for a thousand years and your reputation stink for ten thousand years," according to the Chronicle. Chow denies demanding money from Hop Sing Tong, and says most of what he knows about all of these allegations he learned in the newspapers. He adds that he's "not the problem" and can't control some gang members trying to use his name in their own extortion plots. But Chow has once again found himself under fire. "We have a suspicion," Special Agent Chinn told KPIX last year after Leung's death. "We don't have proof. That's the test. We've never been able to get enough evidence against him or his gang to prosecute him for a couple of unsolved homicides in San Francisco." Chow isn't the only one under suspicion. The day after Leung's murder, an anonymous caller to the worldwide Sound of Hope radio station said, "You want to know who killed Allen Leung? Call Chinese Consulate and Chinese Chamber of Commerce," according to the conservative John Birch Society publication, The New American. Leung was an outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party. He was also involved in a lawsuit with tong members in New York. Hundreds gathered at Leung's funeral in Chinatown. One mourner in particular stood out: Raymond Chow. Chow showed up wearing a crisp white suit surrounded by black-clad mourners. He was one of the few called by name to bow in front of Leung's casket, a sign of honor, and spoke briefly before he and the other members of the Hung Moon Ghee Kung Tong bowed in unison. Chow says wearing the white suit wasn't a power play, but rather a sign of "the highest respect." He adds that family members, those closest to the deceased, often wear white to the memorial service or funeral to show respect. "At that time, I'm representing my tong," he says. Chow declined to discuss the investigation into Leung's death, saying he didn't want to interfere with law enforcement. He also stressed that he's just asking for police to be fair with him, rather than try to blame him for any and all crimes in Chinatown. He has no interest in going back to jail, he says, and is determined to "walk straight" and not fail the people who believe in him. As evidence, he offered that he now often walks alone along the streets of Chinatown, rather than with the huge group he always had surrounding him in his gang days. "When you walk straight, you don't have to look over your shoulder," he says. But he does take some precautions. His black Mercedes, complete with leather seats and a sunroof, has additional safety features. It's bulletproof.
At the recent Fourth of July picnic hosted by United Playaz, Chow had barely walked in the door when a teenage boy rushed up and gave him a hug. "That's our future," Chow said. Jeremiah Español, 15, said that hearing Chow speak at gang-prevention events has taught him "we can change." He added that he's been staying out of trouble, and trying to teach his "gang-banger" friends to unite rather than fight each other. Chow said he doesn't try to tell teens like Jeremiah what to do, but shares his story and encourages them to think carefully about the choices they make. He encourages them to stay in school rather than drop out like he did. "I don't know how to read, how to write, I don't have no education," Chow said. Rudy Corpuz Jr., the founder of United Playaz, believes Chow has changed a lot of young lives by sharing his story and encouraging youths without judging them. "He's a dragon warrior," Corpuz said. "I fell in love with this homeboy. I did, man." But Chow says kids just like someone who respects them enough to be honest with them about life on the streets, and are smart enough to know when they're being lied to. Of course, that can make for some awkward interactions. "Sometime I ask the kids [what parents have said about me] and they say, "You used to chase people in Chinatown with machine guns.'" His response: "That was a long time ago." He adds that police have been asking his friends plenty of questions about him. And last year officers searched his tong headquarters as well as the Hop Sing Tong building, and took out boxes of documents from each. Still, Chow insists he isn't worried because he and his tong are devoted to peace and love, and he's got nothing to hide. I asked if he's afraid that somebody, maybe Chong, would send people to try to hurt him. He says people have tried, but nobody has been able to "swallow" him yet. As Chow and I walked along Washington Street one afternoon last month, he seemed more concerned about me than getting whacked by Chong's men. The wind had picked up and fog was blowing in, and he suggested that I wear a coat to keep warm. If anything, Shrimp Boy is a gentleman. Still, he insists that he hasn't really changed much from his gangster days. "I cannot say that I'm the good person," he says. "But I can tell you I'm not the bad person, either."
The Man In White(CBS 5) When respected businessman Allen Leung was gunned down in Chinatown last February, people were worried that it was the beginning of a new crime wave in one of San Francisco’s most popular tourist districts. (© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.) A kingpin of Oakland's and San Francisco's Chinese criminal underworld was resentenced Friday to 111/2 years in federal prison - - about four years less than his original term. Peter Chong, 62, was first sent to federal prison in 2003 after a six-week trial and three days of jury deliberations ended with his conviction of crimes such as racketeering, aiding and abetting, murder-for-hire, conspiracy to distribute heroin, loan-sharking and extortion. Prosecutors at trial had said Chong was "godfather" of the Wo Hop To criminal triad, commanding a cadre of gangsters responsible for dozens of crimes in the 1980s and early 1990s. The government wanted the trial judge to put him behind bars for 20 years. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last August ruled while the jury had enough evidence to believe Chong conspired in an attempt to murder a rival boss in Boston, it didn't qualify as murder-for-hire. Double jeopardy prevents prosecutors from retrying him for those crimes. Chong had fled to Hong Kong soon after his 1995 indictment but was arrested there in 1998 and extradited to the United States in May 2000. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U NITED STATES OF AMERICA, ü No. 03-10222 Plaintiff-Appellee,v. ý D.C. No. CR-92-00260-DJLP ETER CHONG, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. þAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 15, 2005—San Francisco, California Filed August 18, 2005 Before: Sidney R. Thomas and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges, and James L. Robart, District Judge.* Opinion by Judge Fisher [..][starting p. 5 of pdf]
1. Causing another to travel interstate with intent tocommit murder The main evidence linking Chong to the murder of Bike Ming came from his lieutenants Wayne Kwong and Raymond Chow, both of whom had pled guilty to charges related to their criminal gang activity. We summarize their relevant testimony: Kwong came to the United States in 1979 from mainland China and settled in Boston. He met Peter Chong and Raymond Chow when he went to San Francisco to escape from the police after he was involved in a shooting in Boston. He called Chong “uncle,” as did other individuals who knew Chong in the context of organized crime activity. When introduced to Chong, Kwong was told “that uncle is the person in
charge of Wo Hop To” and that Raymond Chow was the “Big Brother of Hop Sing Tong,” another gang in the Bay Area. Chong paid for Kwong’s hotel bill, sheltered him in San Francisco and gave him money. Chong told Kwong that he and Wo Hop To controlled Chinatown and took a share of profit of the gambling dens in the city. Chow also told Kwong that Chong controlled Chow’s Hop Sing Tong gang members. Raymond Chow came to the United States at the age of 16 and joined the Hop Sing Tong gang in San Francisco. Chow became involved in selling heroin, extortion and racketeering and was arrested for armed robbery. He met Peter Chong after Chow’s second release from prison in 1989. Chong told Chow that he was a member of Wo Hop To and had done work in the casino, heroin and cocaine business. The pair talked about forging a relationship between their two gangs, and the organizations eventually united. The three leaders — Chong, Kwong and Chow — then discussed forming an umbrella organization called Tien Ha Wui, which translates into “Whole Earth Association,” to oversee the individual gangs. Chong and Kwong also discussed expanding their dominance by taking over the markets in Boston. Chow said that Kwong had discussed the need to kill Bike Ming — a leader of the rival “Ping On” gang in Boston and a stumbling block in the plan to take over the streets of Chinatown in Boston. Kwong told Chong and Chow “that Bike Ming was in the way over there.” According to Kwong, Chong “said that if he was in the way, kicked (sic) him out.” Chong “meant . . . to take care of him. . . . He said that if he was in the way, take care of him.” Id.Chow said Chong had sent someone previously “to get the territory of Boston.” “The job was to take over the Boston town and open up a gambling place.” After one of Chong’s underlings was shot in Boston while trying to establish a foothold, Chong discussed revenge. “[Chong] was very angry, and he said try to see . . . how to get someone to go up there
to take care of this matter.” When asked what taking care of the matter meant, Chow testified, “that means to get Bike Ming down, to get him killed, whoever that were involved with this incident.” Kwong was present when another underling told Chong that a group of gang members almost “took care of Bike Ming” but failed. Chong said nothing in response, according to Kwong, but he “nodded, acknowledged him, and walked away.” Kwong testified that he, Chow and Chong discussed how it would be easier to get underlings from another city to kill Bike Ming. After another failed effort by a group of underlings, Kwong reached out to a young Hop Sing Tong underling named Brandon Casey (who would emerge as the key figure in the murder-for-hire scenario). Kwong advised Casey of a job in Boston that needed to be completed. The plan called for Casey and a few cohorts to shoot Ming at a restaurant. However, when the group arrived at the restaurant in March 1992, they abandoned their plan because a police officer was present. The recollections presented by these key witnesses about the attempt on Bike Ming’s life was bolstered by evidence of the general custom and practice of the Wo Hop To and other gangs in San Francisco. Wo Hop To operated as a criminal enterprise with a structured hierarchy. Money collected from the gambling dens and loan sharking became part of the shared funds used to subsidize the organization’s costs, including the payment of its underlings. Gang members also were commissioned to complete specific missions. For example, Casey testified about an earlier Wo Hop To-orchestrated arson, in which he was asked to assist and was told by a third party, “Peter [Chong]’s going to pay real good.” Additionally, the hierarchical structure of the gang meant that orders came from the top down, with Chong operating at the pinnacle of the group. Chong delegated to his lieutenants the management of the day-to-day operations, such as over-
seeing the collection of money from gambling dens and loansharking. Directions to complete missions trickled down through the ranks to the underlings who carried them out. Oakland Police Department Sergeant Harry Hu, an expert on the structure of Asian organized crime groups in the Bay Area, testified that the leader of a gang probably would not be engaged physically in the specific illegal activities of the group but instead would order underlings to commit the acts. Further, while the underlings would communicate with the seniors who gave them orders, “normally, they do not go all the way to the top . . . [b]ecause the leaders insulate themselves, and foot soldiers do not need to know all the details of operations,” Hu explained. For example, Casey said he never actually met Chong and typically received his directions from other mid-level leaders. [1] We conclude that the evidence adduced was sufficientto establish that Chong caused the murder-for-hire of Bike Ming. We rely on the Pinkerton doctrine, which holds a coconspiratorvicariously liable for reasonably foreseeable substantive crimes committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S.640, 647-48 (1946). To establish Pinkerton liability, the prosecutionmust demonstrate that: “(1) the substantive offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; (2) the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful project; and (3) the offense could reasonably have been foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.” United States v. Fonseca-Caro , 114 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir.1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [2] Here, Chong’s underlings were commissioned by hislieutenants to travel from San Francisco to Boston for the purpose of killing Ming, which was the objective of the conspiracy, and Chong could reasonably have foreseen that Chow would direct the underlings to commit the murder. Even if Chong did not give an explicit order to kill Ming, Chong
agreed with Kwong’s assessment that getting rid of Ming was essential for expanding the gang’s presence to the East Coast. [3] the routine practices of the Wo Hop To, in which Chong regularly delegated tasks to his subordinates for them to manage. Thus, the record before us provides sufficient evidence from which a jury could have found that Chong or his coconspirators set in motion a series of events, resulting in his underlings traveling to Boston for the purpose of killing Bike Ming. Corrections Security AlertBusinessman called kingpin of Asian gangs; trial caps 25-year probeFrom: CommentsBusinessman called kingpin of Asian gangs; trial caps 25-year probe SAN JOSE, Calif. - Occasionally shaking his head and letting out a hushed, derisive laugh, Peter Chong sat in federal court in Oakland last week and listened to the turncoat testimony of his alleged former gangland sidekick and enforcer, Raymond ``Shrimp Boy'' Chow. Chow talked of arson, heroin and cocaine dealing, loan-sharking, bookmaking and an aborted hit on a rival in Boston -- all testimony aimed at jailing Chong, who investigators claim tried to unify all the Chinese gangs in the United States a decade ago. More than 30 suspects have been convicted over the years in this massive government inquiry. Now Chong, after losing an extradition fight in Hong Kong, is the last man standing --the final and most important quarry in this probe into the shadows of the Asian underworld. Convicting Chong, said Oakland police inspector Robert Chang, ``would be a milestone in Asian organized crime investigations.'' Final arguments in the trial could come as early as this week. Chong, at least by appearance, is no common street thug. At 58, he's youthful, slender and dapper. His gray-and-white hair is cut smartly; his suit tailored just so. Portraying himself as nothing more than a businessman, the Hong Kong native and world traveler has in the past received plaudits for his charitable fundraising and cultural exchanges from San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, a former mayor and the local Chinese consulate. In a declaration filed last year, Chong spelled out everything he hasn't done -- never a loan shark, never a dope dealer, never extorted anyone, never tried to kill a rival. Those testifying against him are liars, criminals and those who have cut their own deals with the government, his lawyers contend. Yet, in denying a petition to move Chong from jail to a halfway house during his trial, a federal judge said the government's evidence ``includes some 100 intercepted phone conversations and the testimony of four already convicted co-defendants.'' The likelihood of very ``severe sentences,'' Wayne D. Brazil wrote, ``would be the source of a substantial temptation to flee.'' No matter how the trial turns out, the federal and local probes derailed what prosecutors claim were Chong's grandiose plans to unify all the nation's Chinese gangs under the name ``Tien Ha Wui,'' meaning ``Whole Earth Association,'' the name of a Hong Kong comic book. The gangs led by Chong and his confederates have largely been dismantled in the Bay Area, investigators say, although some organized Chinatown criminal action continues, mainly low-scale loan-sharking, extortion and gambling. In a way, the current courtroom drama may be the denouement of the spectacular public massacre at San Francisco's Golden Dragon restaurant on Labor Day weekend, 1977. Rivals wanted to even their accounts for a hit of one of their members July 4. They staked out the restaurant, walked in and raked it with gunfire, killing five people and injuring 11. Not one victim was a gang member; all were diners or employees. A week later, San Francisco launched a special gang unit -- which continues to this day -- to solve the case. With a new vigor, the department also recruited Asian officers, and built trust within Chinatown, encouraging victims to report crimes and witnesses to show up in court to testify. In 1992, Chong appeared before a Senate committee investigating Chinese organized crime. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, declining to answer questions. The year before, investigators had for the first time linked Chinese organized crime in the Bay Area to crime groups in Hong Kong. These underground criminal fraternities, called triads, evolved from secret political societies formed in China during the 17th century, according to the indictment. Chong allegedly directed the U.S. chapter of Hong Kong's Wo Hop To triad. After being summoned to the Senate hearing, Chong fled to Hong Kong. Later that year, a U.S. grand jury indicted him on a raft of felony counts. He was returned to the United States two years ago after, according to Judge Brazil, fighting ``extradition on the charges in this court for at least seven years.'' Chow led the Hop Sing Tong, a business association founded by Chinese immigrants in the 19th century. Chow and others used it as a front for criminal enterprises, prosecutors say. In the early 1990s, prosecutors allege, Chow and Chong joined leagues, a ``brotherhood'' with Chong on top. ``The Wo Hop To and Hop Sing Tong exercised control over a significant portion of criminal activities in the Chinatown sections of San Francisco and Oakland,'' the indictment reads. ``The criminal activities included the distribution of controlled substances, extortion, loan-sharking, gambling and firearms trafficking.'' Chow may choose to enter the federal witness protection program and receive a new, government-produced identity. For his testimony against Chong, the government may cut his 24-year sentence on weapons charges in half, and Chow could get out as soon as this summer. No matter what happens to Chong, his alleged network has largely been destroyed. Philip Wong, an inspector in San Francisco's gang unit, said Chinatown criminal enterprises now are ``pretty much loose-knit. ``The old-timers went on their own, and the young kids don't have a leader.''
Asian Organized Crime and Terrorist Activity in Canada, 1999-2002
USA Bulletin NOV 1997 Vol. 45 No. 6 from USDOJ - Electronic Investigation Techniques II pdf file
Supervising and Litigating a Foreign Language Electronic Surveillance Interception Assistant United States Attorney William P. Schaefer Organized Crime Strike Force, Northern District of California Commencing in 1991, the Organized Crime Strike Force for the Northern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) targeted the operations of major Asian organized crime groups including the San Francisco and Portland, Oregon-based Hop Sing Tong; the Boston On Leong Tong; and the Hong Kong-based Wo Hop To Triad. To date, 27 individuals, including Raymond Chow (the head of the San Francisco Hop Sing Tong), Au Shek Kan (the head of the Portland Hop Sing Tong), and Wayne Kwong (the head of the Boston On Leong Tong) have been convicted and sentenced to incarceration of up to 24 years. (UnitedStates v. Raymond Chow , Cr. 92-0260-DLJ.)Commencing in 1995, the Strike Force, in conjunction with the United States Customs Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, investigated the smuggling of automatic weapons from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) into the United States. In the Spring of 1996, 2,000 fully automatic AK-47s were seized by the United States (the largest such seizure in American history), followed by the indictment of 15 American-based and PRC-based individuals and corporations. (United States v. Hammond Ku, Cr. 96-0155-CAL.) In both instances, the success of the criminal investigations was due, in large part, to extensive Chinese (Cantonese dialect) electronic surveillance operations undertaken pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 (1994).* Indeed, in the Chow case, a five-month wiretap resulted in the interception of more than 10,000 conversations, while the seven-month Ku wire intercepted more than 2,000 pertinent telephone conversations and facsimile transmissions. Both wiretaps achieved results unobtainable through traditional investigative techniques.**
Nevertheless, prior to committing to a foreign language Title III, especially in an Asian language such as Cantonese or Vietnamese, the prosecuting attorney and the law enforcement agencies must realistically evaluate their capacity to meet the enormous resource and logistical demands attendant to a major wire. For example, the Chow wire intercepted five telephone lines over which Cantonese and Mandarin were spoken 24 hours per day for five months. So, too, the litigation over the admissibility of the electronic surveillance results can require the full-time attention of a prosecutor. Staffing Issues Long-term Asian language Title IIIs underscore the serious lack of special agents in Federal law enforcement who speak those languages. Even with Federal agencies drawing from their offices throughout the nation (and securing from their headquarters, finances for travel, housing, and overtime costs for out of district agents), additional sources of foreign language speakers still must be developed. To that end, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510(7) and 2518(5) authorize the following individuals to serve as monitors and translators: (1) state and local government personnel (who must be deputized according to DOJ policy), (2) members of the military (but not National Guard unless under a contract), and (3) contracted private sector personnel operating under the supervision of an authorized law enforcement officer. In Northern California, for example, the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Police Departments and the California Department of Justice provide officers with native language proficiency in our major Title III operations. Unfortunately, with the exception of long-term arrangements established by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, the Federal Government does not finance state and local law enforcement officers to participate in protracted wiretaps. Honoring commitments to support local spinoff prosecutions, recognizing the role of state and local entities at key stages of the prosecution, and sharing forfeited assets encourages state and local participation. Operation of the Wire Room The wire room operation in a foreign language wire differs from a normal Title III in four primary ways: (1) the need to provide more thorough briefings prior to interceptions, (2) the extensive use of “after-the-fact” minimization, (3) the increased importance of and reliance on monitoring logs, and (4) the need to devote considerable resources to translating pertinent conversations and generating transcripts. In addition to the case agent in charge of the criminal investigation, a special agent serves as the wire room supervisor. In the Chow and Ku cases, the wire room supervisors achieved remarkable results even though neither of them spoke Chinese. Briefing of the Case As mentioned above, the personnel demands of a foreign language Title III often result in a disparate group of law enforcement and private individuals, many having limited or no knowledge of the background and subjects of the case. In addition, many of these individuals have little or no experience in electronic surveillance operations. While the prosecutor provides an overview of the case during the mandatory minimization lecture, prudence suggests that the case
agent also prepare a detailed briefing (drawn from Title III affidavits and additional intelligence) to orient wire room participants. The briefing should include a review of foreign language code words, street language, slang, and linguistic idiosyncracies that may be intercepted during the Title III. Post Minimization Procedures Title 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) envisions real-time monitoring and conversation minimization to reduce the interception of “innocent” communications. However, in instances where a foreign language speaking monitor is not reasonably available, the statute provides for the entire conversation to be recorded (by English speaking monitors), with minimization accomplished as soon as practicable after interception. While beleaguered agencies lobby for this procedure as a way to stretch limited speaker resources, there are at least two reasons why it should not be used: (1) there is judicial skepticism of Federal law enforcement commitment when there is extensive after-the-fact minimization and (2) there is a risk that critical, time-sensitive conversations will not be discovered (and acted upon) for hours or days after the interception takes place. When an English speaking monitor is on duty, he/she is still responsible for recording the date, time, number of speakers, duration of call, telephone numbers, and relevant overhears in a monitoring log. The first priority of a foreign language speaker is to review and minimize the telephone calls and generate the revised monitoring logs. In the two wires discussed above, postminimization was accomplished within approximately 12 hours of the original interception. Monitoring Agents and Logs As with all wiretaps, monitoring agents in foreign language operations are required to maintain a contemporaneous monitoring log including, among other things, a summary of the intercepted conversation.*** Because the foreign language tape is of little use to English-speaking agents, the monitoring log is the primary source of information for investigative leads and law enforcement actions. Thus, monitors are encouraged to explain clearly their assessment of the significance of statements which, when viewed in a vacuum, might appear to be of little importance. Agents should provide well reasoned interpretations of the significance of the intercepted conversations. The monitoring logs (and transcripts as they become available) are the primary information relied on by the prosecutor when considering whether to submit extension and spinoff applications.† The monitoring logs of pertinent conversations should be reviewed and revised by a few native level foreign language speaking special agents as soon as possible after the original interception. The review process serves three purposes: (1) to evaluate the competency of the
larger number of monitoring agents in terms of translating and summarizing foreign language conversations; (2) to provide a standardized, independent summary of the contents of the conversation; and (3) to integrate information from other interceptions and investigative pursuits. The reviewed monitoring logs (which we successfully argued constitute work product that is not subject to discovery) should be available to all special agents involved in the criminal investigation. The monitoring logs can be supplemented with the extensive use of briefing boards in which critical intelligence gathered during the course of the Title III can be posted. Voice Identification Foreign language Title IIIs can exacerbate the difficulty of voice identification of intercepts. Nevertheless, a number of practices can assist the monitoring agents in identifying speakers: (1) using the same group of agents, to the degree feasible, to build familiarity; (2) creating voice identification tapes for review by monitoring agents; (3) posting in the wire room known nicknames, peculiar language patterns, and other information to identify the speaker; (4) posting usage patterns of certain phones (at certain times, under certain conditions, to certain phones) by intercepts; and (5) correlating surveillance and other investigative results with interceptions of conversations.†† Translations We have experienced extreme judicial displeasure when the Government translated intercepted conversations only after the Title III was terminated. To eliminate some of the resource strains on the agencies, the translation process should begin during the wiretap operation. Draft copies of the transcripts can be provided early in the discovery process, but only after stipulating that the defense cannot not use the drafts to impeach the final transcripts used at trial. Transcript drafts produced early are indispensable for use in securing search and seizure warrants, litigating Title III motions, facilitating early plea negotiations, and providing a jump start in trial preparation. Perhaps more importantly, early production of the translations will likely result in a valuable judicial presumption in favor of the Government when there are inevitable difficulties in the discovery production process.††† A small number of translators (agency certified as native speaker level proficient) who will likely be available for the duration of the prosecution should be delegated the task of translating the conversations and producing the transcripts. If the defense refuses to stipulate that the translations are accurate, the Government can introduce its translated transcripts through a limited number of witnesses while minimizing the inevitable minor variances which arise in translating foreign language conversations.
