Showing posts with label 2d Circuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2d Circuit. Show all posts

Saturday, July 13, 2019

UN Briber Patrick Ho In Appeal Reveals More Lobbying In UN For China Met Croatia President Grabar-Kitarović, Still No Audit by SG Guterres


By Matthew Russell Lee, VideoScope Audio
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 13 – Patrick Ho was sentenced to 36 months in jail on March 25 for UN bribery and having "sold weapons enthusiastically," along with a $400,000 fine imposed by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Loretta Preska. 

During his trial, covered every day by Inner City Press which was and is banned from entering the UN amid its reporting linking current UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to the scandal through the Gulbenkian Foundation from his he received payments undisclosed on his public financial form covering 2016, an audio clip was played for the jury, see below.

  Now in mid July Ho has filed his appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While Inner City Press is still pouring over the hundreds of pages in the Appendices, including many exhibits which the U.S. Attorney's Office never despite requests made available, even the first day of review finds that Patrick Ho met through the UN, among others, Croatia's President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović (to go along with CEFC's purchase of the Czech Republic as then chair of UN ECOSOC) and the foreign minister of Turkey. We'll have more on this - note that the Guterres-supporting UN Correspondents Association had a First Vice President then as now promoting the Turkish government.

 There is also this line from Ho's report to Ye on his UN lobbying at the highest levels: We, China Energy Fund Committee, are willing to provide support and assistance in the selection of programs and topics by the United Nations. In return, hopes that they would give more consideration to the China factor and more voices to China when formulating programs.”  
 So how is is possible that Antonio Guterres has refused to even begin a UN Office of Internal Oversight Services of CEFC China Energy's lobbying and bribery in the UN? When CEFC sought to pay Gulbenkian Foundation which made undisclosed payments to Guterres? Inner City Press, now banned by Guterres from entering the UN for 375 days and counting, will have more, much more, on this.
  Inner City Press has also reported on CEFC's Ye giving an expensive diamond to Hunter Biden who was with UN World Food Program USA, here. We'll have more on this, too.
  On May 31, there were sealed filings to the SDNY court in the Ho case, filed in the vault. What might they be? Inner City Press has asked the US about any process or request to transfer Ho. They say he is still in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan:
CHI PING PATRICK HO Age: 69  Sex: Male Located at: New York MCC 
 Here was the "sealing" notice:
The following transaction was entered on 5/31/2019 at 2:44 PM EDT and filed on 5/30/2019  Case Name:    USA v. Ho Case Number:    1:17-cr-00779-LAP Filer:     Document Number:    232(No document attached) Docket Text:  SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (rz)
  Moves are afoot in the pro-China leadership of Hong Kong to spring Ho free from U.S. prison - a request it would seem Guterres and his UN would support, if only quietly. (In the interim Guterres visited China and didn't to Xi raise the Uighurs, much less China's repeated bribery in his UN.) Hong Kong New People's Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee urged Chief Executive Carrie Lam  to file a request to the United States to transfer Ho to Hong Kong to serve the remainder of his sentence.  "According to my understanding, if the three sides - namely Hong Kong, the United States and Ho - agree, he can be transferred to Hong Kong or sent to a hospital, so that he won't suffer that much," Ip said.  Lam said she would consider Ip's suggestion.  "I will ask the Secretary for Security [John Lee Ka-chiu] to study the arrangement with the United States and our legal basis, whether it's us or the person involved who should make the request," Lam said. And if the UN supports, who would oppose this as it should be opposed? We'll have more on this.
  In the audio clip, Ho discusses offering bribes to now deceased UN President of the General Assembly John Ashe, with Sheri Yan. Inner City Press is today uploading that audio, here.