Given the difficulties associated with translating Chinese and Vietnamese conversations into English, it is probably wise to avoid characterizing the end product as “verbatim” translations. Rather, after the translators establish their expertise in their testimony, they should concede that legitimate (but ultimately insignificant) variances in translations are possible. Transcripts that include inflammatory or allegedly prejudicial translations are of great concern. Unlike in monitoring logs, there should be no parentheticals or other editorial comments in the final transcripts. It is also useful to designate (by underlining) the English portions of foreign language transcripts. Trying Cases with Foreign Language Interceptions In marked contrast to English language Title III cases where the jury listens to the intercepted conversation (often with the assistance of transcripts which are not admitted into evidence), the only evidence in a foreign language Title III is an English language transcript of the conversation. However, a number of strategies can be employed to maximize the effectiveness of this dry presentation of evidence. First, agencies should be encouraged to put the contents of all monitoring logs and transcripts (including key foreign language phrases) into databases for the analysts and prosecutor to use during trial preparation. Second, should the defense decline to stipulate the accuracy of the transcripts, the prosecutor should submit final draft transcripts to the defense and court in anticipation of a pretrial evidentiary hearing to resolve translation disagreements. Case law encourages these hearings. In rare situations where there are irreconcilable and legitimate differences in translations, the prosecutor should consider using two transcripts. Third, agents or other personnel should read the English translations as the jury reads the transcripts in the jury binders produced by the Government. This practice ensures that the jury will both read and hear the critical conversations (at a pace dictated by the agents). While the court will not insist that the conversations be read in monotone, it is inappropriate for agents to practice acting skills. Fourth, following the complete reading of the transcript, witnesses (either one of the participants in the conversation or the case agent) should, as part of their testimony, be directed to and examined on specific excerpts of the transcript (to stress key points in the conversation to the jury). Fifth, consider using a linguistic/law enforcement expert to testify not only to the translation of unique foreign language phrases but to explain their coded meaning. Numerous circuits have affirmed the use of such testimony when intercepted conversations include references that the average juror may not understand. As a devoted Luddite, I use jury binders with copies of the transcripts to present the evidence to the jury. As the August 1996 issue of this Bulletin detailed, there is new technology that is well suited for presenting Title III evidence. At a minimum, visual presenters can be used to project transcripts onto the screen. For large numbers of recorded conversations, the Transcript Presentation Manager permits the synchronization of the text of a transcribed conversation with the recording. However, in the case of foreign language conversations, the “recording” would have to be produced in English (by agents or hired actors reading the translations prior to trial) to permit the synchronization.
Conclusion The utility of Title III electronic surveillances is well established and, while foreign language interceptions present unique obstacles, the rewards justify the efforts required! . From IRASEC paper - Investigating the Grey Areas of the Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia - Edited by Arnaud Leveau
The Wo Shing Wo: • triad group with longest history in Hong Kong, with over 20,000 members; • Wo Hop To is a large division of the WO’s with significant illegal gambling operations in San Francisco; • mainly Cantonese speakers; • in Hong Kong the group is involved with illegal gambling, counterfeit activities, general extortion, cigarette smuggling, car theft, the protection racket in the decoration business, and drug trafficking.
[..]
[p.75 start]
Service Industry in Hong Kong and Its Impacts on Southeast Asia Dr CHU Yiu Kong Assistant Professor Department of Sociology The University of Hong Kong 1. Hong Kong Triads Triad societies appeared in Hong Kong even before the Chinese ceded it to be a British colony in 1842. Although the triads in Hong Kong had some indirect links with those in China, the take-off of Hong Kong triads was a direct response to the conflicts between different migratory dialect groups for job opportunities in the labour market by the turn of the 20th century. According to the record of the Hong Kong police, there were more than 300 triad societies in the region. Most of them were established between 1914 and 1939. Nowadays, there are around 50 triad societies still existing in Hong Kong, about 15 of which regularly come to police attention. The most active triad societies are Sun Yee On, 14KHau, 14K-Tak, 14-Ngai, Wo Shing Wo, Wo Hop To, Wo On Lok (Shui Fong) and Luen Ying Sh’e. Sun Yee On was believed to be the most powerful triad society in Hong Kong in the 1990s. In these few years the Hong Kong Police have paid more attention to the Wo Shing Wo triad society. Hong Kong triads do not possess a central organisation with a Godfather at the top directing their local and overseas branches to
organise a variety of criminal activities. They are loose cartels consisting of a number of independent societies which adopt a similar organisational structure and ritual to bind their members together. Although various societies are symbolically under the same roof of the triad family, they are decentralised to a certain extent in that no one single central body unites different societies and gives universal commands. The traditional rank system has largely reduced to mainly three ranks, i.e. 426 Red Pole, 49 ordinary member, and Blue Lantern. The simplified initiation ceremony and the method of ‘handing the blue lantern’ based on oral agreement are widely practised to recruit new members. A well-organised triad society may have a central committee at the top to co-ordinate many autonomous gangs under its name. The Chairman, Treasurer, and other committee members are elected by various area bosses who physically control a particular territory with their own followers. A fragmented triad society such as the 14K has no central committee, but consists of various independent gangs headed by different area bosses, and they only co-operate on an ad hoc basis.Therefore, triads are neither a highly centralised nor a totally disorganised organisation. They are not single big pyramid with a Godfather at the top controlling the whole organisation, but have many small hierarchical pyramids led by area bosses at the district level. There is no doubt that triads are a menace in Hong Kong, thriving on public fear through their mystery and intimidation. In reality, not all organised crime is the work of triads. According to the Hong Kong Police, the total number of reported crime was 88,377 in 2003, but only 2,471 (2.8%) triad-related crime cases were recorded (see Appendix 1). Although triads are known to have long been involved in illegal businesses, the illegal market is not monopolised by triads with a godfather-like figure at the top to control his members for the production of illegal goods and services. For instance, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the triads are dominant in the businesses of smuggling, counterfeiting, swindles, organised illegal immigration, and money laundering. Illegal operations can be headed or run by persons without a triad background.
Triad participation in illegal businesses varies from one to another, or even within the same business. Even if triad members are involved in a specific illegal operation, it is not a society' business. Instead, it is strictly a private investment. Profits will remain in the hands of the individual members and do not channel up to the triad hierarchy. Moreover, triad members are free to seek business partners from their own circle, other societies, or the people who are not triads. Nowadays, Hong Kong triads have become adept to adjust themselves in a changing environment. In this paper the sex service industry is used as an example to show the roles of the triads in the illegal market.
[..]
[p. 128 start]
Cashing on the chinese love of gambling Triads dominate the underworld betting syndicates in Asia and are estimated to be taking more than $80 billion annually in horse racing alone. Illegal soccer gambling, too, is huge business for the triads. When Chelsea and Liverpool met for the showdown for a Champions League place on the last day of the 2004 English Premier League season, police swooped on a underground syndicate believed to be controlled by the Wo Hop To triad society arresting 16 suspects and seized $9 million which had been wagered on the game. Triads also offer loans to gambling-mad punters in Hong Kong and in the casinos in Macau – on exorbitant interest rates – and with ruthless and often deadly repercussions for those who are unable to pay up. Hong Kong police are calling for legislation to tackle loansharks to be fast-tracked following the death of a 23-year-old gambler who plunged 15 floors while trying to escape from two Macau casino debt collectors. The Law Reform Commission recommended that the government make harassment tactics used by debt collectors a criminal offence as part of a series of legal changes. The proposal is still under review. Ho Kin-wah, 23, died of multiple injuries after falling from the balcony of a Choi Wan Estate building in Wong Tai Sin. Ho was seen fighting and arguing with the two loansharks moments before he plunged from the high-rise. However, the case has not been listed as a murder investigation. The death was not suspicious, a police spokeswoman said. “No sign of other injuries or a defensive wound indicating a struggle with others was revealed in the post-mortem examination,” she said. Law Reform Commission chairman Stuart Stoker yesterday said the proposal to regulate the debt collection industry followed a public outcry over “a growing and real” problem.
“This is something that is likely to get worse before it gets better,” he said. The incident involving Ho was the latest in a string of recent deaths linked to gambling and loanshark-related debt with four cases on one Saturday alone. Police are searching for the two Macau casino loansharks who accompanied Ho back to Hong Kong to try to get his $100,000 gambling debt from family members. Ho’s father, 50, told police the two men came to his Tse Wan Shan home on Sunday morning with his son and demanded $100,000. He refused and they left. The two men later took his son to the flat of another relative in Choi Wan Estate in Ngau Chi Wan in an attempt to extort the money. At about 11am, a resident in the apartment block reported hearing an argument and the sound of people running. The resident then said she heard a “big bang” and saw a man lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard below. The two other men escaped via the lift. In separate incidents, a man, 35, also of Choi Wan Estate in Ngau Chi Wan, was found hanged in his home by his younger sister after borrowing from a loanshark and incurring deepening gambling debts. A man, 40, was also found dead by his younger sister in Tseung Kwan O after inhaling charcoal smoke. His family told police they had already paid debt collectors $100,000 of the man’s gambling debt but still owed a further $100,000. Another man, 28, was found dead by staff in a Western District hotel, also after inhaling charcoal smoke. He was found with a suicide note saying he had taken his life over a debt-related problem from gambling. Police broke up one such loansharking syndicate run by members of three triad societies. It allegedly preyed on businessmen and charged annual interest rates of up to 430 per cent. Police said the gang was formed by members of three triad societies - Wo On Lok, 14K and Sun Yee On - and was also linked to loanshark syndicates in Macau. Acting Chief Superintendent Lo Mung-hung, of the Organised Crime and Triad Bureau, said the syndicate targeted businessmen from small
and medium-sized firms, especially those in the manufacturing sector. “It is possible that members from the syndicate might have links with people from the manufacturing industry,” he said. Initial investigations revealed more than 200 debtors borrowed money from the syndicate and at least half of them were owners of small and medium enterprises. “The loans involved ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to $1 million. The total amount of loans reached $8 million a year and we estimated that their annual income was about $34 million,” Mr Lo said. He added the syndicate, which had been in operation for about two years, lent money to debtors at interest rates of up to 430 per cent a year. The highest legal rate is 60 per cent a year.
[..]
[p. 138 start]
Don't send me to HK, begs “dead man walking” Police say triad boss wanted over killings and car bombings faces certain death at hands of rivals A triad boss arrested in Malaysia is fighting moves to have him extradited to Hong Kong to face murder charges, because he is a “dead man walking” if he comes back, according to police. Chan Yiu-hong, also known as Kai Hong, fled Hong Kong more than 10 years ago after rival gangsters put out a contract on his life during a turf war in Wan Chai in the early 1990s. Chan has been lobbying Malaysian authorities to keep him in the country to avoid being returned to face “certain death”, Organised Crime and Triad Bureau (OCTB) sources have revealed. Justice and law-enforcement authorities are negotiating over the case. Chan is wanted in Hong Kong and Macau by police investigating a series of killings and car bombings. Malaysia has announced it plans to detain Chan - brother of the late “Tiger of Wan Chai”, Andely Chan Yiu-hing - for at least three years under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act following his arrest three months ago. Malaysian police suspect Chan is a ringleader of an international crime syndicate found operating an illicit
drug factory in Fiji capable of producing billions of dollars worth of the party drug Ice. “Chan is desperate not to come back to face trial in Hong Kong ... if he does he is a dead man walking,” a senior OCTB officer said. “He has a contract out on his head and faces certain death if he ever sets foot in Hong Kong again. “He was involved in a particularly bloody power struggle between triads, and after he escaped he was told never to come back.” The Sun Yee On triad boss fled to Malaysia more than a decade ago, establishing himself in drug trafficking, gaming, prostitution and extortion rackets. He eluded the authorities by travelling on passports from the Republic of Nauru and from Gambia, sources said. According to the New Straits Times, Chan had a reputation in Kuala Lumpur as a big spender, blowing more than HK$100,000 in a night out on the town. Many of his friends were unaware of his underworld role, believing him to be a property speculator with a penchant for expensive watches and luxury cars, the paper said. Others knew him as a goldsmith, dealing in high-end ornaments and gemstones. Chief Superintendent Kenny Ip Lau-chuen, head of the Hong Kong Narcotics Bureau, told the Sunday Morning Post the raids that nabbed Chan and 13 other syndicate members in four countries were the result of a 14-month covert investigation, dubbed Operation Outrigger. He said the cartel was involved with heroin, Ecstasy and cannabis in Australia, Asia and Europe. Chan shot to prominence in Hong Kong's criminal fraternity when the murder of his brother - a 426 Red Pole officer [a rank for triad fighters] known as the “Tiger of Wan Chai” - left a power vacuum. His brother died on November 21, 1993, when three gunmen in motorcycle helmets opened fire as he left Macau's New World Emperor Hotel at 3.10am, hitting him in the head and chest. The 32-year-old was apparently killed in revenge for ordering the killing of 14K-affiliated film producer Wong Long-wai. Police believe Wong was shot dead for slapping the late Canto-pop songstress Anita
Mui Yim-fong after she refused to sing during a celebration at a karaoke bar. Chan’s brother is believed to have infuriated rival triads by refusing to pay “compensation” for Wong’s death and by falsely bragging about being the hitman. The turf war between the Sun Yee On, Wo Hop To and Wunan gangs that followed his killing led to a bloody chopping in Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, which left six triad members in hospital. Following the chopping, the younger Chan fled to escape police and rival triads. Peter Paul/Tendo Oto
Peter Paul info from SourceWatch
The Cuban Coffee FraudIn late 1977 a scheme was hatched by a German coffee broker, Karl Fessler, to use a phantom shipment of coffee to defraud the Cuban government. The scheme involved persuading the Cuban government to buy 3,000 tonnes of Columbian coffee sight unseen at a price lower than the prevailing world market price. In late October 1978 the deal was finalised. "Companies were set up in the Caribbean and an aging freighter of Panamanian registry was bought for $700,000. The culprits proceeded to pay off anybody who might hinder the swindle. The Justice Department estimates that hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid out," Time reported. While the plan was to sink the empty freighter en route to Havana, the team assigned to scuttle the boat were prevented from boarding the ship by a port official in Santa Domingo. Despite this, the gang managed to persuade the Cuban broker to authorise the payment of $8.7 million without seeing the goods. After protests from the Cuban government, U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies pursued both the participants and sought to recover the funds. [1] Paul had become involved with Fessler and, the Miami Herald later reported, the two had "enlisted the help of an American woman, a Haitian, two former Miami firemen, a Dutchman and others". [2] At the same time that the coffee scam was being planned, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was taping the phone calls of several of the conspirators as part of a drugs related investigation. Before the coffee scam was finalised, Paul himself, the Miami Herald reported, "was picked up after he handed an informant a garment bag containing 15 pounds of cocaine." In the court proceedings, which happened before the coffee scam was implemented, it was revealed that the government agencies knew of the coffee plans but took no action. Paul later claimed that both the cocaine and coffee deals were "part of a government operation I was involved in that I can't really talk about" and that they were aimed at exposing a communist spy in the U.S. government. Despite these claims, Paul was arrested after the Cuban government agents discovered the scam. He was charged with fraud and pleaded guilty in U.S. court. He was sentenced to eight years on the cocaine charges and three years to be served concurrently for the Cuban coffee scam. [3] Violation of parole in 1983 and year as a fugitiveAfter serving three years of his sentence Paul was paroled but on condition that he not leave the U.S. Despite this, in December 1983, he traveled to Canada "using a dead man's passport". [4] When crossing back into Vermont, a Customs official demanded more identification. "Paul walked to his rented Lincoln and raced away, leaving behind his female companion," the Miami Herald reports. A year later he was caught and then charged with passport offenses. Paul attributed the charges to an unspecified government group he was working with having a dispute with another government agency. He served a further 20 months in prison. [5] Selling the Bicentennial (1987 - 1993)In 1987 Paul was the executive vice president of the California Bicentennial Foundation for the U.S. Constitution. The Los Angeles Times commented on some of the gimmicks used by the Bicentennial Commission. "But any celebration with a Disney-designed mascot can't fail, right? We'll see. The California bicentennial has Bisontennial Ben, a grinning little critter who is a combination American bison and Benjamin Franklin. The caricatures include one of Ben in a spacesuit holding an American flag, presumably standing on the moon." [6] Paul told the Los Anegeles Times that "If you had a reenactment of 39 sweaty old men arguing in Philadelphia, how many of our children would be interested? But put them in space suits and the kids will really go for it." "We're using the same people who sell soap to sell understanding of the Constitution," Paul explained. [7] A few years later, The New York Times reported that Paul was the President of the non-profit American Spirit Foundation, which was formed in May 1989. The foundation was linked to the American Spirit Corporation, though the nature of the relationship was unclear. The Securities and Exchange Commission filing of the corporation stated that it paid Paul's salary and the foundation's office space. Paul on the other hand told New York Times reporter Diana B. Henriques that the company was one of the foundation's "sponsors" and "the exclusive supplier" of bronze plaques that the foundation used in one of its projects. [8] A January 1990 media release announcing the takeover of the Hamilton James Venture Fund Inc., a Nevada corporation, by Wellington Group I described the corporation as "the marketing arm of the American Spirit Foundation." [9] "The plaque project calls for the foundation to enlist donors whose tax-deductible contributions - $6,000 per Constitution - will be used to place these bronze replicas in schools and other public locations. Then the foundation will buy the plaques from the corporation for $4,000 per set, or about $2,300 more than the plaques cost the company to produce. Proceeds from plaque sales are envisioned as the company's chief source of revenue," Henriques reported. [10] In June 1990, the corporation suggested that the marketing of the bronze replicas of the constitution would be aimed at "more than 300,000 schools nationwide" which "should result in first year's annual revenue to the corporation exceeding $4 million." [11] There is little subsequent mention of the corporation or the foundation other than a Washington Post report that "by 1993, the group [the corporation] was out of money". [12] Related SourceWatch ResourcesSources
From WorldNetDaily
Clintons top all-star cast of fraud-case witnesses Suit against former commander in chief to include Streisand, Travolta, Pitt, Ali Posted: April 25, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Art Moore
The potential witness list includes celebrities such as Muhammad Ali, Brad Pitt, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, George Hamilton, Olivia Newton John, John Travolta, Diana Ross, Shirley McLaine, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Paul Anka and Larry King. Also on the list are former Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, former California Gov. Gray Davis, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terrence McAuliffe, CBS News reporter Mike Wallace and ABC News reporter Brian Ross.
Paul told WND these people, and many others, have direct knowledge of the alleged frauds. He says he explained, for example, in person to actors Pitt and Travolta that his personal contribution of some $2 million for a Hollywood gala and fund-raiser for Sen. Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000 was done in exchange for Bill Clinton promoting Paul's Internet business, Stan Lee Media, after leaving office. Clinton was promised an additional $15 million in stock to join the board of the company, which Paul formed in partnership with famed Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee. But Paul charges the former president caused the company's stock to collapse by diverting $5 million promised by a Japanese investor in an attempt to get out of the deal. Paul has compiled his charges, with documentation on a website. As WorldNetDaily reported, Paul, claiming Sen. Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, separately is preparing to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides his personal multi-million dollar contributions to the Hollywood gala and fund-raiser that helped put her in office. On April 7, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed Sen. Clinton as a defendant in the civil lawsuit, but she will be deposed as a material witness in preparation for a trial set for March, 27, 2007.
Already, the Clintons' longtime attorney David Kendall has moved to delay the testimony of the senator, who insists she had no knowledge of any business deal despite Paul's claim it was discussed on numerous occasions. Kendall told WorldNetDaily he would not comment on the case. In a letter to Paul's attorney, Gary Kreep of the public-interest law firm U.S. Justice Foundation, Kendall contended the delay is warranted because the court issued an order that any deposition cannot begin until 30 days after resolution of Sen. Clinton's motion to be dismissed. California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz granted Sen. Clinton her motion to be dismissed from the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits. But Kendall, citing WND's story, noted Paul might appeal the dismissal and argues the motion to dismiss, therefore, is not resolved. Munoz had ruled Paul could not depose Sen. Clinton for the Anti-SLAPP motion. Paul's team sees Kendall's move as another stalling tactic by the Clintons, pointing out any evidence gathered from the deposition could not be used in an appeal anyway. Paul argues the judge made it clear he won't accept any attempts to block Sen. Clinton from serving as a material witness. In court April 7, Kreep told Munoz: "I anticipate opposition to taking the deposition of Senator Clinton. I assume we'll be back to court on motions of that." The judge replied: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall." Kendall: "I do, your honor." United States Justice Foundation attorney Colette Wilson told WND she believes the court's stay on discovery was lifted with the April 7 decision, but she acknowledged Paul's team may have to go back to Munoz for clarification. 'No recollection' In her declaration, Sen. Clinton admitted spending time with Paul on several occasions prior to the gala and during the event, but said if there was any discussion of her husband's employment with Paul, she would have remembered it.
Paul stated in his declaration to the court, "Mrs. Clinton personally assured me she would specifically discuss with her husband, the President, my interest in making a post-White House business proposal to him. She told me her understanding that such a proposal would include my offer of substantial support for her Senate campaign as a good-faith advance on the business arrangement he would be agreeing to." In her declaration, Sen. Clinton said she had "no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with [Paul] whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton, and I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred. I also have no recollection whatsoever of talking with him about any future business arrangement of any kind between him and then-President Clinton, and I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred." Paul called Clinton's declaration a "non-denial denial." "If they were false allegations, why not just say they are untrue?" he asked. But Paul believes he'll have better success getting a straight answer from Sen. Clinton during the case's discovery process, noting that unlike a criminal case, a witness in a civil matter can be compelled to testify against herself. "This is unique for Hillary," Paul said. "She can't hide behind the Fifth Amendment unless it would involve an admission to a crime." Financial collapse As for Bill Clinton, Paul contends the former president will have difficulty denying his assistant, James Levin, interfered with a major investor in Stan Lee Media, leading to the company's financial collapse.
Paul contends that after backing Hillary's fund-raising effort, Bill Clinton used confidential information about Stan Lee Media to sack the company and consequently remove himself from the deal. Paul says he had an agreement with a Japanese animation company led by Tendo Oto, who promised to invest $5 million in Stan Lee Media with the understanding Clinton would serve as a rainmaker. But Clinton, through his agent Levin, conspired with Oto to form a company of their own with the $5 million that would have gone to Stan Lee Media, Paul asserts. Paul emphasizes Clinton signed a confidentiality agreement with Levin to act as the former president's agent and, therefore, is bound by all of Levin's actions. Oto sat behind the Clintons and Paul at the August Hollywood gala and in September, at Paul's request, was invited to a state dinner at the White House. After the dinner, Levin and a White House aide took Oto to the Oval Office where he was allowed to have his picture taken sitting behind the president's desk. One week later, Levin, with the photos in hand, flew to Japan to meet Oto, without Paul's knowledge. Levin persuaded Oto to cancel his arrangement with Paul and enter into a deal with himself and Clinton and form a U.S. subsidiary Venture Soft USA, which Levin incorporated in Illinois in November 2000. Paul argues Clinton certainly didn't think Levin was qualified to run the firm: "A guy who's only business experience was running a strip club all of a sudden incorporates a Japanese animation company." And Oto, Paul maintains, would not have made the deal if he hadn't known Clinton was behind it. Meanwhile, according to Paul, the loss of the promised $5 million from Oto caused Stan Lee Media's stock to collapse. "When the money didn't show up because of the dot-com meltdown, we were unable to access capital markets for money we had expected from Oto," Paul explained. Paul insists he would not be in the legal predicament he faces if not for Clinton reneging on the deal. He has pleaded guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks. He awaits a court decision that should come within two or three months. He could be sentence for up to 110 months in prison but already has served 43 months in prison in Brazil and an additional 15 months of house arrest in the U.S. "All of this is based on damages, and the government hasn't shown what those damages are," Paul argued. "And if the damages are minimal, the punishment should reflect that." Paul said he lost $30 million in equity when the stock collapsed. "I was the biggest loser," he insisted. Paul asserted everything he did was under the aegis of Merrill Lynch management and compliance officers. The federal judge who dismissed Stan Lee Media's suit against Merrill Lynch, ruled Paul's margin accounts at Merrill Lynch initially helped the Stan Lee Media by giving it needed cash, and the scheme's collapse was a result of the stock's decline in value not the cause of it. Separation Sen. Clinton suddenly made a public break with Paul just days after the August 2000 Hollywood gala when the Washington Post splashed reports of Paul's 1970s criminal convictions in a story that accused the senator of being soft on crime. The senator publicly distanced herself a few days after the gala, but Paul says she remained in close contact to convince him that no matter what she said publicly, their understanding was still in place and he should continue to give money to her campaign secretly. Paul contends the Clintons were fully aware of his past legal problems, pointing out he was vetted more than eight times by the Secret Service. Under the Carter administration, Paul was convicted for cocaine possession and an attempt to bilk Cuban dictator Fidel Castro of $8 million. He ascribes that to politics, arguing he was embraced by Ronald Reagan's kitchen cabinet, which "realized the problems I had were more related to being gung ho about removing Castro." While still on parole, he said, he worked directly with Chief Justice Warren Burger and visited President Reagan in the White House.
Meanwhile, Paul is preparing to file another complaint with the FEC, challenging a fourth amended report submitted by Sen. Clinton's campaign treasurer Andrew Grossman. The report attributed contributions of $838,000 to Paul's holding companies, Paraversal and Excelsior, rather than Paul personally, and $225,000 to his business partner Stan Lee, despite Lee's denial under oath. Lee is the Marvel Comics artist who created "Spider-Man," the "Incredible Hulk" and others. The report to the FEC makes Stan Lee was her biggest contributor, but Lee, reached recently at his Los Angeles home by independent reporter Doug Cogan, expressed surprise when told of the declaration. Lee told Cogan he made it absolutely clear to the FEC, the Justice Department and the FBI that he didn't give a single penny to Sen. Clinton's campaign. Lee said he did make a loan to Paul and agreed to switch checks of $100,000, but certainly did not make a donation. In his Feb. 23, 2005, deposition in Paul's bankruptcy case against celebrity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, Lee testified, "I never had a hundred thousand dollars to donate to anybody." Paul argues the federal government, in three different instances, has established the companies were alter egos for him personally, meaning he personally gave the money to Clinton's campaign. The FEC on Dec. 29, Paul points out, obtained an admission from an umbrella group for Clinton's campaign through which large donations were channeled – New York Senate 2000 – that it had engaged in a five-year deception, violating the federal election law by hiding the largest donation made to her campaign. As a consequence, New York Senate 2000 and Grossman agreed in the conciliation deal to pay a civil fine of $35,000 and amend false reports to reflect failure to report a $721,000 donation by Paul. Paul says the Hollywood event cost close to $2 million. The government acknowledges it cost more than $1.2 million to host and raised $1 million in "hard money" contributions. In addition, Paul claims, the fair-market value of the entertainment he provided amounted to another $1 million in contributions. Peter Paul's court case
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PETER F. PAUL, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., NEW YORK SENATE 2000, DAVID ROSEN, GARY SMITH, JAMES LEVIN, and AARON TONKEN, Defendants. _______________________________ ))))))))))))))))) Case No. BC 304174 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND RESTITUTION, AMONG OTHER RELIEF, ARISING FROM: (1) FRAUD AND DECEIT; (2) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; (3) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; (4) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; and (5) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Assigned to: Hon. Aurelio N. Munoz Department 47 Plaintiff, Peter F. Paul, by counsel, complains and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff Peter F. Paul was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of California and resided at 23586 Parksouth, Calabasas, CA 91302. 2. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is a citizen of the State of New York and resides at 15 Old House Lane, Chappaqua, NY 10514. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton was formerly the President of the United States. He also is the husband of Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton. 3. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is a citizen of the State of New York and resides at 15 Old House Lane, Chappaqua, NY 10514. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is a U.S. Senator from the State of New York. 4. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and has its principal place of business at 450 7th Avenue, Suite 804, New York, NY 10123-0073. At all relevant times, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. was the agent of Senator Clinton. 5. Defendant New York Senate 2000 is a joint federal/non-federal fundraising committee affiliated with the New York State Democratic Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. Its principal place of business is located at 430 South Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003. At all relevant times, New York Senate 2000 was the agent of Senator Clinton. 6. Defendant David Rosen is a citizen of the State of Illinois. His address is c/o The Competence Group, 1248 W. Altgeld, Chicago, IL 60614. At all relevant times, Rosen was the agent of Senator Clinton.
7. Defendant Gary Smith is a citizen of the State of California and resides at 9559 Lime Orchard Road, Beverly Hills, CA 90210-1315. 8. Defendant James Levin is a citizen of the State of Illinois and resides at 422 Briarwood Place, Highland Park, IL 60035-5029. At all relevant times, Levin was an agent of President Clinton. 9. Defendant Aaron Tonken is a citizen of the State of California and resides at 269 S. Beverly Drive, Apt. 372, Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3807. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. In 1998, Plaintiff and popular culture icon Stan Lee, the creator of Spider Man, the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men animation characters, co-founded Stan Lee Entertainment, Inc., a digital, Internetbased entertainment company. Plaintiff’s goal was to build a global, multimedia entertainment company around the seventy-seven year old Stan Lee by transforming Lee into a universally recognized brand name. 11. Plaintiff achieved substantial success, and, after two mergers in 1999, Stan Lee Entertainment, Inc. became Stan Lee Media, Inc., a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of approximately $350 million. 12. Plaintiff himself achieved a net worth of approximately $60 million, based in large part on Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock. 13. Plaintiff also was engaged in a variety of other business ventures, including Mondo English, Inc., a company Plaintiff had established to teach English to a global audience, free of charge, over the Internet. 14. In December 1999, Plaintiff was contacted by Los Angeles fundraiser and event producer Aaron Tonken, who had been working with Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) Chairman Edward G. Rendell and DNC Southern California Finance Chairwoman Stephanie Berger on DNC fundraising events in Southern California featuring President William Jefferson Clinton and other prominent Democratic
Party politicians. 15. Tonken had worked for Plaintiff several years earlier, and Plaintiff was well-acquainted with him. Tonken told Plaintiff about his work with the DNC and convinced Plaintiff that he could gain access to President Clinton by contributing to Democratic Party causes. Tonken specifically suggested that Plaintiff make a $30,000 contribution to co-host a DNC fundraiser in February 2000 in Los Angeles to be keynoted by the President. 16. After his meeting with Tonken, Plaintiff conceived of a plan to expedite his goals for Stan Lee Media, Inc. and Mondo English, Inc. by hiring President Clinton, at Plaintiff’s sole expense, to work as a global “good will” ambassador for the two companies when the President left office in January 2001. Plaintiff thus decided to co-host the DNC fundraiser in order to try to build a personal and professional relationship with President Clinton and, eventually, a business relationship. 17. The fundraiser was held on February 17, 2000 at Café Des Artistes in Hollywood, California. Plaintiff co-hosted the event and was seated with President Clinton. Plaintiff also was introduced to California Governor Gray Davis, who chaired the event, and Rendell and Berger. In addition to assisting in the production of the event, Tonken arranged for Olivia Newton John to perform at the event and attended the event as well. 18. During the event, Plaintiff told Rendell and Berger about his interest in working with President Clinton after the President left office in January 2001. Rendell, Berger and Tonken represented to Plaintiff at the event that he could gain even greater access to President Clinton, and thereby better position himself to work with the President after he left office, by making more substantial contributions to the DNC. Among other contributions, Rendell and Berger specifically discussed Plaintiff’s hosting a DNC fundraiser at his home to be attended by President Clinton.