  Yan pled guilty to bribing Ashe as part of the Ng Lap Seng UN bribery trial, which Inner City Press asked covered daily before it was roughed up and banned from the UN by Guterres. But now Yan in a prison novel and craven revisionist profile by Kirsty Needham, China correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, is claiming: "A related UN bribery investigation involving Ashe netted another conviction in March, with former Hong Kong politician Patrick Ho sentenced to three years.  Yan says she met Ho at a conference in Hong Kong she attended as chief executive of Ashe’s Global Sustainability Foundation. They later attended a public dinner in New York. They have “politely” spoken a few times.  “I did meet him – that is all.  "To say I am working with him to influence the UN is a very wrong statement.'" Apparently The Age has not heard the extended audio of Yan and Ho discussing quid pro quo bribery of Ashe. SMH - shaking my head. We'll have more on this.  
  Back on March 25, Inner City Press asked Patrick Ho's defense lawyer Edward Y. Kim if he will appeal. We are considering our options, Kim said. Post-sentencing Periscope video here.
  Inner City Press immediately emailed a question to the UN and Guterres and his spokesmen on March 25, and on March 26, and on March 27, this: "March 27-3: On UN bribery, on March 25 Patrick Ho of the China Energy Fund Committee was sentenced to 36 months in prison and a $400,000 fine for his UN bribery; in today's proceeding Ho was described as using a UN NGO to "sell weapons enthusiastically." What now is SG Antonio Guterres' comment and action? Will he now begin an audit of CEFC in the UN?  What is the SG's comment and response to this 22 minute documentary about Patrick Ho and CEFC's bribes through the UN including Mr. Guterres' refusal to answer Inner City Press' question on it on 5 December 2018 at Min 17.  Again, the  sentencing memorandum includes quotes from his e-mails regarding aiming to violate sanctions and deal in arms not only to Chad but also South Sudan, Libya & Qatar. What is the SG's comment and action? Again, why has no audit even been begun of CEFC, at least like the one Mr. Guterres' predecessor did of Ng Lap Seng's Sun Kian Ip Foundation? Why did Mr Guterres omit payments from Gulbenkian Foundation, which sought to sell its oil company Partex to CEFC China Energy, from his public financial disclosure covering 2016? Where are the more recent public financial disclosures - has Mr. Guterres ended that program? Why?"
  On March 28 this came in from the UN and we publish it in full: "On your question March 27-3, we can say that the Organization takes note of the sentencing of Mr. Chi Ping Patrick Ho to 36 months’ imprisonment and a US$400,000 fine. The UN has cooperated extensively in this matter by making thousands of pages of documents available and providing access to its personnel." What about an audit? Why hasn't Guterres disclosed his own financial links? We'll have more on this, and on his and the UN's censorship.
  During the sentencing proceeding it was said that Ho had, in the MCC, mentored another inmate sentenced by Preska. (The odds of that need to be calculated.) The MCC bought Ho a violin; Richenthal said Ho had hidden and liquidated a Swiss bank account while incarcerated. While no Supervised Release was ordered, with the understanding that Ho will be removed from the U.S. once his sentence is up, it has emerged that Ho's passport has expired and has not been renewed. We'll have more on this. 
  While UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was refusing throughout 2018 to begin any UN audit into China Energy Fund Committee, implicated in the UN bribery prosecution US v Patrick Ho, Guterres had a secret: his role on the board of Gulbenkian Foundation which was trying to sell its Partex Oil affiliate to CEFC. See Inner City Press' first exclusive report here.
   Now later of March 25 Ho is set to be sentenced by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Preska. In the run up, RTHK Television in Hong Kong has broadcast a 21 minute documentary, complete with Guterres refusing to answer Inner City Press' questions about the verdict, here at Minute 17. With 300,000 views in Chinese, it is set to be re-released in English after the sentencing.