19. Plaintiff, who admittedly had no experience or direct knowledge about major campaign contributions or federal campaign finance laws and regulations, agreed to consider hosting a fundraiser. Plaintiff informed Rendell that his cash contributions would be limited, but that he could make more substantial contributions by pledging Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock, which would become transferrable in September 2000. 20. In April 2000, Rendell asked Plaintiff to pledge $150,000 worth of Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock to the DNC in order to co-host, underwrite and serve as executive producer of a “Hollywood Supports Gore” fundraiser on June 8, 2000 at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Plaintiff agreed. Plaintiff also agreed to pay the expenses for the event, which he did by and through Tonken, acting as assistant producer. 21. In addition, Mrs. Clinton had become a candidate for the U.S. Senate in New York, and Rendell, Tonken and David Rosen, the Director of Finance for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, asked Plaintiff to pledge an additional $150,000 worth of Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock to co-host, underwrite and serve as executive producer of a luncheon fundraiser on June 9, 2000 at Spago in Beverly Hills. The luncheon was to benefit Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign and was to be followed by a tea at the home of Cynthia Gershman, a wealthy benefactor closely tied to Tonken. 22. Rendell, Rosen and Tonken asked Plaintiff to pay the expenses associated with the luncheon and the tea, and to make an additional contribution to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign as well. Plaintiff agreed, committing himself to pay the expenses for both the luncheon fundraiser and the tea, as well as committing himself to transfer $150,000 worth of stock in Stan Lee Media, Inc. to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in September 2000. Plaintiff’s business partner, Stan Lee, also was to co-host of the luncheon and tea, but did not put up any monies or stock to do so. 23. Plaintiff met privately with the Vice President Gore at the “Hollywood Supports Gore” fundraiser
on June 8, 2000 and sat next to the Vice President throughout the event. Plaintiff and Vice President Gore discussed Plaintiff’s interest in working with President Clinton when the President left office in January 2001, as well as Plaintiff’s interest in supporting Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. 24. The luncheon fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton took place the following day, June 9, 2000, at Spago in Beverly Hills. Plaintiff sat next to Mrs. Clinton for ninety minutes during the luncheon fundraiser, and Plaintiff and Mrs. Clinton specifically discussed Plaintiff’s interest in working with President Clinton when the President left office in January 2001, among other matters. Tonken served as Mrs. Clinton’s escort. 25. At the luncheon fundraiser, Mrs. Clinton publicly thanked Plaintiff for his generous financial support. Several attendees of the luncheon fundraiser, including Larry King’s wife, Sharon King, Barbara Lazarus, Dionne Warwick, Olivia Newton John, Bijan, Alana Hamilton Stewart, Suzie Buell Thompson, Cynthia Gershman, and Mr. and Mrs. Gerry Harrington, witnessed Mrs. Clinton’s acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s generous financial support for her campaign. 26. At the tea later that afternoon, Plaintiff introduced Mrs. Clinton to the 150 guests in attendance and again sat next to Mrs. Clinton during the event. Mrs. Clinton once again thanked Plaintiff for his generous financial support in front of several witnesses, including Larry King, Melanie Griffith, Sean Young, and Morgan Fairchild, among others. Tonken again served as Mrs. Clinton’s escort, and Tonken and Mrs. Clinton privately discussed Plaintiff’s interest in working with President Clinton during a limousine ride from the luncheon fundraiser to the tea at Gershman’s home. 27. In addition to pledging $150,000 worth of Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, Plaintiff paid over $12,000 for expenses associated with both the luncheon and the tea, again by and through Tonken acting as assistant producer. Plaintiff and his wife, as well as Stan Lee and his wife, each also wrote $2,000 checks to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Mrs. Clinton also
received additional contributions from most of the events’ other attendees. 28. Plaintiff was very encouraged by his meetings and conversations with the President, Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore and was thus induced to become an even more substantial contributor to the DNC. Throughout June 2000, Plaintiff met with Rendell, Tonken and Berger, among others, to plan a DNC fundraiser at Plaintiff’s home to be attended by President Clinton. Plaintiff, Berger, consultant Terry New of Capitol Strategies and other DNC fundraisers conducted several “walk-throughs” of Plaintiff’s home in anticipation of the event. Plaintiff also made approximately $150,000 in improvements to his home in anticipation of the event. 29. Rosen also participated in several of these meetings, during which time Plaintiff explained to Rosen that he was interested in contributing to Democratic Party causes in order to gain access to and build a personal and business relationship with President Clinton, and, subject to ethical constraints, negotiate an agreement to work with President Clinton when the President left office in January 2001. 30. In late June 2000, Rendell arranged with the U.S. Secret Service for Tonken to be placed in President Clinton’s limousine during the ride back to The White House after a DNC fundraiser in Georgetown. The purpose of the limousine ride was to allow Tonken and the President the opportunity to privately discuss Plaintiff’s interest in working with President Clinton after he left The White House and Plaintiff’s willingness to support Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. During the limousine ride, President Clinton expressed interest to Tonken in both working with Plaintiff and having Plaintiff support Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Entertainer Chaka Khan, who had performed at the fundraiser earlier that evening and was in the limousine with Tonken and the President, witnessed the conversation. 31. Upon reaching The White House, President Clinton invited Tonken and Chaka Khan to tour the Oval Office, and Tonken photographed Chaka Khan sitting on the President’s desk. Tonken telephoned
Plaintiff at approximately 1:00 a.m. from The White House, outside the Oval Office, to convey the substance of his conversation with the President to Plaintiff and to inform Plaintiff that President Clinton had expressed interest in his plans. 32. On information and belief, after the limousine ride in late June 2000, President Clinton asked Rosen to introduce Plaintiff to James Levin, a close, personal friend and supporter of the President and Mrs. Clinton, to negotiate an agreement to work together after the President left office in January 2001. Rosen informed Plaintiff that the President had personally selected Levin to be his intermediary. Tonken told Plaintiff this as well. Rosen advised Plaintiff that, based on President Clinton’s selection of Levin, approaching Levin was preferable to working through Harold Ickes and Terence McAuliffe, with whom Plaintiff also had held preliminary discussions about his plans. 33. Rosen arranged for Plaintiff to meet with Levin on July 5, 2000 at the Mondrian Hotel in Hollywood, again, on information and belief, at President Clinton’s direction. At all relevant times, Plaintiff understood that Levin was acting on behalf of President Clinton and that the President had designated Levin as his agent for purposes of negotiating an agreement with Plaintiff. At the July 5, 2000 meeting, Levin told Plaintiff that he had spoken with President Clinton and the President had indicated that he preferred Plaintiff negotiate with Levin rather than dealing with him directly. 34. During the July 5, 2000 meeting, Plaintiff outlined to Levin his plan for working with President Clinton after the President left office in January 2001. Both Levin and Rosen represented to Plaintiff that President Clinton would look very favorably on any assistance Plaintiff could provide to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign as a way of beginning their relationship. 35. Based on Levin’s and Rosen’s advice, Plaintiff participated in a telephone conference call with officials from Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign on or about July 11, 2000. The conference call was organized by Rosen and Levin. Tonken participated as well. Plaintiff, Rosen, Levin and Tonken were
physically present in Plaintiff’s office while they spoke, via telephone conference, to officials with Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in New York, including campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson. 36. During the July 11, 2000 conference call, Rosen represented to Plaintiff that Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign wanted to hold a fundraiser in the Los Angeles area to coincide with the Democratic National Convention, which was only four weeks away. Plaintiff was asked to underwrite and produce the event. Rosen and Tonken also represented to Plaintiff during the conference call that Cynthia Gershman had agreed to contribute $525,000 to fund the event. 37. Neither Rosen, Tonken, nor any members of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, had any particular idea about the type of event that was to be held. Plaintiff suggested a Hollywood tribute/farewell to President Clinton (hereinafter “Hollywood Tribute” and/or “the event”). Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign selected a date, August 12, 2000, for what would turn out to be the largest fundraising event of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. 38. During the July 11, 2000 conference call, Plaintiff discussed contributing a maximum of $525,000 to underwrite the Hollywood Tribute and serving as executive producer of the event. Plaintiff also discussed securing world class artists to perform at the event, at his sole expense, to enable Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign to raise additional funds. Stan Lee would be the official host of the event, and Plaintiff would be a co-host. Again, however, Levin, Rosen, Tonken and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign understood that neither Stan Lee nor Stan Lee Media, Inc. would be paying any expenses or putting up any of their own assets for the event. 39. Plaintiff conditioned any involvement in the Hollywood Tribute on being given absolute and complete executive control over the event by the President and The White House, including control over guests and seating, and on President Clinton’s agreeing to participate as the event’s honoree. Plaintiff also
conditioned any involvement in the Hollywood Tribute on President Clinton’s agreeing that the event would be his last official event in Hollywood. 40. As with the luncheon fundraiser at Spago, Plaintiff’s business partner, Stan Lee, was to serve as a host of the Hollywood Tribute, but, again, would not be putting up any monies or stock for the event. Rather, Lee advanced monies towards the cost of the event, which he expected to be repaid. At all relevant times, Levin, Rosen, Tonken and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign all knew and understood this to be the case. 41. Later that same day, July 11, 2000, Levin attended a private dinner with Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s home. During the dinner, Levin asked Plaintiff to prepare a formal written offer for him to present to President Clinton detailing all of the terms of the business relationship Plaintiff envisioned having with the President after he left office and how the President would be compensated. 42. Plaintiff prepared the written offer and delivered it to Levin. Under the terms of the offer, President Clinton would work with Plaintiff and his companies, Stan Lee Media, Inc. and Mondo English, Inc., for one year, commencing when the President left office, in consideration for the following: (1) $10 million worth of stock in Stan Lee Media, Inc.; (2) $5 million in cash; (3) a $1 million contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library; and (4) Plaintiff’s underwriting of up to $525,000 in expenses for the Hollywood Tribute, serving as executive producer of the event, and securing world class talent for the event, as had been discussed during the July 11, 2000 telephone conference call. 43. Levin flew to Washington a few days later for the express purpose of conveying Plaintiff’s offer to President Clinton. Levin called Plaintiff from Washington to tell him that the President accepted his proposal. President Clinton ratified his acceptance by agreeing to be the honoree of the Hollywood Tribute and by further agreeing that the Hollywood Tribute would be the last event he attended in Hollywood prior to leaving office. President Clinton also agreed to grant Plaintiff executive control over
the event, including executive control over guests and seating, as Plaintiff had requested. President Clinton designated Betty Currie as Plaintiff’s and Levin’s contact person at The White House for purposes of the event. 44. Importantly, in meetings in Plaintiff’s office between July 11, 2000 and August 12, 2000, as well as in telephone conversations during this same time period, Rosen repeatedly promised and represented to Plaintiff that he and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign would make sure Plaintiff’s contributions were allocated and reported to federal election authorities in a manner that was consistent with Plaintiff’s donative intent and complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Rosen also repeatedly promised and represented to Plaintiff during these same meetings and telephone conversations that he would sit down with Plaintiff to review his contributions and determine how they would be reported. Rosen also advised Plaintiff that the reporting did not need to be done until after the November 2000 election. 45. Plaintiff himself was unfamiliar with the laws and regulations governing campaign fundraising. Consequently, in agreeing to underwrite and serve as executive producer of the Hollywood Tribute, and in making all other contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, Plaintiff reasonably relied on the promises and representations of Rosen, a professional political fundraiser and the National Director of Finance for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, that Plaintiff’s contributions would be allocated and reported to federal election authorities in a manner that was consistent with Plaintiff’s donative intent and complied with all applicable laws and regulations. At all relevant times, Rosen and other officials of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign knew and understood this to be the case. 46. In reliance on Levin’s promises and representations that the President had accepted his proposal, and on Rosen’s promises and representations that any campaign contributions Plaintiff made would be allocated and reported in a lawful manner, Plaintiff began to plan, produce and underwrite the Hollywood
Tribute in mid-July 2000. 47. By agreeing to underwrite and serve as executive producer of the Hollywood Tribute as part of Plaintiff’s post-White House employment agreement with President Clinton, Plaintiff intended to benefit Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, not the campaign of any other candidate or the prospects of the Democratic Party in general. Nor did Plaintiff intend to influence the outcome of any election other than Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. At all relevant times, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Rosen, Levin, Tonken, and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign all knew and understood this to be the case. 48. The Hollywood Tribute was to include a reception, a $25,000 per couple gala dinner and a $1,000 per person concert. Plaintiff was to supply and pay for performances by world class artists, including Cher, Diana Ross, Paul Anka, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Melissa Ethridge, Patti Labelle, and Mark McGrath and Sugar Ray, among others. Muhammad Ali, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, Whoopi Goldberg, Red Buttons, Ted Danson, Jimmy Smits, Mary Steenbergen, Dylan McDermot and Gregory Peck also agreed to participate. The event was to be held at the Brentwood estate of businessman Ken Roberts. 49. Plaintiff originally approached Jeff Salmon of Dick Clark Productions about producing the Hollywood Tribute. However, the Clintons, by and through Rosen, requested that Plaintiff retain Gary Smith, a CBS producer and friend of the Clintons, to produce the concert portion of the event. Smith and his production company, Smith-Hemion Productions, had produced President Clinton’s first Inaugural Ball and were producing the August 2000 DNC Convention, as well as a gala fundraiser for Vice President Gore to be held after his presidential nomination. At Rosen’s request, Plaintiff agreed to negotiate with Smith. 50. Rosen arranged for Plaintiff and Smith to meet for lunch at the Dome Restaurant on or about July 14, 2000. Rosen and Tonken attended the meeting as well. During the meeting, Smith represented to
Plaintiff that he would accept an agreed-upon, “turn key” fee, inclusive of all expenses, to produce the concert portion of the Hollywood Tribute and an edited videotape of the concert, which was to be completed and delivered within one week after the event. When Plaintiff objected to the amount requested by Smith, Rosen represented to Plaintiff that Smith was a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and that Mrs. Clinton would intervene to get Smith to lower his fee. Plaintiff asked Rosen to have Mrs. Clinton contact Smith that night to have him lower his fee, as time was of the essence. More from the file, that is the first 50 items. From James Levin's ZoomInfo page
From Anime News Network
Stan Lee to invade Asiaposted on 2000-08-30 22:48 EDTStan Lee Media (SLM) has partnered with Venture Soft Co., Asias Leading creator and distributor of Anime and Manga, to form a joint venture that will bring SLM superheros and fantasy stories to Japan and Korea. Venture soft will invest US$5 million into SLM Japan, the new company formed thru the partnership; both companie will own equal shares of SLM Japan. SLM Japan will produce, distribute and licence Japanese and Korean versions of Stan Lee Media's "Webisodes". "This joint venture further enhances SLM's strategy for developing and producing branded content with global appeal, introducing it to audiences on the Internet, and then exploiting it offline through the traditional media value chain," said Stan Lee Media CEO and president Ken Williams. "We are looking forward to bringing the Stan Lee brand to Japanese- and Korean-speaking fans, and to continuing to explore these vast untapped international licensing potentials." Venture Soft CEO Tendo Oto said, "SLM Japan will be the first to combine the creative talents of Stan Lee and the technical innovations of Stan Lee Media with the top anime creators in the world. This represents an unprecedented opportunity for two of the most influential forces in animation to work together creating brands and characters that will appeal to fans worldwide." Hassan Nemazee
From Forbes in 1999
Warning flags THE WHITE HOUSE press release about the nominee for U.S. ambassador to Argentina is wonderfully abbreviated. It says that Hassan Nemazee is a "New York investor." True enough, but there is quite a story that goes with his investing, and it is not a happy one. People who have done business with this man have come to regret it. If Nemazee, 49, is destined to be confirmed by the Senate, he at least fits the part of an ambassador. This polished socialite has a Harvard degree, a position on one of the university's prestigious visiting committees and a lot of well-connected friends. In November 1995 he hosted a dinner featuring Al Gore, raising $250,000 for the Democratic National Committee. Over the past four years Nemazee and his family have given more than $150,000 to Democratic politicians and the DNC. Six of Nemazee's friends and relatives have given $10,000 apiece -- the maximum allowable per year -- to Bill Clinton's legal defense fund. Among them was the caretaker of Nemazee's 12-acre estate in Katonah, N.Y. Nemazee was born in Washington, D.C., the son of an Iranian shipping magnate then serving as the commercial attach to the U.S. for the Shah's government. After college he formed a joint venture in Iran with insurer American International Group to sell life insurance, but the business fell victim to the Iranian revolution. Nemazee, on a business trip to the U.S. when the Shah was overthrown, escaped with his wife and a fair amount of wealth outside of his homeland, including property in the Washington area that his father had given him. After the revolution Nemazee teamed up with a friend from Harvard, J.C. Helms, to develop a tract of land in the Galleria area of Houston. Their partnership built an office building and sold it at a handsome profit in 1982, but the friendship didn't survive the transaction. Helms sued Nemazee, then settled for $2 million but conceded to Nemazee an interest in an option to buy 8 acres of vacant land next to the building. "He was the Iranian equivalent of J.R. Ewing," says a bitter Helms about his ex-friend. Nemazee declined to be interviewed. Even some of Nemazee's kin haven't been immune to his sharp elbows. Nemazee exercised the option but soon confronted a vicious bear market in Houston real estate. In the late 1980s he unloaded approximately one- third of the property on two of his cousins, then in their early 20s. Price: $4 million -- money they got from their Alzheimer's-afflicted father. Yet the entire tract at the time was almost certainly worth less than the $6.7 million Nemazee paid for it, and with a mortgage of $8.1 million, had a negative net worth. A fellow Iranian in the U.S. intervened to get Nemazee to give his young relatives better terms, which he apparently did. Final outcome: After a sale of part of the tract in 1993 and a transaction now pending, the cousins will still be under water on their decade-long investment. Another Nemazee venture: money management. Teaming up in 1989 with stock picker Gerry Angulo, who had managed money for one of Ivan Boesky's partnerships, the duo launched First Capital Advisers (FCA) and went hunting for clients. It wasn't long before Angulo spotted an opportunity. Public-employee pension funds had begun allocating money to minority managers, and he was a Cuban-American. In its 1990 proposal to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Calpers), FCA claimed to be "100% Hispanic-owned." How could that be? Angulo owned 51% of FCA and Nemazee 49%. It worked this way: Through a family connection with the wealthy Cisneros clan of Venezuela, Nemazee obtained a passport from Venezuela but lived there just a few months. That was evidently enough for him to call himself Hispanic. On another occasion, when his status as a minority money manager was challenged in New York, he claimed to be Asian-Indian because his father was born in Bombay. FCA was not shy about its expertise. "As an equity manager, I have a ten-year track record showing returns averaging over 50%, without a down year," Angulo boasted in a presentation to Calpers, also attended by Nemazee. In its application to Calpers, FCA said it ran $50 million provided by an entity called FCM. The firm, which Nemazee owned, aggregated accounts from a number of investors. At its June 12, 1990 meeting with Calpers, though, FCA claimed it was handling $100 million through this arrangement. Which of these figures was right? Turns out that a week before the meeting a "funding commitment" of an additional $50 million was executed between FCA and FCM. None of the new money, however, was ever advanced. But that didn't stop FCA from claiming it was already managing the funds. Calpers handed FCA $40 million to manage, and soon had reason to regret the commitment. In September 1992 administrators at Calpers, in internal communications, expressed concern about excessive turnover in the FCA account and annoyance that the "vast majority" of the trading was being done through a brokerage affiliate of FCA. This, despite FCA's having claimed in its application to Calpers, that "90% of our brokerage business is conducted with black and Hispanic brokers at the major brokerage houses." At the end of 1993 the pension fund fired FCA, citing a poor investment return -- just over half that of the market benchmark against which it was being compared. The Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System awarded a $22 million allocation to FCA in January 1992. For the quarter ended June 30 of that year, FCA's portfolio turnover was an astounding 547%. Nearly all the trades were being done through a single broker, Oro Financial in New Orleans. The pension fund later discovered that the son of Oro's founder was employed by FCA. In 1995 it fired FCA, citing poor investment performance. Nemazee and Angulo had grand plans to build their money management business, and at one point contracted to acquire Cisneros Asset Management, a Houston firm founded by Henry Cisneros, a former Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (and no relation to the Venezuelan Cisneroses). Cisneros Asset Management had $700 million-plus under management. The deal fizzled, and FCA's business dwindled. In 1996, after being fired by most of its public pension clients, FCA ceased operations. But not all had gone badly for Angulo and Nemazee. Beginning in 1989 Angulo served as chief executive of DSI, which ran an MRI clinic on New York's Long Island, and later acquired other assets. His pay was in options, which went into the partnership. In early 1992 FCA sold off 3.6 million shares of DSI, ultimately netting Angulo and Nemazee about $1 million apiece. The experience left a bitter taste in investors' mouths. A 1992 lawsuit charged that Angulo had run up the price of DSI's stock by releasing overly bullish forecasts to analysts at Lew Lieberbaum & Co., a brokerage firm to which FCA had sold a block of shares at a discount. FCA unloaded shares on the public at an average 83 cents a share. When the company's revenues came up short, the stock tanked to 40 cents. Nemazee says, through a spokesman, that he had no involvement in DSI, though Nemazee's signature is on all the documents filed to sell the stock. The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount. Next venture: newspaper publishing. Nemazee and Angulo bought control of Puerto Rico's financially shaky San Juan Star for $6 million from Scripps-Howard and tried to turn the paper around. Lawsuits soon surfaced. Star executives -- minority shareholders fired by Angulo -- sued over a breach of contract, and a Scripps-Howard suit alleged a default on an agreement to purchase newsprint. Both were settled out of court. In February 1996 Nemazee, in an apparent attempt to force an outright sale of the Star, sued Angulo and demanded that their partnership be liquidated. Angulo, who wanted to make a career out of running the Star, countersued. A U.S. district court dissolved the partnership; but instead of requiring an auction of the Star, it effectively allowed Angulo to buy out Nemazee's stake. He also got some back pay. Nemazee hired David Boies, now famous as an antitrust lawyer in the Microsoft case, to appeal. He lost. One good thing happened to Nemazee in 1996: He obtained U.S. citizenship. Unless the Senate objects, that will bear fruit in the glamorous appointment to Buenos Aires. From WND 2004
Money trail behind Kerry's Iran stance Candidate has financial ties to backers of mullah regime Posted: October 3, 2004 10:25 p.m. Eastern
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry's call for providing Iran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, even while the regime is believed to be only months away from developing nuclear weapons, is being linked to his campaign contributions from backers of the mullah government in Tehran. During last Thursday's nationally televised debate between the Democratic presidential candidate and President Bush, Kerry insisted as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only. "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes. The comments came in response to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran. "If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing." Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties, WND previously reported. Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees. In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a "personal friend," Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime. The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring. A Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei has worked in the telecommunications industry for 22 years and is the chief executive officer of Centillium Communications, a publicly traded company. Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign. In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran. Most odd about the support from Akbarpour, writes Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, is that she claimed political asylum from the Iranian regime when she came to this country. Meanwhile, Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour and other wealthy Iranian-Americans embracing Tehran. Those positions include:
The stunning remarks by Kerry were initially reported only by WorldNetDaily, and some analysts suggested the statements were misunderstood, taken out of context or simply a verbal gaffe by the candidate. Under the heading "Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons," the Kerry campaign makes the same point emphatically – that the U.S. should still give or sell the nuclear fuel Iran wants in exchange for a promise not to build nuclear weapons. "A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region," the campaign policy statement reads. "While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action." However, according to the latest intelligence reports, Iran has decided at the highest levels of government to build its nuclear weapons program within the next four months. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program. Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said. Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Officials of the Kerry campaign were unavailable this weekend. In addition to the nuclear weapons threat, Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August. The missile is reportedly capable of carrying nuclear warheads. During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions." Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran. "We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran." Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981 in Iraq. At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective. Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries, such as North Korea, to disarm. "You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.'" "Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation." Kerry's Iranian Connection Fights Democracy
By Robert Spencer FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2004 Frivolous lawsuits have long been used as weapons of the powerful against the weak; a particularly egregious example is now playing out in Texas, courtesy of one of John Kerry’s most controversial supporters: the Iranian Hassan Nemazee. Nemazee is pursuing a ten-million-dollar damage claim against the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) and its coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia. A Nemazee victory in this suit would almost certainly muzzle or destroy altogether the SMCCDI, one of the most energetic and courageous opponents of Iran’s entrenched but uneasy mullahocracy. But now that Nemazee’s lawsuit has been filed, it has become increasingly clear that it could embarrass the entire Democratic Party and severely damage the already flagging candidacy of John Kerry. Nemazee is an influential figure with many friends in high places in groups such as the American-Iranian Council (AIC), the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and the Iranian-American Bar Association (IABA). Nemazee’s name is also well known in Democratic Party circles. He was a prominent contributor to Bob Torricelli’s New Jersey Senate campaign. The multimillionaire entrepreneur also contributed $50,000 to his friend Al Gore’s Recount Fund (and $250,000 to the Gore campaign), $60,000 to Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund, and over $150,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Clinton attempted to reward him by naming him U.S. Ambassador to Argentina but the Senate declined to confirm him after Forbes magazine published, in May 1999, an extremely damaging expose of his shady financial dealings. Undaunted, Nemazee continued efforts to establish fruitful contacts between Iranian groups advocating normalization of relations with Iran and high-level members of the Democratic Party. He joined the Board of Directors of the AIC, an organization whose president, Hooshang Amirahmadi, is identified on the SMCCDI website as a “well known lobbyist for the Iranian Mullahocracy.” Nemazee was involved in a March 2002 fundraiser for Senate Foreign Affairs Committee heavyweight Joe Biden (D-DE). This event was hosted by Sadegh Namazikhah, another AIC member whom Aryo Pirouznia charges with trying to improve public perception of “one of the most despotic regimes in the world.” Three months later it was Kerry’s turn: Nemazee invited the future Democratic standard bearer to speak at an AIC dinner. Nemazee himself also spoke, declaring that the AIC “does not attempt to explain or rationalize the position of the government of Iran, nor does it attempt to do so for the government of the United States. Its mission is to educate both sides and to attempt to establish the basis and the vehicle for a dialogue which will ultimately lead to a resumption of relations.” If Kerry registered any protest against this assertion that the United States should normalize relations with one of the world’s bloodiest dictatorships, it was not recorded. Nemazee, according to Iran experts Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and Elio Bonazzi, now seems to be denying that he ever made this speech at all although it is still posted on the AIC’s website. Outside San Francisco’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel, where this grand event was held, the SMCCDI organized a large protest rally. Nemazee, evidently, would not forget this and other affronts. In his lawsuit, he charges that the SMCCDI knowingly and repeatedly made “false and defamatory statements” about his support for the Iranian regime. His complaint states categorically that “Nemazee does not ‘support … the Islamic Republic and the Revolution.’” But his friend Kerry, meanwhile, seems to have absorbed the very lessons that Nemazee now denies having tried to teach. Before the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, Kerry announced that he would be willing as President to pursue rapprochement with Iran: “As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago.” And most notoriously, his staff sent out an email that somehow made its way to the government-controlled Mehr News Agency in Tehran, where it was trumpeted as evidence of his resolve to patch things up with the mullahs. “It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States,” the message read, “to restore our country’s credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.” Kerry’s camp professed puzzlement over how this email made it to Tehran. Initially, a Kerry aide dismissed the story as “just a hoax.” But this pose proved impossible to maintain. Kerry’s senior foreign affairs advisor, Rand Beers, later admitted that the message was genuine, saying: “I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad. I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad.” In light of the ties between the AIC and the Democratic Party, that possibility is at least open to question. But Kerry’s olive branches to the regime that carries on the legacy of the Ayatollah Khomeini now embarrass him: his Council on Foreign Relations remarks seem to have been removed from the Kerry-Edwards website. Hence also the Nemazee lawsuit: to silence the SMCCDI and its inconvenient protests. One way to do that is indirect, by using the suit to put the SMCCDI out of action. According to documents that Pirouznia/SMCCDI defense attorney Bob Jenevein made available to me, the prosecution has been playing several such games. On August 20, 2004, Jenevein wrote a letter to Rob Wiley of Locke Lidell & Sapp, the elite Texas law firm representing Nemazee. He proposed five stipulations points that both sides could agree to, so that they need not spend the court’s time trying to establish or disprove them. These included: “1. The Islamic regime in Iran is sympathetic to terrorists. 2. The Islamic regime in Iran poses a threat to the security of the United States and/or its citizens at home or abroad. 3. For the United States to normalize its diplomatic relations with Iran at this time would lend credibility to the Islamic regime in Iran. 4. For the United States to ease trade sanctions against Iran at this time would lend credibility to the Islamic regime in Iran. 5. Anything that would lend credibility to the Islamic regime in Iran at this time would have value to that regime.” Wiley answered on the same day that his team had taken the stipulations “under advisement”; but in the almost two weeks since then, gave no further answer. Thus Nemazee’s attorneys effectively agreed to none of the stipulations, raising the prospect that Jenevein would have to spend hours upon hours in court establishing these points, thereby endangering the SMCCDI by straining its financial resources. Other documents furnished by Jenevein suggest that the prosecution is trying to run up the costs of the litigation in other ways also attempting to find out who is paying Pirouznia’s legal bills and to drive SMCCDI into destitution. One example was a fax that Wiley sent to Jenevein last Monday afternoon, informing him of a draft motion that the prosecution was planning to file on certain matters regarding the case unless the prosecution and defense reached an agreement by 5PM Tuesday. Jenevein immediately faxed a response, suggesting ways to agree, but the prosecution ignored it and filed the motion the next morning anyway. This multiplication of motions, of course, is a classic tactic to drive up court costs. Related to all this is the curious fact that, according to an inside source close to the case, Nemazee has never made himself available for a deposition. Pirouznia’s defense attorney contacted Nemazee’s lawyers in early August, immediately after taking the case (five months after it was filed), to request dates for this deposition; Nemazee’s team responded that he would only be available on two dates in November and two in December – all four after the election, and all over seven months after the case was filed. “He’s saying we want his deposition for political reasons,” the insider exclaimed incredulously, “but HE filed the lawsuit!” The Pirouznia/SMCCDI team has filed a motion ordering Nemazee to appear for a deposition on September 20; no ruling has been made on it yet. Why file a lawsuit, and then play hide-and-seek with the defense? The lobbyist and his team seem to be trying to keep the case under wraps until after the presidential election. “Nemazee is worried that his candidate will be embarrassed if the facts of this litigation are made public,” observes Jenevein. “I’m afraid that this case would appear typical of the frivolous lawsuits about which Republicans complain so loudly. To the extent that Hassan Nemazee constitutes a link between a presidential campaign and the Iranian regime, that link would be considered a grave political liability for the campaign. The lawsuit is designed to silence those who speak about this.” The Nemazee camp appears to be growing increasingly anxious lest details of their suit leak out. That may be why, according to an informed source, the founder of a public relations firm and international speaker’s bureau that specializes in foreign policy and terrorism-related issues recently contacted Pirouznia and invited him to lunch ultimately, two lunches on consecutive days, all to argue that he should drop the suit. Important figures of the Iranian democracy movement, the PR wizard intimated to Pirouznia, really wanted him to forget the whole thing. Dumbfounded, Pirouznia reminded the PR maven that it was he who was the target of the suit, and that he was only defending himself and his organization. Several other people who figures connected to the defense team wryly term “Nemazee’s messengers” also contacted Pirouznia to make the same appeal. The SMCCDI and Aryo Pirouznia are evidently not the only ones in Nemazee’s sights. According to an informed source, Nemazee’s lawyer asked in official documents used by the plaintiff to build the case about the relationship between Pirouznia and another pair of stalwart Iran democracy activists: Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and Elio Bonazzi. Said the source: “Aryo’s lawyer objected that this is not relevant, but basically this means that even if Nemazee didn’t sue the Bonazzis directly, they are among his targets.” This despite the fact that the Bonazzis have never advanced any political agenda for Iran beyond promoting the idea of a genuine (not UN- or Jimmy Carter-led) internationally monitored referendum to decide on Iran’s form of government after the complete ousting of any form of theocracy. Zand-Bonazzi’s father, Siamak Pourzand, is a well-known Iranian journalist, intellectual, freedom fighter – and political prisoner of the Islamic regime. Thus the mullahs fight on for their survival in the courtrooms of Texas. April 2005 - Rep. Charles Rangel's office
New York State Democratic County DinnerThe Congressman was on hand at the Waldorf Astoria-Hotel to show support for the Jefferson-Jackson Democratic County Committee and to congratulate this year’s honorees including State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Senate Minority Leader David A. Paterson, former NY State Democratic Committee Chair Judith Hope, and Hassan Nemazee, New York finance chair for the John Kerry campaign. From The Liberty Tree 2006
Sen. Hillary Clinton Takes Money from Pro-Regime Iranians
January 20, 2006 Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday accused President George W. Bush of mishandling the threat from Iran while she's been accepting money from supporters of the renegade Iranian regime. Wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei who are associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-regime, anti-sanctions group, are vocal Clinton supporters and contributors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Namazee has contributed $4,000 to Clinton's reelection while Aalaei contributed $1,000. Insight Magazine , published by the Washington Times , describes their lobby this way: "the American-Iranian Council [AIC], a pro-regime lobbying group [are] trying to get Congress and the Bush administration to lift the trade embargo on Iran." According to reports in Hillary Clinton's home state, she's also raising money from Gati Kashani, another figure linked with the Iranian Mullahs and who also supports the regime. On its website, the Iranian American Political Action Committee (PAC) noted, "On Friday, June 3rd [2005], Iranian-American friends of the Hillary Clinton Senate re-election campaign hosted a fundraising event in honor of Senator Clinton. The event took place at the home of Gita and Behzad Kashani in Los Altos Hills, California." The PAC favors relaxing or eliminating Visa rule for Iranians coming to the United States and believes that Clinton would be helpful in achieving their goals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation opposes such liberalization of the visa process for the terrorist state. But in full pander mode, the Iranian PAC reported that Clinton attacked United States Visa policy. "Senator Clinton went on to address the audience on topics specifically relevant to the Iranian-American community. She discussed immigration and acknowledged the difficulties Iranian nationals have in obtaining visas to visit family members residing in America. She stated, 'Our visa policy is not only unfair but it's not good for America.'" During her speech yesterday Senator Clinton attacked the Bush Administration, charging that the US government has wasted precious time in dealing with the looming Iranian nuclear threat. "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said during a speech at Princeton University, referring to American willingness to allow European powers to handle talks with Teheran. "We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations." This is the exact opposite of what she's said regarding the run up to the Iraq war. Democrat Party bigwigs accused Bush then of not working with our allies – France, Germany, Russia – and not allowing the United Nations more time to deal with the Saddam Hussein regime. According to critics, Senator Clinton's modus operandi is to tell audiences what she believes they wish to hear. Tell Americans to get tough on Iran so as to present herself as tough on national security, then tell Iranians she wants to help them. At least she did use the "plantation" word which I believe was calculated to bring about controversy as was her latest diatribes against Bush. The release of the Barrett Report brings up questions of her and her husband's own – excuse the phrase – culture of corruption. She's done this before when she criticized the Bush Administration's lack of resolve to stop rampant illegal immigration and to increase border security. However, when a bill went to the senate that would increase funding for border patrol agents and additional detention facilities, she and the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, voted no. Then when speaking before a Latino group in California, Hillary told the audience that she would work to get them healthcare and education assistance. John Spencer, the former Yonkers Mayor and Vietnam combat veteran who will challenge Senator Clinton in November, made the following statement, "Senator Clinton voted against the very munitions necessary to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Iran while at the same time accepting money from supporters of the Iranian Mullahs. Senator Clinton lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money." Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us. WALL STREET TO WASHINGTON: Wyden joins financial experts in cautioning against diverting payroll taxes
April 25, 2005 New York, NY – Today, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined members of Wall Street’s financial services industry as they caution Congress against the privatization of Social Security. Financial leaders - including rising stars on Wall Street - unveiled a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in which they detail the significant financial risks for individual Americans if Federal payroll taxes are diverted from Social Security into the stock market - and reiterate that private accounts will do nothing to keep the program solvent for future generations. Wyden was joined by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) at the event today. “When the Finance Committee began looking at Social Security, I assumed there would be automatic support on Wall Street for the President's private accounts proposal - but instead of rave reviews I kept hearing reservations from market leaders,” said Senator Wyden. “Congress should take this good financial advice and reject schemes that would make Social Security less secure and no more solvent than it is today.” Two of these Wall Street experts spoke at the event today: David Shaw, Founder and Chairman of D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. and a chief architect of the letter, and Ben Appen, a Partner at private investment firm Magnitude Capital. “On Wall Street, the biggest mistake you can make is to risk what you can't afford to lose. The President wants millions of Americans to take risks with their minimum retirement security. It's a bad trade for America and we can not let it happen,” Appen said. The letter from Wall Street experts expresses serious reservations about the President's plan to privatize Social Security. The more than 40 signers underscore that they “find no reason to believe that privatization would address current concerns regarding the long term stability of the Social Security system. Although the fee income associated with managing millions of new private accounts might well represent a windfall for those of us who work on Wall Street, we cannot in good conscience recommend privatization as a means of protecting the financial security of American retirees or controlling the government expenditures required to provide a given level of benefits.” On April 26th, the Senate will begin hearings on the President’s plan, following a 60-day tour by administration officials that have revealed deep misgivings about the President’s plan across the country. Senator Wyden today reemphasized that Social Security should be strengthened for the long term, beginning with shoring up the Social Security Trust Fund.
April 25, 2005 The Honorable Bill Frist, Majority Leader
Proponents of privatization have argued that redirecting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts would allow investors to increase the ultimate value of their retirement savings by investing in equity securities. While this might be the case for some individuals under certain market circumstances, others, retiring at different times under different market conditions, might suffer the loss of a significant fraction of their retirement income due to the unpredictable nature and timing of the stock market. Although an investor whose minimal retirement needs have already been met may well wish to include a substantial equity component within his or her remaining investment portfolio, the redirection of Social Security funds toward riskier asset classes could jeopardize the system’s traditional role as a “safety net” for all American workers. Even if we ignore the issue of risk and assume a higher rate of return for equities, the redirection of funds from the Social Security system to private investment accounts cannot be expected to help address any future mismatch between the benefits paid to retirees and the revenues allocated for the provision of such benefits. After taking into consideration the effects of transition-related federal borrowing, and in the absence of separate policy changes that, for example, increase the national savings rate or cause capital to be allocated more efficiently, privatization would have no net effect on the amount of capital available to the nation’s economy, on the aggregate net worth of its citizens, or on the cost of its retirement programs. The adoption of private investment accounts would result in only a reallocation of risk and returns, and would not lead to the creation of any new wealth that might be used to protect the benefits received by future retirees or reduce the net cost of providing such benefits. In short, we find no reason to believe that privatization would address current concerns regarding the long-term stability of the Social Security system. Although the fee income associated with managing millions of new private accounts might well represent a windfall for those of us who work on Wall Street, we cannot in good conscience recommend privatization as a means of protecting the financial security of American retirees or controlling the government expenditures required to provide a given level of benefits. Benjamin S. Appen White House Coffee Guest List:Host: President Clinton |
|
Frank J. Biondi Erskine B. Bowles Jon S. Corzine Sen. Christopher J. Dodd Donald L. Fowler Richard A Hayward David A. Jones Hassan Nemazee Sumner M. Redstone |
Marvin S. Rosen Raymond F. Schoenke Stanley S. Shuman Craig T. Smith Douglas B. Sosnik John R. Stafford Richard Sullivan Stephen C. Swid Harvey Weinstein |
View photos of the eventFeatured Speaker
Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade RepresentativeRead the speech
Keynote Address
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman & CEO, News CorporationRead the speech
| Honorees | |
|
Ronnie C. Chan Maurice R. Greenberg |
Douglas Tong Hsu Rupert Murdoch |
 |
|
Underwriter Co-Chairs Paul B. Kazarian, Founder & Managing Director, Japonica Partners John L. Thornton, Professor & Director of Global Leadership, Tsinghua University, Beijing Vice Chairs Benefactors Patrons |
Hassan Nemazee, John Wadsworth
By Roxanne Roberts and Lonnae O'Neal Parker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 12, 1999; Page C01
This is what normal looks like these days in Washington: Yesterday afternoon the White House responded to the articles of impeachment and last night several senators arrived at the executive mansion wearing tuxedos and wide grins as the Clintons hosted a state dinner for Argentine President Carlos Menem.
"It is unusual in that we're about to begin an impeachment trial," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), sworn in just five days ago as a juror. "But he is the president of the United States and he's conducting the business of this country. And I'm delighted to be here."
Dorgan, who was seated at the president's table, was among the seven senators on the guest list. Actor and tango fanatic Robert Duvall and actress Salma Hayek provided the star power, Roger Clinton supplied brotherly love, and the rest of the 170 guests were a supportive and appreciative audience for the tribute to all things Argentine -- especially the tango exhibition after dinner.
"Well, we'll watch and see how it goes," said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). "I'm not ruling it out."
He could have been talking impeachment, but he was actually talking about doing the tango. It was hard to tell the difference.
Conventional wisdom, at least this week's version, is that the Senate is unlikely to muster the votes to force Clinton from the presidency. So last night the impeachment process felt more like a painful and chronic backache than a critical injury.
"The president, obviously, will not be run out of office," said former House Democratic whip Tony Coelho. "The Republicans realize the American people have rejected the right-wing paranoia." Look at Clinton's approval ratings, he said: "House members don't pay attention to polls, but senators do."
Which means that the president can focus on other things, such as foreign relations.
Clinton, who spoke of the friendship between the United States and Argentina, opted for a light tone in his toast. "There are certain disputes that will be never be resolved," he said. "Like which country has the better beef, or whose cooks have better mastered the ancient art of barbecue."
Menem echoed the ties of friendship but struck a more serious note. "Mr. President, I would like to publicly show you my full solidarity," he said. "I hope the American citizens will come to recognize that they are not the only ones who need you still here. . . . Your leadership is needed, Mr. President, all over the world."
The White House did not hold the traditional joint news conference yesterday, so Menem missed an opportunity to defend his U.S. counterpart to reporters. But he did voice his support throughout the day. "I want you to know you have in me a true friend," he said at the welcoming ceremony.
Clinton paid a state visit to Buenos Aires in October 1997, and Menem was invited here to talk about trade, peace in Bosnia and Iraq, and unrestricted air routes.
The 68-year-old Argentine president, who is celebrating 10 years in office, is credited with reforming his country's economy and ending unbelievable inflation: 5,000 percent in 1989, down to 1.1 percent now. Yesterday, Argentine trade unions announced plans for a massive march to urge him to run for a third consecutive term this year, despite a constitutional ban against it.
Last night's dinner was a low-key affair. Menem, who is divorced, attended without his daughter, who usually accompanies him on state visits.
The meal, served hours early by Argentine standards, began with lemon chicken and vegetable risotto, then moved on to striped sea bass with sauteed morels and sweet potato and a salad of winter greens. Dessert featured frozen dulce de leche with baked pineapple, caramel walnuts and coconut snowballs.
The highlight of the night was Argentina's most famous export: tango.
Argentine and American dancers -- led by Duvall, his fiancee, Luciana Pedraza, and Pablo Veron, star of "The Tango Lesson" -- performed the intricate moves in the East Room. Duvall has made repeated trips to Argentina to perfect the traditional version of the classic love dance and recently agreed to become the chairman of the U.S. Tango Academy.
"The best Argentine ambassador of the night was Robert Duvall," said Diego Ramiro Guelar, the official ambassador to the United States who was quite happy to play second fiddle for one night.
Clinton was also impressed. "I will never look at you quite the same way," he told the actor.
Then both presidents took the floor in a more restrained but competent version of the tango: Menem with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, the president with Amanda Fernandez, wife of Argentina's economic minister. Emboldened, several other guests -- including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) -- joined in.
"Marvellosa!" Dodd shouted. "That says it all. That's my official senatorial judgment."
Although composer and conductor Lalo Schifrin, an Argentine native, composed the music for the upcoming movie "Tango" and spoke passionately about the dance, he declined to actually perform it.
Tango is difficult for the best of dancers; most of the guests last night -- including the politicians -- hedged when asked if they would give it a turn. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) teased that she might slip out before the entertainment. "I'm not much of a tangoer," demurred Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Smart move, according to Schifrin. "A man should know his limitations," he said seriously.
THE GUEST LIST FOR LAST NIGHT'S STATE DINNER:
Vice President and Tipper Gore
Carlos Saul Menem, president of Argentina
Guido Di Tella, minister of foreign affairs, international trade and worship
Diego Ramiro Guelar, ambassador of Argentina, and Diana Custodio de Guelar
Carlos V. Corach, minister of the interior
Raul Granillo Ocampo, minister of justice
Jorge Dominguez, minister of defense
Roque Fernandez, minister of economy and public works and services
Alberto Kohan, secretary general of the presidency
Carlos Mario Zabala, head of the joint chiefs of staff
Hugo Anzorreguy, secretary of state intelligence
Francisco Mayorga, secretary of tourism
Raul Delgado, secretary of media and information
Maria Julia Alsogaray, secretary for natural resources and sustainable development
German Kammerath, secretary of communications
Victor Alderete, secretary for the senior citizens
Ana Kessler, secretary for small and medium-size business
Jorge Castro Mongan, secretary for strategic planning
Antonio Cafiero, national senator, vice president of the senate
Juan Manuel Vazquez, chief of the president's military house
Alejandro Tfeli, president's private physician
Ramon Hernandez, president's private secretary
Mario Falak
Duane Ackerman, chairman & CEO, BellSouth Corp., and Katherine Ackerman
Madeleine K. Albright, secretary of state, and David Andrews, legal adviser, Department of State
Mari Carmen Aponte, attorney, Aponte & Associates, and Jose E. Ferraioli, president, Latin America, Results International Inc.
Keith Bailey, chairman, president and CEO, Williams Cos., and Pat Bailey
Gato Barbieri, musician and composer, and Laura Barbieri, physical therapist
Leonard Barrack, national finance chairman, Democratic National Committee, and Lynne Barrack
Charlene Barshefsky, United States trade representative, and Edward B. Cohen, deputy solicitor, Department of the Interior
Melinda Naumann Bates, special assistant to the president and director, White House Visitors Office, and Metin Yazir, tango instructor
Samuel R. Berger, assistant to the president for national security affairs, and Susan Berger
Donald S. Beyer Jr., former lieutenant governor of Virginia, and Megan Beyer, freelance journalist and co-chair, 1999 Wolf Trap ball saluting Argentina
Lanny A. Breuer, special counsel to the president, and Nancy Robinson Breuer, associate general counsel, National Gallery of Art
Norman Brownstein, chairman, Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Strickland, and Helen Brownstein
Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.) and Bonnie Bryan
James R. Cheek, ambassador in residence, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and Carol Cheek
Anthony L. Coelho, chairman, LoanNet, and Phyllis Coelho
William Daley, secretary of commerce
Richard Danzig, secretary of the Navy, and Andrea Danzig
James F. Dobbins, special assistant to the president and senior director for Inter-American affairs, National Security Council, and Toril Dobbins
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Jackie Clegg, vice chair, Import-Export Bank of the United States
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Kimberly Dorgan
Patti Solis Doyle, deputy assistant to the president and director of scheduling for the first lady, and James Doyle, deputy chief of staff, Department of Commerce
Robert Duvall, actor-director and chairman of the board, U.S. Tango Academy, and Luciana Pedraza
Maria Echaveste, assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff
Alfonso Fanjul, chairman and CEO, Florida Crystals Corp., and Lourdes Gutierrez
Susan Feeney, White House correspondent, Dallas Morning News, and Steve Hirsh, director of special events, Fox News Channel
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Blum, Richard C. Blum & Associates
Fernando Ferrer, borough president of the Bronx
James C. Free, president and CEO, the Smith-Free Group, and Ann Todd Free
Mary Mel French, U.S. chief of protocol, and Julie McVicker, Fit for the Future
Richard Fuisz, chairman, Fuisz Technologies, and Lorraine Fuisz
Armando Gutierrez, president, A. Gutierrez & Associates, and Dora A. Garcia
Salma Hayek, actress, and Edward Atterton
Steve Holland, White House correspondent, Reuters, and Lucie Holland
Raul Jaurena, master of bandoneon, and Marga Mitchell, singer
Sen. Timothy Johnson (D-S.D.) and Barbara Johnson
Alan C. Kessler, attorney, Buchanan Ingersoll P.C., and Gail Kessler
Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.) and Gayle Kildee
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and Rosemary King
Lewis H. Lapham, editor, Harper's magazine, and Libby Handros, senior producer, "Inside Story"
Anthony Lewis, columnist, New York Times, and Margaret Marshall, justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Joseph Lockhart, press secretary to the president, and Laura Logan
Frank E. Loy, undersecretary of state for global affairs, and Dale Loy, artist
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Charlene Lugar
Barry R. McCaffrey, director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Jill McCaffrey, national chairman, Armed Forces Emergency Service, American Red Cross
Thomas F. McLarty III, chairman, McLarty International LLC, and Donna McLarty
Henrique de Campos Meirelles, president and COO, BankBoston, and Lucia Lazzaro
Lars-Erik Nelson, New York Daily News, and Mary Nelson, American University
Hassan Nemazee, president and CEO, Nemazee Capital Corp., and Shelia Nemazee
Martin Ornelas-Quintero, executive director, National Latino/Latina Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Organization, and Adolfo Mata, director of Migrant Health Services Health Resources and Services Administration
Federico F. Pena, senior adviser, Vestar Capital Partners
Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs, and Alice Pickering
John D. Podesta, chief of staff to the president, and Mary Podesta
Bill Press, co-host, CNN's "Crossfire,"and Carol Press, artist-weaver
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Landra Reid
William Richardson, secretary of energy, and Barbara Richardson
Victor Manuel Rocha, charge d'affairs to Argentina, and Karla Wittkop Rocha
Peter F. Romero, acting assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and Ruth Espey-Romero, attorney, Perkins Coie LLP
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and Edward T. Allard III, businessman
Ronald Scheman, president, Museum of the Americas Foundation, and Lynn Cutler, deputy assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs
Lalo Schifrin, composer, conductor and pianist, and Donna Schifrin, president of Aleph Records
Mark L. Schneider, assistant administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean Agency for International Development, and Susan Schneider
Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Carolyn Shelton
Daniel Solis, alderman for the 25th Ward, Chicago, and John Buschner, manager of governmental affairs, United Airlines
Douglas B. Sosnik, counselor to the president, and Fabina Jorge, director of Latin American affairs, Verner, Liipfert, Bernard, McPherson and Hand
James Steinberg, deputy national security adviser and deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, and Sherburne Abbott
Art Torres, chairman, California Democratic Party, and Joaquin Torres
Pablo Veron, choreographer-dancer, and Anne Monty
Victoria Vieyra, dancer
Antonio Villaraigosa, speaker of the California State Assembly, and Corina Villaraigosa
Melvin I. Weiss, international chair, Hatikva Memorial Project for Buenos Aires Israeli Embassy Site, and Saul Rotsztain, international committee member for the project
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
In hiring lawyers and lobbyists in the United States to help it deal with its problems, BCCI did not think small. BCCI's cadre of professional help in Washington, D.C. alone included, at various times a former Secretary of Defense (Clark Clifford), former Senators and Congressmen (John Culver and Michael Barnes), former federal prosecutors (Raymond Banoun, Lawrence Barcella and Lawrence Wechsler), and former Federal Reserve attorneys (Baldwin Tuttle and Jerry Hawke).
Still other prominent figures were recruited for BCCI's secretly-held American subsidiary, First American, such as former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Stuart Symington and former Republican Senator from Maryland Charles Mac Mathias, who each sat on First American's board of director.
Other firms consisting of important former officials -- such as Kissinger Associates, then home to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, current Under Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and current National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft -- were recruited by BCCI, but refused to accept BCCI's business following its indictment on drug money laundering charges.
The revolving door between government and the private sector made it possible for BCCI to retain former government officials with intimate knowledge of how the U.S. government operates to aid BCCI's agenda. Ironically, BCCI used these former officials against the agencies they once served as instruments of its violations of U.S. laws and its attempts to slow or stop investigations of its wrongdoing.
Much of the activity of BCCI's lawyers in the United States was normal representation, often extremely aggressive, but within the borders of the kind of work the firms involved did for other clients. At other times, however, lawyers for BCCI participated in decisions to hire private investigators to investigate the private lives of government investigators pursuing BCCI; sought to use "political chits" to shut down Congressional investigations of BCCI; threatened publications considering publishing articles about BCCI with libel suits; and refused to refer BCCI foreign branches to federal law enforcement when BCCI's own employees in the U.S. believed such referrals were legally required because of the degree of the branch's involvement in money laundering.
The most aggressive activity by BCC's lawyers and lobbyists took place at the beginning and at the end of BCCI's
Two periods of activity by BCCI's lawyers in the U.S. illustrate how BCCI accomplished illegal or improper objectives were:
** Assisting BCCI and its nominees in restructuring the takeover attempt of Financial General Bankshares after the initial attempt was stopped by the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC), on the ground that BCCI had secretly colluded with other shareholders by purchasing 4.9% of the FGB stock each to evade securities laws requiring the reporting of their purchases at 5% or more. Among the key attorneys involved in the restructuring of the BCCI takeover were Clifford, Altman, and former Federal Reserve lawyer Baldwin Tuttle. (1978-1981)
** Structuring the purchase of National Bank of Georgia by First American from BCCI's nominee, Ghaith Pharoan. (1985-1986)
Response to Senate
Joint Defense Agreement
In hiring lawyers and lobbyists in the United States to help it deal with its problems vis a vis the government, BCCI pursued a strategy that it had practiced successfully around the world: the hiring of former government officials.
BCCI's cadre of professional help in Washington D.C. included, at various times, a former Secretary of Defense (Clark Clifford), former Senators and Congressmen (John Culver, Mike Barnes), and former federal prosecutors (Larry Wechsler, Raymond Banoun, and Larry Barcella), and former Federal Reserve Attorneys (Baldwin Tuttle, Jerry Hawke, and Michael Bradfield). Their involvement in representing BCCI, following their government employment, illustrates the perils of the revolving door, and the danger of former government officials using the expertise they gained in government at the service of private clients. Often, such former officials have no idea of the real agenda or problems their clients may be hiding. And yet their actions can, and in the case of BCCI, did, substantially impede the ability of government to do its work.
Apart from Clifford and Tuttle, this team was brou
ght in only after BCCI's indictment on drug money laundering charges in October 1988. Since the indictment, at various times, these former officials were used by BCCI to stall investigations, prevent the bank from being closed by regulators, and to stop legislation that would have mandated BCCI's closure.
Some of the questionable tactics employed by BCCI's team of former government officials included:
** Investigating government agents.
** Working outside the normal law enforcement channels to keep the bank open in Florida.
** Lobbying Senators as registered foreign agents in pursuit of their criminal defense work, in order to stop BCCI from being closed.
** Delaying and impeding an authorized U.S. Senate investigation of the bank.
** Refusing to refer BCCI customers and accounts for criminal investigation even after being advised by BCCI's own offiers that the customers and the accounts raised serious questions.
** In the case of Clifford and Altman, using the attorney work product and attorney client privileges as shields to protect their own potential cupability.
Larry Barcella is a former Assistant US Attorney who gained national prominence for his successful prosecution of Edwin Wilson, the American convicted of selling secrets to Lybia. Barcella was brought onto the BCCI case shortly after the October 1988 indictment of BCCI in Tampa, Florida. Larry Wechsler, with whom Barcella had practiced law in the US Justice Department recruited him to coordinate the bank's defense.
Although the full extent of Barcella's activities on behalf of BCCI remains unknown, he did engage in the following:
-- In 1988 Barcella tried to persuade his firm's lead partner, former US Senator Paul Laxalt, meet with Swaleh Naqvi, BCCI's CEO, in London, and to engage in lobbying on behalf of the bank on Capitol Hill. The Subcommittee has been unable to determine what, if any, services Senator Laxalt performed on behalf of BCCI.
-- In 1989 and 1990 Barcella joined John Vardaman, a partner at Williams and Conolly and Robert Altman in warning Larry Gurwin, a freelance journalist writing an article about BCCI and First American Bank for Regardie's magazine, that it would be improper to write anything that linked the two institutions. Barcella has called Gurwin's allegations "absurd".(1)
- In early 1990, after BCCI pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in Tampa, Florida, several members of the US Congress criticized the plea bargain as to lenient on the bank. Documents obtained by the Subcommittee show that Barcella met with Senator Dennis Deconcini, one of the critics of the plea bargain, in an effort to persuade him that BCCI was not the corrupt institution that he and others had claimed.
Most recently, of course, Barcella has been hired by the House Foreign Affairs Committee to investigate the "October Surprise", the allegations surrounding a political deal for release of the US hostages held in Iran in 1980. On leave from the Justice Department to assist Barcella in his investigation is Greg Kehoe -- the Justice Department official with whom BCCi lawyers, including Barcella, negotiated the bank's plea agreement in Tampa.
While the New York District Attorney was able to subpoena those documents held at BCCI New York, and at the offices of First American in New York, subpoenas outside the immediate jurisdiction of New York posed greater problems for a local district attorney. These problems, while in some cases substantial, were dwarfed further by the District Attorney's difficulties in obtaining information pertinent and material to BCCI's activities in New York, but held at such locations as the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, the Grand Caymans, Panama, and Abu Dhabi. Moreover, on even simple issues, New York was finding tremendous obstacles in getting answers.
When New York sought documents from the Serious Fraud Office in London -- the British version of the financial crimes unit within the Justice Department -- the SFO was unwilling to provide it with any assistance in obtaining BCCI documents. When New York met with BCCI's lawyers, former federal prosecutors Lawrence Wechsler and Lawrence Barcella, they told the New York prosecutors that the documents concerning the issues of BCCI's capitalization and stock were held abroad and protected by bank secrecy, and the prosecutors could not obtain them.(11) As Morgenthau later testified, BCCI had been careful to keep its critical records in countries that would protect its right to keep them secret, making investigation of BCCI extraordinarily difficult:
When you try to get the records, they invoke the secrecy laws of all those jurisdictions. The main audit of BCCI was done by Price Waterhouse U.K. They are not permitted, under English law, to disclose, at least they say that, to disclose the results of that audit, without authorization from the Bank of England. The Bank of England, so far -- and we've met with them here and over there -- have not given that permission.
The audit of BCCI, the financial statement, profit and loss balance sheet that was filed in the State of New York was certified by Price Waterhouse Luxembourg. When we asked Price Waterhouse U.S. for the records to support that, they said, oh, we don't have those, that's Price Waterhouse U.K.
We said, can you get them for us? They said, oh, no, that's a separate entity owned by Price Waterhouse Worldwide, based in Bermuda.
So, here you have financial statements, profit and loss, filed in Washington, filed in Virginia, filed in Tennessee, filed in New York, and audited by auditors who are beyond the reach of law enforcement.
So that creates some very, very serious problems.(12)
Thus, accounting firms in the United States affiliated with those elsewhere that had certified BCCI responded to subpoenas with the claim that they could not provide the documents that could prove BCCI's criminality; the Bank of England, which could have made those documents available also refused to provide them; and the British Serious Fraud Office refused to provide them. Moregenthau's attempts to obtain documents concerning BCCI's money laundering and other crimes from Panama met similar resistance. Finally, when the District Attorney of New York turned to the Justice Department for assistance, it too refused to cooperate. As Morgenthau testified on May 23, 1991:
We've had a number of meetings with senior people in the fraud section of the Justice Department, and I think their position has been that they'd rather go it alone.(13)
In fact, at the time the Justice Department had, as detailed in the chapter on the Justice Department, refused to provide the New York District Attorney with access to its documents and certain witnesses under its control in connection with BCCI, and in one case, a prosecutor in Tampa actually lied to the Morgenthau office and claimed that the Blum tapes pertaining to his debriefings of the BCCI witnesses did not exist and had never existed.(14)
The plea agreement reached between BCCI and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) in January, 1990, came as a surprise to many. On November 17, 1989, Price Waterhouse informed BCCI's directors that the lawyers for BCCI "will attempt to come to a pre-trial settlement with the prosecution, but the lawyers do not expect the prosecution to be amenable. As such there is now a real prospect of a trial."(55) Similarly, BCCI officers indicted in the Tampa case were told by BCCI higher-ups up to the day of the agreement that they should expect no agreement, but if there was one, the settlement would include bank and officers alike.(56)
During mid-December, a series of meetings took place among BCCI's lawyers and representatives of the US Attorney's office in Tampa, together with representatives of the Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, and Drug Enforcement Administration. Representing BCCI were two prominent former federal prosecutors from Washington, D.C., Lawrence H. Wechsler and E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr. The lawyers for BCCI were anxious to avoid a trial, and offered a guilty plea by BCCI to money laundering and the complete cooperation of the bank in helping convict other drug money launderers, if they could in return obtain a commitment by the U.S. Attorney that this would end BCCI's criminal problems for all offenses then known to the government.
The offer was intriguing to the prosecutors, but they wanted to make sure that BCCI would not be seen as getting off lightly. The trial judge had indicated during a pre-trial conference that he was of the opinion that BCCI's participation in laundering drug money would be insufficient to prove to him that BCCI and its officers were also guilty of drug trafficking. As a result, given the state of the government's evidence, BCCI could not be convicted on any drug offense itself, but only for laundering drug money. As a result, the most the government might gain if it convicted BCCI was a $28 million fine, twice the amount which the government had moved through BCCI. In practice however, the judge would be unlike to impose much more than the $2.5 million fine imposed against another bank in Puerto Rico the previous year. Accordingly, if BCCI was willing to pay a substantially larger fine -- such as the $14 million fine it ultimately agreed to pay, to be characterized as forfeiture so that it would go to law enforcement instead of back to the U.S. Treasury -- the prosecutors were willing to deal. BCCI's lawyers, after consulting with the bank, agreed, and the plea agreement was struck. According to everyone involved, those making the decision on behalf of the government were in Tampa, not Washington.(57)
As Robert Genzman, the Tampa US Attorney, testified:
We made that determination in the district ...[a]s a courtesy, we advised the Department of Justice of what we were about to do, and received no opposition.(58)
Genzman explained that the plea agreement was entered into for several reasons:
First, the Government secured the conviction of the bank, one of its principle objectives. Second, eliminating the corporation from the trial prevented a recurrence of a problem confronted in the 1986 case against the Bank of New England, where the corporation was convicted, but all the individual defendants were acquitted. Third, BCCI agreed to a number of substantial terms beyond the plea of guilty, including cooperation with the government and a probation condition which incorporated the terms of its consent decree with the Federal Reserve. Most importantly, the Government had been threatened with an adverse legal ruling, which would have substantially reduced the amount of any financial penalty that could be imposed against the bank, had it gone to trial. The $14 million was forfeitable only if the bank was convicted of drug conspiracy.(59)
This rationale was correct, to the extent that one viewed the case against BCCI to be no bigger than the amount of drug funds it demonstrably moved. But the indictment had alleged something larger -- that BCCI itself had a corporate policy of drug money laundering -- and as a result of the plea, there would be testimony about this practice, and no further exposure of what BCCI was doing.
As Mazur testified, the Justice Department and Jackowski "went out of their way" to solicit the opinions of those involved in the case, including him, before agreeing to the plea. Unlike Genzman, Mazur saw advantages to keeping BCCI in the case. Mazur testified that "I was, in the long run, of the opinion that we may as well go to trial [against BCC itself], in view of the terms."(60)
There was one obvious and foreseeable consequence of permitting BCCI itself to plead out, while prosecuting the nine individual officers of BCCI and its commodities trading affiliate, Capcom, involved in the indictment. With BCCI having taken a plea, there was no incentive for the individual officers to negotiate a plea based on their offering up information about BCCI's other criminality. The basic notion of using lower-level employees of a company to go after higher-ups was effectively lost, as the lower-level officers felt betrayed and abandoned, while the prosecutors in Tampa had given up any right to go after BCCI for other crimes.