  While Guterres continues to ban from entry the Press which asked him about his CEFC links, now in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York the sentencing of Patrick Ho, long set for March 14, has been pushed back to March 25. Now the government has filed its sentencing submission, asking for at east five years imprisonment and a fine of $400,000. It notes Ho's own emails saying that it is the Belt and Road Initiative that is up for sentencing / implicated: " In one email, for example, he stated: “Please tell SH [i.e., Shanghai, the headquarters of CEFC China] that we need solidarity most at this time, and cannot be divided. . . . Please tell SH, if we are on the same line, with their support, I will fight to the very end. For it is not only HO who is on trial, it is [CEFC NGO], the Company, Country and Chinese values are on trial.” And in a phone call, he stated that “they,” apparently referring to the Government, are using him to get to the “big tiger,” and to discredit “The Belt and Road,” an initiative of the Chinese government." But it is the UN too, so corrupted under Guterres there has yet to be an audit of CEFC in the UN, its business with other PGAs and UN officials, its invitation to Peter Thomson and others - and its attempt to buy the oil company of Gulbenkian Foundation which paid money to Guterres. Here from the sentencing submission is an indication of whom and what these UN officials do business with: " the defendant sent his assistant an email stating, “I am going to BJ [i.e., Beijing] this Friday to see [the Chairman of CEFC NGO and CEFC China] on Sat afternoon. The documents I want to send him before hand in separate items are: . . . 7. Iranian connection (brief).”7  Other items in the numbered list included “[a] few PR items in the US with photo of PGA Kutesa,” “Chad President Report (brief),” “Croatia Oil company,” “PAZ Oil company,” and “Husky Oil team (Canada).” On the same date, the defendant sent his assistant another email, attaching a document, which stated, in pertinent part: 7) Iranian Connection . . . Iran has money in a Bank in china which is under sanction. Iran wishes to purchase precious metal with this money. The precious metal is available through a Bank in HK which cannot accept money from the Bank in China which holds the money but is under sanction. The Iranian agent is looking for a Chinese company acting as a middle man in such transactions and will pay commission. (details to be presented orally) The Iranian connection has strong urge to establish trading relationship with us in oil and products . . . . The following year, in June 2015, the defendant received an email that stated, in pertinent part: “The Iranian team will arrive in BJ . . . . See the attached.” The attachment referenced in the email was a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Presentation to Potential Partners Iran Petroleum Investments'"... an individual sent the defendant an email, stating, “I have the list and end user agreement. Pls advise next step.” On the same day, the defendant replied, in pertinent part, “Find a way to pass them onto me and we can execute that right away[].” The individual replied, “Attached. [W]e have the funding and processing mechanisms in place. If it works nice there will be much more. Also for S. Sudan.” The attachment to this email was a document entitled “End User Certificate,” certifying that the user of the goods in question would be the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Libya. The goods listed on the document included numerous arms, including “mortar rounds,” “ammunition,” “anti-tank . . . launcher,” “rocket launchers,” and “grenade launchers.” The following month, the defendant sent an email that stated in pertinent part: “It so turns out Qatar also needs urgently a list of toys from us. But for the same reason we had for Libya, we cannot sell directly to them. Is there a way you could act as an intermediary in both cases?” The person whom the defendant emailed replied: “Qatar good chance bc there is no embargo. Libya is another case bc going against an embargo is tricky.” The defendant responded: “Qatar needs new toys quite urgently. Their chief is coming to China and we hope to give them a piece of good news. Please confirm soonest.” Weapons, new toys for Qatar, the offer of weapons to Chad for oil - all through the UN, unaudited by SG Guterres with his own conflict of interest and financial connection to CEFC. We'll have more on this. Ho  filed a more than one hundred page sentencing submission, the memo accompanying which says "Beginning in 2013, the CEFC Think Tank also held annual symposia at the United Nations (“UN”) devoted to issues raised at the most recent annual political convention in China. In addition, the CEFC Think Tank, in consultation with the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (“UN-DESA”), established and funded the “Powering the Future We Want” grant—an annual $1 million award for a promising sustainable energy project (the “Energy Grant”). The CEFC Think Tank donated approximately $2 million to the UN every year to fund the prize and its administration." And yet Guterres has never audited this, choosing instead to rough up and ban the Press which asked him why he wouldn't audit (the answer seems to be Guterres' paid position with the Gulbenkian Foundation which tried to sell its oil company to CEFC). Ho's sentencing submission index  lists Frederick Tschernutter and former Shell Oil CEO John D. Hofmeister. UNSG Antonio Guterres, of course, has refused to audit Ho's CEFC's activities in the amid his conflict of interest and censorship. In the UN Committee on Non Governmental Organizations on January 21 the US belatedly requested the suspension or dis-accreditation of CEFC from the UN. This is what Guterres has refused to act on for more than a year, while concealing his links to the group. CEFC was given until Friday, January 25 to answer on the issues. The acting chief of the UN NGO branch on Friday afternoon said it had not responded. Pakistan and Russia raised questions if this meant that as a matter of precedent it should have its status withdrawn. On January 28 following a written inquiry by Inner City Press a self-described diplomat on the NGO committee confirmed that "the NGO Committee recommended that ECOSOC consultative status be withdrawn for CEFC.  ECOSOC will decide whether to approve the NGO Committee’s recommendation at its June 2019 ECOSOC management meeting." So they're still in. Guterres' cover up of his link to the group remains unaddressed - with no answers from his spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and for this entire week, Farhan Haq. We'll have more on this.