Thus, Genzman's rationale, while understandable from a technical point of view, missed the underlying point. Long before the trial, the Tampa prosecutors had before them information that BCCI secretly owned First American, that BCCI's lawyers, Clark Clifford and Robert Altman, might well have committed crimes, and that BCCI itself might well be a host for criminality activity on a global basis. Amjad Awan, Akbar Bilgrami, Nazir Chinoy, and likely several other of the Tampa defendants could have provided the information to have led to the swift indictment of BCCI on an array of offenses far more serious than those on which the bank was indicted in Tampa. According to Bilgrami and Awan, they and perhaps several of the other defendants would have been receptive to providing information about BCCI's larger criminality if they had ever been informed by the government that there was a possibility that BCCI itself would plea and leave them in the lurch, and that if they talked, the government would agree to reduce their sentences.(61) The decision to permit BCCI to plead out of the case, while continuing to prosecute its individual officers, effectively put an end on that rather obvious and important, prosecutorial strategy.
While it is always easier to be critical in hindsight, Senator Kerry, among other members of Congress, was harshly critical of the plea bargain at the time and went so far as to write a letter to the Judge. First, while the $14 million fine represented three times the largest money forfeiture ever, was, as Senator Kerry said at the time, a drop in the ocean of the proceeds BCCI had derived from criminal activity. Ultimately, that fine was dwarfed by the $200 million assessment later made against BCCI on these larger issues by the Federal Reserve.
Anticipating this criticism in his testimony, Genzman told the Subcommittee that:
"[T]hose who used the $200 million fine figure imposed by the Federal Reserve in July as an example of that the Justice Department should have obtained are confusing apples with oranges. These are simply two cases for which BCCI has been punished separately according to the law that applied in each offense."(62)
What Genzman appears to be saying is that the Justice Department brought a narrow case and received an appropriate fine. The issue, of course, is whether a broader indictment should have been brought, and whether anything was lost by the plea agreement, which ended the ability of the Tampa prosecutors to take further action against BCCI.
US Attorney Genzman testified that "BCCI did, in fact, cooperate, and its cooperation during the seven-month trial against individual defendants in 1990 was utilized in obtaining the convictions and the resulting jail sentences against those individuals."(63)
Genzman may not have been aware that while the bank was allegedly cooperating, it was also paying the astronomical lawyer's fees -- reaching upwards of $20 million -- for the defendants, providing for their housing, and working to insure that they could continue to stay silent about what they knew concerning the bank.(64) Nor is there evidence that BCCI has provided meaningful assistance in helping Justice make any significant criminal case. Indeed, other information obtained by the Subcommittee suggests that BCCI may have used information it obtained from the government in the course of "cooperation" to alert foreign money-launderers of U.S. law enforcement interests, goals, and strategies, providing the criminals important information used to evade the U.S.(65)
Genzman's argument that it was more important to convict the individuals than prosecute the bank was incorrect. The strategy was wrong, not only in hindsight, but clearly flawed at the outset given that the investigators understood that the corruption in the bank reached the highest levels, and that sworn affidavits by one of them, David Burris, articulated other important crimes involving BCCI's lawyers that cried out for investigation and prosecution.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plea bargain relates to the question of double jeopardy or possible future prosecution of the bank. Justice Department officials repeatedly denied that the plea agreement between the U.S. Attorney in Tampa and BCCI did anything more than preclude that federal prosecutor's office from undertaking further action against BCCI. In no case, according to the Justice Department, did the entering of the plea by BCCI result in any limitation being placed on any other office of the Justice Department in investigating or prosecuting BCCI. As US Attorney Genzman testified:
The plea agreement contained relatively standard language, committing the US Attorney's office for our district not to prosecute BCCI for any other Federal criminal offense then known to the government. . . It does not prevent the US Attorney in Tampa, or any other prosecutor, state or federal, from prosecuting any individual from the President of BCCI on down. .. [Nor does it] bar any other prosecutors, state or federal, from prosecuting BCCI for offense. (66)
Genzman's first assistant, Greg Kehoe, added, the issue "had been discussed at length within the Department," and had concluded that it would not be an impediment.(67)
Notwithstanding the testimony of Genzman and Kehoe, the plea bargain apparently did cause double jeopardy problems for the only other federal prosecutor then looking into BCCI, the US Attorney in Miami, Dexter Lehtinen.
In testimony before the Subcommittee, Lehtinen, who in 1991 was set to indict BCCI on tax fraud charges, stated:
"By the middle of September (1991). . . I couldn't indict and we set the grand jury each Friday. . . [T]he statement made to use each Friday, was the statement made to us from the Department of Justice that you are blocked from bringing the indictment because of the Tampa plea and the Tampa double jeopardy. You can't do it, period. Nothing like lack of evidence."(68)
While the plea agreement did not technically bar any office of the Justice Department outside Tampa from prosecuting BCCI, the entrance of the plea by BCCI protected it on double jeopardy grounds from being prosecuted for any of the actions it took which arguably were included within the substance of the Tampa indictment. The exact extent of this coverage would in any subsequent indictment of BCCI have been a matter for substantial legal argument. What is significant about Lehtinen's testimony is that contrary to the statements of other Justice Department personnel, the Tampa plea did in fact interfere with further prosecution of BCCI. Justice Department statements to the contrary to the Congress were thus to that extent misleading.
Following the plea agreement, some Justice Department officials adopted an inexplicably benign attitude towards the bank, taking at least two separate actions to help BCCI. First, Justice Department officials asked another U.S. Attorney's office not involved in the negotiations to join in the plea agreement, and thereby be utterly barred from taking any further action against BCCI. Second, another Justice Department official asked state regulators in Florida, New York and California to keep BCCI open when they were considering closing it, and a few days later, on being asked to explain this request, denied having made it.
Each of these requests were made by the Justice Department officials involved at the explicit behest of BCCI's lawyers, who themselves were former prominent federal prosecutors. They raise the question of whether the revolving door, and personal relationships among prosecutors, may have influenced certain Justice Department officials to assist BCCI in contravention of sound public policies.
In January, 1990, after negotiating the plea agreement, at BCCI's request, the Tampa prosecutors entreated the US Attorney's office in Miami to join them.
This was an odd request. At the time, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had its own investigation of BCCI. It had not participated in the negotiations over the plea agreement and if it joined the Tampa plea it would be completely precluded from prosecuting BCCI further. Arguably, there could be some benefit to the Miami office for entering such a plea, in that it would facilitate that office's receipt of BCCI's cooperation in making cases against other criminals. On the other hand, BCCI was already legally required under its plea agreement with Tampa to provide such cooperation to the government on every matter. Obviously, the real beneficiary of Miami joining Tampa in the plea would be BCCI, whose attorneys were aggressively pushing the concept. As the then US Attorney for the southern district, Dexter Lehtinen, told the Subcommittee:
[In] the normal course of events, the defendant . . . in order to gain a benefit form a plea agreement, would want as much of the government estopped or barred from prosecuting again.(69)
According to Lehtinen, "In this particular case, we saw no benefit to the Government by our participation."(70) The Miami's office refused to join the plea agreement, which went forward without the Southern District of Florid's participation.
At the time of the plea agreement, BCCI's attorneys became aware of the possibility that BCCI's guilty plea on drug money laundering charges might well result in BCCI's closure by the various state banking regulatory agencies that had licensed it to do business in Florida, New York, and California. The BCCI lawyers pointed out to prosecutors that if BCCI were closed, it would be more difficult for BCCI to cooperate in making cases against other criminals. Accordingly, the attorneys asked the Tampa prosecutors to send a letter to the state regulators asking the regulators to keep the bank open.
Within the U.S. Attorney's offices, there was some sentiment that Justice should recommend BCCI should be closed down entirely. Dexter Lehtinen told the Subcommittee that "Tampa [the US Attorney for the Middle District of Florida] wanted to know our position with respect to BCCI's license, and that BCCI's lawyer's wanted to know . . . my position." According to Lehtinen, he told "both groups that we were of the opinion that a license should be in jeopardy if we made a successful prosecution."(71)
Despite US Attorney's Lehtinen's recommendation, US Attorney Genzman decided to adopt a neutral position regarding the revocation of the license. The Tampa prosecutors accordingly on January 31, 1990, wrote state regulators to advise them that the Tampa U.S. Attorney's office had no position whatsoever as to whether BCCI should be closed down, or stay open.
BCCI's lawyers, principally former federal prosecutors Lawrence Wechsler, Lawrence Barcella, and Raymond Banoun, dissatisfied with this result, decided to talk to others in the Justice Department to bring about a different result. Two weeks later, they achieved their goal. Chuck Saphos, head of the narcotics section of the Criminal Division of Justice in Washington, D.C., agreed to write a letter to the state regulators urging them to keep BCCI open. In return, BCCI would be able to cooperate with Justice.
BCCI's lawyers contacted the state regulators' office in Florida, and told the regulators that a letter would be coming from Washington, asking them to keep BCCI open. Soon afterwards, the letter did, in fact, arrive, signed by Saphos, stating that BCCI's cooperation was important to the Justice Department and that keeping it open would allow the Department to monitor BCCI's customer accounts:
"We are, therefore, requesting that BCCI be permitted to operate in your jurisdiction, with the understanding that certain accounts may be maintained by the bank, at the request of the Department of Justice, which otherwise would be closed to avoid legal and regulatory violations."(72)
In addition to the regulators, Saphos sent copies of his letters to the Federal Reserve, and to BCCI lawyers Banoun and Wechsler.
The rationale for keeping the bank open was in fact, very weak. First, there were like to be few significant drug money launderers still using BCCI following its highly publicized indictment in October, 1988. Second, to the extent such accounts existed at the time of the indictment, BCCI's lawyers had systematically sought to shut down them or refer them over to law enforcement as part of its consent decree entered into with the Federal Reserve in early 1989 as a result of the indictment. Finally, the plea agreement, and promise to cooperate with the government, would be as public as the indictments had been. It would be hard to imagine that any drug money launderers could still be enticed to use BCCI under such conditions. Saphos' letter had adopted BCCI's position about the case, rather than recognizing the true facts at the time.
In Florida, state regulators were baffled by the Saphos letter. They felt there was no logical reason to allow BCCI to continue to operate in Florida. The day after receiving the Saphos letter, Florida Comptroller Gerald Lewis wrote Saphos back in the following terms:
Thank you for your letter of February 13, 1990, requesting that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited ("BCCI") be permitted to continue operating in Florida as a state licensed foreign bank agency despite BCCI's guilty plea to money laundering charges . . . Because BCCI has pled guilty to felony charges, the ultimate decision of renewal becomes a difficult one. Your letter indicates that you may have information I should consider in resolving this matter. To this end, I invite you and any other appropriate Department of Justice officials to meet with me in Tallahassee on February 19, 1990.(73)
Saphos, although chief of the narcotics section, had little previous involvement with any aspect of the BCCI investigation or prosecution. His position that BCCI should be kept open had evidently not been approved by the Attorney General, or by anyone else at Justice. Accordingly, Saphos was in no position to travel to Tallahassee to explain why BCCI should be kept open. He immediately wrote Lewis back to change his position:
I must apologize if there was ambiguity in my letter of February 13, 1990, which led to a belief on your part that the Department of Justice wished to influence your decision on whether to permit BCCI to retain its license. The Department of Justice takes no position in that regard. The sole purpose of my letter was to indicate that, if you allow BCCI to continue in business, there may be occasions where the Department of Justice may request BCCI, pursuant to its obligations under the plea agreement, to make or continue a banking relationship with customers who are the subjects of criminal investigations. . . . I merely wanted to make certain that you and I were communicating concerning criminal investigations.(74)
Thus Saphos who had only three days earlier stated "we are therefore requesting that BCCI be permitted to operate in your jurisdiction," was now forced to state on the record that this was not the position of the Department of Justice, and to mischaracterize the position he had clearly taken to help BCCI in his earlier letter.
In testimony before the Subcommittee, Assistant Attorney General Mueller struggled to explain the circumstances surrounding the Saphos letters, admitting, "that first letter is ambiguous at best," and "I do not know what initiated it ..."(75)
Greg Kehoe, US Attorney Genzman's First Assistant testified that when he first learned about Saphos' letter to the state regulators, he was upset.(76) As Kehoe testified, "[O]bviously the attorneys for BCCI were talking to Mr. Saphos" and "[they] tried to go behind my back." Yet Kehoe, who negotiated the plea agreement, seemed indifferent to the incident, testifying that in his view, "Saphos' efforts were with the best intentions of law enforcement involved," while acknowledging that, "nothing surprises me in the murky world of criminal law enforcement."(77)
In testimony before the Subcommittee, US Attorney Genzman did little to clarify this bizarre chain of events. The US Attorney told the Subcommittee that "... in this case we told the Comptroller's office that we were taking no position" relative to the reissuing of BCCI's license to operate in Florida.
The obvious explanation for what happened is that Saphos was personally lobbied by people he knew who had formerly been with the Justice Department and now represented BCCI on the outside, and agreed to do them a favor. There is no record of any other person within the Justice Department signing off on Saphos' letter, and it appears likely that he sent it without the letter having gone through any formal approval process. When his recommendation to keep BCCI open became an issue, he retreated from it.
In April 1989, a network of Israeli arms traffickers, operating out of Miami, made a shipment of 500 Israeli manufactured machine guns through the Caribbean island of Antigua for the use of members of the Medellin cartel. Later, one of these weapons was used in the assassination of Colombian presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan, and several other of the weapons were found in the possession of cartel kingpin Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha after his death in a gunfight with Colombian drug agents.
The principals in the arms trafficking included Yair Klein, who had previously been identified in Colombian drug enforcement documents as involved in training paramilitary squads for the cocaine cartel in Medellin; Pinchas Shahar, an Israeli intelligence operative, and Maurice Sarfati, an Israeli "businessman" operating out of Miami and Paris.
The scandal broke after a broadcast by NBC News on August 21, 1989 about Klein's activities, and a Colombian judge charged Klein with having engaged in criminal conspiracy in training the private armies for the cartel. In the months that followed, the scandal extended to Antigua as well, an island with no substantial military force and no need for the 500 machine guns its foreign minister ordered from Israeli military industries.
Subsequent investigations of the affair, including one by the Government of Antigua conducted by a Washington attorney, Lawrence Barcella, left many questions unanswered. However, it became clear that the Antigua project had been outgrowth of the establishment of a "melon farm" by Sarfati in Antigua in 1983,
financed by the United States government through a $2 million loan from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), in part on the basis of financial references for the principals provided OPIC by BCCI.
Before providing the $2 million to Mr. Sarfati for his melon farm, OPIC requested financial references. Sarfati provided references from his principal bank, BCCI Miami. In a letter from its Miami office, BCCI advised OPIC on June 14, 1983 that Sarfati, "who is one of our valued customers" had a number of major accounts with BCCI.(71)
Ultimately, OPIC lost its entire investment in the melon farm and concluded that it had been defrauded by Sarfati. After filing suit against Sarfati, OPIC sold its remaining interest in the melon farm, at a loss of 50 cent on the dollar, to an Israeli businessman, Bruce Rappaport, and an entity owned by him called the Swiss American Bank. Rappaport, a confidante of former CIA director William Casey, was in this period also in frequent contact with BCCI's original U.S. contact, Bert Lance. Coincidentally, one of BCCI's principal board members, Alfred Hartmann, who was also chairman of BCCI's secretly-owned Swiss affiliate BCP, also sat on the board of another of Rappaport's banks.(72)
In 1990, when the Subcommittee sought records pertaining to Mr. Sarfati from BCCI, it was advised by lawyers for BCCI that the Sarfati accounts at BCCI were "missing." Additional investigative work later located most of the accounts pertaining to one of Sarfati's partners in the Antigua venture, Haim Polani, but the accounts of Sarfati and his businesses remained lost. BCCI Latin American and Caribbean Region (LACRO) documents now maintained at the Federal Reserve in Miami document millions in BCCI loans to various Sarfati businesses.
12. BCCI MADE EXTENSIVE USE OF THE REVOLVING DOOR AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE PEDDLING IN THE UNITED STATES TO ACCOMPLISH ITS GOALS.
BCCI's political connections in Washington had a material impact on its ability to accomplish its goals in the United States. In hiring lawyers, lobbyists and public relations firms in the United States to help it deal with its problems vis a vis the government, BCCI pursued a strategy that it had practiced successfully around the world: the hiring of former government officials.
BCCI's and its shareholders' cadre of professional help in Washington D.C. included, at various times, a former Secretary of Defense (Clark Clifford), former Senators and Congressmen (John Culver, Mike Barnes), former federal prosecutors (Larry Wechsler, Raymond Banoun, and Larry Barcella, a former State Department Official (William Rogers), a former White House aide (Ed Rogers), a current Presidential campaign deputy director (James Lake), and former Federal Reserve Attorneys (Baldwin Tuttle, Jerry Hawke, and Michael Bradfield). In addition, BCCI solicited the help of Henry Kissinger, who chose not to do business with BCCI but made a referral of BCCI to his own lawyers.
At several key points in BCCI's activities in the U.S., the political influence and personal contacts of those it hired had an impact in helping BCCI accomplish its goals, including in connection with the 1981 CCAH acquisition of FGB and the handling and aftermath of BCCI's plea agreement in Tampa in 1990.
The political connections of BCCI's U.S. lawyers and lobbyists were critical to impeding Congressional and law enforcement investigations from 1988 through 1991, through a variety of techniques that included impugning the motives and integrity of investigators and journalists, withholding subpoenaed documents, and lobbying on capital hill to protect BCCI's reputation and discourage efforts to close the bank down in the United States.
[Page: E1653]
- Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation which will establish a national commission on terrorism. This will be a bipartisan, national panel of experts with diverse skills and outlooks--highly respected people from across the political spectrum. The commission would be accountable to the President, to Congress, and to the American people.
- The purpose of the commission would be to take a close look at the problem of terrorism, including Middle Eastern-related terrorism, to study its origins and develop effective countermeasures and make recommendations to reshape our traditional policy on combating terrorism. A number of person could be considered as possible commissioners, and I've listed a few suggestions for starters on the enclosed list.
- The proposed bipartisan national commission will consist of 15 distinguished members, five each appointed by the President, and by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation with the Minority Leaders of the House and Senate. I believe that President George H.W. Bush, who is not only a former president and vice president, but also a former director of the CIA, would be an ideal chairman for the commission. The commissioners will include three Members of Congress and three Senators. The commission will have a duration of six months and will be given every means to deal quickly with this national problem, including access to classified information, travel funds to engage in on-the-spot investigations, and accompanying congressional hearings.
- A few weeks ago, 267 people lost their lives and more than 5,000 people were injured in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. Twelve of those who died were Americans.
- On August 20, President Clinton announced that the U.S. had determined a multimillionaire militant and terrorist kingpin, Osama Bin Ladin, was responsible for the attack. American forces bombed secret compounds and facilities linked to Bin Ladin in Afghanistan and Sudan that same day. While this response was proper and necessary, I believe we need to take another look at our nation's overall policy on terrorism. Bin Ladin is certainly not our only worry. Unfortunately, there are other groups are also known to be active in the area of terrorism.
- As the world's leader, America and its people are natural terrorist targets. Our military, industrial and commercial presence around the globe attracts frustration from many terrorist groups.
- But the problem is not limited to America alone. In Israel, Algeria, Egypt, and many other countries, terrorism has become an awful fact of life. A recent study in the Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International of all fatalities in international terrorist incidents in 1993-96 showed that three-quarters of the deaths from those attacks could be laid at the feet of the militant, fundamentalist groups.