 Inner City Press on the morning of January 21 wrote to Guterres, Alison Smale and their spokesmen: "January 21-1: Please immediately provide the SG's response on the request made this morning in the UN NGO Committee to disaccredit China Energy Fund Committee whose Patrick Ho was indicted and convicted of UN bribery, explain why SG Guterres never even started a OIOS audit of CEFC and why he omitted his paid directorship in Gulbenkian Foundation from his UN Public Financial Disclosure form covering 2016, and on Gulbenkian trying to sell its Partex Oil to CEFC China Energy in 2018." There's been no answer - as there have been no answers from Guterres and Smale and Dujarric for two weeks despite promises to UNSR David Kaye and on camera. And the UN's "meeting summary" omitted even Patrick Ho's name, much less the UNSG Guterres never audited CEFC as it tried to buy Partex Oil from the Gulbenkian Foundation Guterres was a paid board member of while omitting it from his public financial disclosure covering 2016. Here is the entirety of the UN meetings coverage on this: "The representative of the United States, expressing regret that some organizations come to the United Nations to perpetrate fraudulent and illicit activities, said her delegation wrote to the Committee last week requesting that the special consultative status granted in 2011 to the China Energy Fund Committee be withdrawn, after one of its officials was convicted by a United States federal court in November 2018 on corruption, money laundering and conspiracy charges.  The Committee must take prompt action, she said, adding that if the organization in question wishes to respond, it should do so before 25 January." 
  Inner City Press also wrote to three at the US Mission to the UN: "I noticed in the UN NGO Committee this morning that USUN belatedly requested a review of China Energy Fund Committee, whose Patrick Ho was indicted for UN bribery, FCPA and money laundering in 2017, convicted in 2018.    This is a Press request for a copy of the USUN statement read out in the NGO Committee, for the materials reference there in and distributed to Committee members, and for the Mission's / Amb Cohen's and Amb. Currie's comment on it, why it took so long, and on UNSG Antonio Guterres having not disclosed his paid directorship of Gulbenkian Foundation in his UN Public Financial Disclosure form covering 2016 and refusal to start any OIOS audit of CEFC, which was trying to buy Partex Oil and Gas from Gulbenkian in 2018.     Also, on Guterres and Alison Smale's ongoing ban on US-based investigative Inner City Press even entering the UN, without hearing or appeal, see 2 January 2019 Kaska-eque denial of accreditation, below." USUN Spokesperson John Degory responded, so far, with the text of Deputy Rep to ECOSOC Courtney Nemroff's remarks including: "Last week, we sent a Diplomatic Note to the Committee’s outgoing Chair and to all members of this Committee with our request that this Committee recommend withdrawing the ESOCOC special consultative status of the NGO China Energy Fund Committee, or CEFC, which was granted in 2011.  This request was carefully considered and is being made in the first session of this Committee following the conviction of an individual in U.S. federal court on serious criminal charges relating to his use of the organization as a platform for criminal activity, the details of which are provided in the Diplomatic Note. It is a shame to see an NGO subvert and manipulate its ECOSOC accreditation in this manner, so it is with deep disappointment that we bring this situation to the attention of the Committee today. We are making this request before the full Committee in the full interest in due diligence, transparency, and openness. We believe it is important that the Committee carry out its responsibility to protect and ensure the continued integrity of the ECOSOC accreditation process by taking prompt action to address this case.  CEFC is registered in both Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and in the State of Virginia in the United States as a not-for-profit or charitable organization. CEFC received ECOSOC special consultative status in 2011.  