- In my travels to many of these countries, I have seen firsthand the destruction that terrorism has inflicted on many innocent people. I visited Sudan on three different occasions, and saw the great instability that terrorist elements bring to a country when they are allowed to flourish. Over the July 1998 congressional recess, I visited Algeria, where 70,000 people have been killed by terrorists. I saw the fear and the sorrow that grips the people there as they have lost countless friends and loved ones in the violence in that nation. When I visited Lebanon after the horrible bombing in Beirut in 1983, I saw the Marine barracks that had been destroyed. On October 23, 1983, massive vehicle bombs devastated the headquarters of the U.S. Marine contingent, killing 241 U.S. Marines.
- After my recent trip to Algeria and with this latest attack on the embassies in East Africa, I am convinced that it is time to reevaluate American counterterrorist
- strategy. I say this not to be critical of what has already been done or of current efforts. Much is being accomplished by the intelligence community in this regard. They are doing a great job and are to be complimented. Still, terrorism is growing.
- Until now, we have been fortunate not to experience the full brunt of many terrorist attacks on our home soil. According to a recent article in the Economist, investigators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing concluded that those plotting the incident intended to cause one tower to topple onto the other and to kill up to 250,000 people. Fortunately, the attack was not as successful as planned.
- Some regions of the world are much more dangerous than others. Since 1983, more Americans have been killed by attacks perpetrated by terrorists either based in or connected to the Middle East than any other region of the world. In fact, the largest number of American lives lost to politically motivated violence since the end of the Vietnam War has been connected to Middle Eastern terrorism.
- A number of incidents have not yet been fully resolved. In some cases, the perpetrators remain unknown. In other cases, the perpetrators are known but have not yet been held accountable for their actions, or have taken refuge in other countries.
- Outstanding incidents are many. One of the most deadly years for terrorist violence was 1983, with bombing of the Beirut embassy in April and the Marine barracks in October. Five years later, Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed in flight over Scotland by a bomb, killing 259 persons on board, including 189 Americans, and 11 others on the ground. Experts say that although the culprits have been pinpointed, they are currently hiding in Libya and that nation is refusing to hand them over to authorities.
- More recently came the car bomb explosion in the parking lot of the Office of Program Manager/Saudi Arabian National Guard in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in November 1995, which killed seven people and wounded 42 others. Seven months later in that country, a fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dharan, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel.
- Unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum and their Pakistani driver in Karachi, Pakistan, in November 1997. Now we are facing the latest terrorist incident of the bombing of two American embassies in East Africa. But over these last 15 years, there have been many other terrorist attacks and American blood has been shed both at home and abroad.
- U.S. government agencies and private organizations have done valuable work to unearth the perpetrators of these crimes. Unfortunately, the potential for both an increased number of terrorist acts and for acts that can result in massive numbers of casualties is great and is growing.
- America, and the world, must be prepared for new and more deadly kinds of terrorism--nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction. The danger is growing as weapons of mass destruction become more accessible.
- The world watched in horror in March 1995, when the news came that members of a small religious sect had set off a nerve gas called sarin in the Tokyo subway. The incident killed 12 people and injured several thousand, but it was actually, like the World Trade Center, a botched job. When they investigated later, police found enough sarin in the sect's possession to kill millions of people.
- It is imperative that the United States assess the most effective ways of combating terrorism and that policymakers have the full spectrum of options at their disposal. This is what the National Commission on Terrorism will do. And it must do so quickly. The American people deserve to be fully informed on this issue in the face of a powerful and vicious adversary.
Robert Abrams, former attorney general, New York State; Fouad Ajami, professor at the School of Advanced International Studies Johns Hopkins University; Ed Badaloto, chairman of the International Association of Counterterrorism Professionals; Lawrence Barcella, former federal prosecutor; Paul Bremer, former head of counter-terrorism, Department of State; John Deutch, former director of the CIA; David Gavigan, assistant adjutant general, Massachusetts Army National Guard; Robin Higgins, Marine colonel; David Kay, Director of SAIC's Center of Counter-terrorism; and Jeane Kirkpatrick, former ambassador to the United Nations.
Andrew McCarthy, former chief prosecutor, World Trade Center bombing; Riad Nachef, head of the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects; Raphael Perl, Congressional Research Service; Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Steven Pomerantz, former assistant director of the FBI for counter-terrorism; George Shultz, former secretary of state; Glenn Schweizer, National Science Foundation; William Webster, former director of the FBI and CIA; Phil Wilcox, former coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department; and Jim Woosley, former director of the CIA.
(Note: This addendum is provided to illustrate the types of people who could serve on the commission and is by no means all-inclusive. There are many more individuals who are fully qualified to be on this commission.)
Part I. Introduction
Ted Sioeng, his family, and his business interests gave
$400,000 to the DNC during the 1996 election cycle. Through
extensive analysis of bank records, the Committee has
determined that at least half of this figure, or $200,000, was
made with money wired into the U.S. from accounts in Hong Kong.
Where this money ultimately came from and why it was used for
hefty political contributions are two questions the Committee
cannot answer conclusively. The reason is that Sioeng and his
family left the U.S. after the campaign finance scandal broke
and, through their lawyers, indicated they are unwilling to
talk. The one family member who remains in the United States,
Sioeng's daughter Jessica Elnitiarta, was interviewed in June
1997 by Committee staff but, since then, has indicated she
would assert the Fifth Amendment if compelled to testify. \1\
However, the Committee developed documentary and circumstantial
evidence as to the answers to the aforementioned questions.
That evidence is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Steven R. Ross and Mark J. MacDougall to The
Honorable Fred Thompson, September 17, 1997. (Ex. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many senses, the story of Ted Sioeng is a microcosm of
the Committee's investigation. Sioeng is a wealthy Belize
citizen in his early fifties who, prior to the campaign finance
scandal, spent brief periods in the United States. Sioeng
controls a multinational business empire that appears to
generate substantial income, though not much of it within this
country. Sioeng has ties to the Government of China, but their
full extent is unknown. Despite making modest political
contributions in 1992, 1993, and 1994 in this country, Sioeng
became a major player in 1995 through a series of large
contributions made by him, his family, and his business
interests to a variety of candidates and political entities,
but mostly to the DNC. The contributions earned Sioeng
invitations to lavish fund-raisers attended by President
Clinton or Vice President Gore. The contributions, in some
cases, were made with foreign money.
Ted Sioeng became known to the Committee early in its
investigation. The first press interest in Sioeng stemmed from
his presence at DNC fund-raisers.\2\ Since that time, the
Committee has learned of Sioeng's connections to other key
figures in its investigation, including Maria Hsia and John
Huang, as well as his attendance at several DNC fund-raisers.
In the year leading up to the 1996 elections, Sioeng attended
four major DNC fund-raisers, each of which Huang had a hand in
organizing. To each event, Sioeng brought family members and/or
business associates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Richard T. Cooper, ``How DNC Got Caught in a Donor
Dilemma; Desire for Dollars to Boost Clinton's Reelection Bid Helped
Fuel Democrats' Pursuit of an Emerging Money Source--Asian Americans
with Strong Overseas Ties,'' Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1996, p.
A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sioeng attended the February 19, 1996 Asian Pacific
American Leadership Council fund-raiser at the Hay-Adams Hotel
in Washington, D.C. This was the first major DNC event
organized by Huang. On April 29, 1996, Sioeng attended a fund-
raising luncheon at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles,
California, where he sat next to Vice President Gore. On May
13, 1996, Sioeng attended a dinner for President Clinton at the
Sheraton Carlton in Washington, D.C. where, again, he was
seated at the head table. Two months later, on July 22, 1996,
Sioeng and 48 friends and/or business associates attended a DNC
fund-raiser for President Clinton at the Century Plaza Hotel in
Los Angeles. At dinner, Sioeng sat to President Clinton's
immediate right. To the President's left was James Riady and
his wife Aileen.
The Committee's interest in Sioeng is not related solely to
his attendance at DNC events. It stems also from Sioeng's
relationships with Huang and Hsia, as well as the Chinese
government, and it has been piqued by the evidence that some of
Sioeng's political contributions were made with foreign money.
Sioeng's relationship to the Government of the People's
Republic of China has been the subject of press speculation
since early 1997.\3\ Based on its own investigation, as
discussed more fully elsewhere in the report,\4\ the Committee
has learned that Sioeng worked, and perhaps still works, on
behalf of the Chinese government. Sioeng regularly communicated
with PRC embassy and consular officials at various locations in
the United States, and, before the campaign finance
investigation broke, he traveled to Beijing frequently where he
reported to and was briefed by Chinese communist party
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., Mark Hosenball, ``On the Trail of a `China
Connection' '' Newsweek, March 10, 1997, p. 30 (noting Sioeng's
``close'' connections to the PRC consulate in Los Angeles); Daniel
Klaidman and Mark Hosenball, ``The Feds Explore a China-California
Money Trail,'' Newsweek, April 28, 1997, p. 40 (``The Sioeng money
transfer is the first `verifiable, direct link to the People's Republic
of China,' one investigator told Newsweek.''); K. Connie Kang and David
Rosenzweig, ``Entrepreneur Formed Ties to China, then Politicians,''
Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1997, p. A1 (discussing Sioeng's business
and political ties to China in context of allegations that he is
``working as Beijing's political operative in the United States'');
Daniel Klaidman, ``Cracking a Chinese Code,'' Newsweek, June 9, 1997,
p. 46 (citing information from ``federal investigators'' that Sioeng
was chosen as the ``West Coast Representative'' in the U.S. by the
Chinese communist party).
\4\ See the chapter of this report entitled ``The China
Connection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sioeng story is a microcosm because it is a tale of
foreign money and, possibly, foreign influence. One familiar
refrain encountered by the Committee during its efforts to
uncover the Sioeng story was a series of obstacles separating
investigators from the truth behind Sioeng's political
activities. Most of what the Committee has learned about Sioeng
derives from bank records the Committee subpoenaed, an
interview with Sioeng's daughter, Jessica Elnitiarta,
information provided to the Committee by Sioeng's attorneys,
and references to Sioeng in other documents produced to the
Committee. The investigation, though, has been hampered by the
unavailability of witnesses and their unwillingness to speak to
Committee staff. As noted, Sioeng and most of his family have
left the country. Elnitiarta has remained behind but has
asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege, as have the two
Democratic fund-raisers, Huang and Hsia, with apparent ties to
the family. Moreover, business associates of Sioeng generally
proved unhelpful. Early in the investigation, Committee staff
spoke to Sioeng's friend and business associate Kent La,\5\ but
he also would not appear voluntarily for a deposition. The
Majority attempted to compel La's testimony, but the Minority
objected to the subpoena. For months, Sioeng's attorneys held
out the promise that Sioeng would agree to be interviewed at a
location outside the United States. That promise was not kept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum of Interview of Kent La, May 14, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The balance of this section is divided into two parts. Part
II discusses Ted Sioeng, his family, and his business
interests. Only those activities relevant to the Committee's
investigation are discussed. Part III examines the major
political contributions made by Sioeng, his family, and his
business interests during the 1996 election cycle. Through an
analysis of bank records produced to the Committee, an attempt
is made to trace the origins of these various contributions.
One conclusion the Committee has drawn is that much of the
money contributed by Sioeng and his family is traceable to
foreign sources--pecifically, bank accounts in Hong Kong. This
is significant because such contributions are illegal.\6\ Most
of these contributions were to the DNC, which purported to
investigate the same and concluded the contributions were legal
and proper.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e.
\7\ DNC spokeswoman Amy Weiss Tobe was reported as saying the party
decided not to return the Sioeng family contributions because Jessica
Elnitiarta is a legal permanent resident of the United States and that
Sioeng himself had not contributed to the DNC. Paul Jacobs and Dan
Morain, ``State Treasurer Sends Back Campaign Contributions that May
Have Originated in China,'' Los Angeles Times, April 23, 1997, p. A3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II. Sioeng's Activities Here and Abroad
A. Sioeng and his businesses
Ted Sioeng, originally from Indonesia, is a citizen of
Belize who splits his time between Singapore and Hong Kong.
Sioeng's daughter, Jessica Elnitiarta, is a permanent resident
alien who came to the United States in 1986.\8\ Most of her
family (excluding her father) are now permanent resident
aliens. Other family members once or currently in the United
States are her sisters Laureen, and Sandra, her brothers Yopi
and Yohan, and her mother.\9\ The Sioeng/Elnitiarta family
speaks Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), Bahasa, and some
English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Unless otherwise indicated, the information contained in Part
II of this discussion derives from an interview of Jessica Elnitiarta
conducted by the Committee on June 19, 1997. See Memorandum of
Interview of Jessica Elnitiarta, Sept. 18, 1997.
\9\ The Committee has learned that all of Sioeng's family has left
the country except Jessica and possibly Yopi. The others have gone to
Hong Kong. Parenthetically, the family uses Elnitiarta, not Sioeng, as
its surname. Elnitiarta is the mother's maiden name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the marriage of his daughter, Ted Sioeng's family
is related to the Tanuwidjajas, a family with substantial
business interests in Indonesia.10 Sioeng's
daughter, Laureen, married Subandi Tanuwidjaja, son of Susanto
Tanuwidjaja, in March 1996. Subandi has been identified as ``an
Indonesian menswear manufacturer.'' 11 John Huang, a
self-professed friend of the Tanuwidjaja family, asked the
White House for a letter congratulating Laureen and Subandi on
the occasion of their marriage.12 Huang may have
become acquainted with the Tanuwidjaja's when he worked with
Susanto Tanuwidjaja at the Lippo Bank's San Francisco
office.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Although the Committee knows little about the Tanuwidjaja's
business holdings, here or elsewhere, FEC records indicate that Subandi
Tanuwidjaja is an architect in Diamond Bar, CA and Suryanti is a
writer/producer in La Habra Heights, California.
\11\ George Archibald, ``Democrats Disclose Big Contributors,''
Washington Times, October 30, 1996, p. A13.
\12\ Facsimile from John Huang to Anne Edder, March 6, 1996. (Ex.
2).
\13\ See Deposition of Diane Poon, April 30, 1997, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sioeng's business empire is centered in Asia. Most of the
businesses are in greater China, Macao, and Cambodia. The
family has owned or currently owns several businesses in the
PRC, including a beer factory, a rebuilt machinery factory, and
a portion of a hotel (in the Yunnan province). Currently, the
family's main business is a cigarette manufacturing and
distribution operation in Singapore, which is run by Chinois, a
partnership between Sioeng, Hong Kong businessman Bruce Ceung,
and several companies. Chinois manufactures and distributes Red
Pagoda Mountain (``Hong Ta Shen'') cigarettes. It holds
manufacturing and distribution rights granted by the PRC
government, and is obligated to purchase raw materials for the
cigarettes from a government factory in Yu Xi, located in the
Yunnan province.
The family has a growing U.S. business presence presided
over by Jessica Elnitiarta. The family holdings and interests
include:
International Daily News, a Chinese language daily in
Los Angeles. The paper is discussed in more detail in
the section that follows;
Metropolitan Hotel, a hotel and restaurant
in Los Angeles;
Pacific Motel, a modest establishment in the
Los Angeles area;
Panda Estates, a real estate firm that owns
Doheny Estates, comprised of luxury rental townhouses
in Beverly Hills. The family purchased Doheny in 1993
in a foreclosure sale, and completed construction on
the townhouses in 1995;
Panda Industries, an import export business;
Loh Sun International, a company that
distributes Red Pagoda Mountain cigarettes in the
United States. Jessica Elnitiarta told the Committee
that the family does not ``control'' Loh Sun, but
simply does business with it. However, in a brief phone
interview conducted in May 1997, Loh Sun's president
and registered agent, Kent La, indicated that Jessica
Elnitiarta is his supervisor; 14 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Committee staff's telephone interview with Kent La took
place on May 13, 1997. During the interview, La indicated Jessica
Elnitiarta is his boss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand National Bank, located in Alhambra,
California. Jessica, Sandra, and Laureen Elnitiarta are
investors in the bank and own approximately 19 percent
of its outstanding stock. Jessica first purchased Grand
National Bank stock in 1992 and owns 100,000 shares.
Laureen and Sandra each own 45,000 shares, which they
purchased in November 1995. It appears that most of the
family's business and personal accounts are held at the
Grand National Bank.
Sioeng provides the working capital for all of his U.S.
businesses, which receive regular cash infusions through
transfers of funds from overseas accounts. Jessica told the
Committee that the sources of Sioeng's funds are his businesses
abroad. The cash infusions typically originate in Hong Kong,
where funds are wired to the Grand National Bank account of
Sioeng's sister, Yanti Ardi. The money is then distributed to
various business or family accounts as necessary. Jessica, who
holds power of attorney for Yanti Ardi's account, controls
distribution of the money. Sioeng regularly provides such
funds, although Panda Estates and Metropolitan Hotel have
generated a non-trivial amount of cash flow.
B. International Daily News
In October 1995, Sioeng and his family contracted to
purchase the International Daily News, a Chinese-language
newspaper in Los Angeles. They paid between $3 and $4 million
for the paper, making payments over the next several months.
The purchase was consummated on July 1, 1996.
The paper was paid for largely through checks written on
one of Yanti Ardi's accounts at the Grand National Bank.
Between October 1995 and July 1996, some $2,590,000 was
transferred from Ardi's account to the International Daily News
and C. International Publications, the company that owns the
paper itself. Almost all of the purchase money appears to
derive from businesses located in Hong Kong. These businesses,
Victory Trading Company, Pristine Investments Limited, and R T
Enterprises Limited, also funded some of the Sioeng family's
political contributions, as is discussed below.
It is not entirely clear why the Sioeng family purchased
the paper. Jessica recounted that buying the paper was Sioeng's
idea (in consultation with Jessica, who ended up overseeing
it). Sioeng had been a significant advertiser for the paper and
was close to the former owner (Chen), who started lobbying
Sioeng to buy it back in 1993. According to Jessica, Sioeng
purchased the paper because (i) it would enhance the family's
standing in the local community, (ii) it was cheap, and (iii)
there were tax advantages to assuming the paper's debt.
Another explanation is that Sioeng purchased the paper with
the approval of or otherwise to please the Chinese government.
Prior to its purchase, the International Daily News was a pro-
Taiwan publication. According to Newsweek, ``Now the paper is
breathlessly pro-Beijing.'' 15 Newsweek goes on to
report from its sources that Sioeng's purchase of the paper may
have been encouraged or even bankrolled by the
PRC.16 In any event, since the purchase, the paper
has consistently lost money and is subsidized by Sioeng with
funds from overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Daniel Klaidman and Mark Hosenball, ``Connecting the Dots,''
Newsweek, April 28, 1997, p. 40.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a June 1996 letter to Sioeng, President Clinton praised
the International Daily News for ``faithfully report[ing] both
local and international issues'' and for being ``part of the
lasting heritage of the Chinese-American community.''
17 John Huang arranged for the letter at Jessica's
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Letter from President Clinton to Ted Sioeng, June 20, 1996.
(Ex. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has learned that the Sioeng family owns the
International Daily News through a series of companies. The
newspaper is owned by Chen International Publications (U.S.A.),
Inc., a California company in turn owned by Sioeng's Group,
Inc. Sioeng's Group, Inc. was described by Sioeng's attorneys
as a holding company owned by Jessica Elnitiarta, her four
siblings, and their mother. Jessica holds the largest share and
is the sole director and officer of the company. Jessica also
serves as the Secretary and CFO of Chen International. Sieong
Fei Man is the newspaper's general manager.
In addition to purchasing the paper, Sioeng, it appears,
supplements its operations with cash infusions. While it is not
clear whether the International Daily News generates a
substantial cash flow for Sioeng, it is apparent he has
supplemented its income and that he has done so with money
transferred from Hong Kong accounts.
C. Sioeng's political contributions
Since 1992, but starting in earnest during the 1996
election cycle, Sioeng and his family have become prolific
political contributors. The Committee has been able to
determine that Sioeng, his family, and his business interests
have made the following contributions to political candidates,
parties, and affiliated non-profit entities: 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ There may be other contributions about which the Committee is
unaware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date From To Amount
---------------------------------------------------------