On December 5, 2018, a jury in a Manhattan federal court found Chi Ping Patrick Ho, CEFC’s Deputy Chairman and Secretary General, guilty of taking part in a multi-year, multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe foreign leaders in exchange for business advantages for CEFC China Energy a Shanghai-based corporate entity that was the primary financial benefactor of the CEFC. Mr. Ho was convicted of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, international money laundering, and conspiracy to commit both. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, he utilized CEFC’s ECOSOC special consultative status to access UN resources and people and advance commercial goals, including through bribery schemes. We also have been unable to document any activity by this organization out of its Virginia-based location since Mr. Ho’s arrest in 2016, and note that it has not filed the requisite tax documents required of not-for-profit organizations in the United States since that date. We have provided all NGO Committee members with further details on the case, including a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice on the conviction, and are prepared to provide member states with any additional information they may require.  ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 governs the process for ECOSOC consultative status. Article 57(a) of 1996/31 stipulates that the consultative status of non-governmental organizations shall be suspended up to three years or withdrawn “if an organization, either directly or through its affiliates or representatives acting on its behalf, clearly abuses its status by engaging in a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”  Article 57(b) of 1996/31 further stipulates that consultative status be suspended up to three years or withdrawn “if there exists substantiated evidence of influence from proceeds resulting from internationally recognized criminal activities such as the illicit drugs trade, money-laundering or the illegal arms trade.”  In view of the conviction of Mr. Ho on money laundering charges and the use of the organization for criminal activity and bribery activities that involved the use of the organization’s consultative status and other organizational resources, the United States has determined that a request to withdraw consultative status in accordance with Article 57 of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 is appropriate and necessary. We believe the Committee has a responsibility to ensure that ECOSOC special consultative status is not misused as a platform for criminal activity.  We understand, per ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, that CEFC has the right to respond to the request to recommend withdrawal of its consultative status. We request that the Secretariat inform CEFC of its right to respond immediately. We further request that if CEFC chooses to respond, that the Secretariat request it do so before the tenth meeting of this Committee on Friday, January 25, to then allow this Committee sufficient time to consider the U.S. request further. We also remain prepared to provide additional information regarding this matter to the Secretariat, and encourage the Committee and the Secretariat to handle all proceedings in this case as openly and transparently as possible." But will the US administration, or if necessary individual members of Congress, ensure that Guterres is held accountable for the cover up and proliferation of corruption and censorship during his tenure? CEFC has until January 25 to respond. China did not respond in the ill-attended Committee meeting which Inner City Press, banned from entry by Guterres, never the less covered. Watch this site.
  Inner City Press continues its exclusive series on some of the CEFC connections in and through the UN that should have been identified in the audit that Guterres corruptly refused to begin, with his conflict of interest. (Even his predecessor Ban Ki-moon ordered an audit after Ng Lap Seng was indicted - Guterres still hasn't after Patrick Ho was convicted.)
  One of the people identified in the Ban Ki-moon audit of Ng Lap Seng and South South News was Ion Botnaru. He was allowed to retire, after changing a UN General Assembly document along with then President of the General Assembly John Ashe, who died under indictment ostensibly crushed by his own barbell, to benefit Ng's Sun Kian Ip group. Botnaru reappears again with CEFC, here. And, crying out for audit, the President of the General Assembly who swore in Guterres, Peter Thomson of Fiji, traveled like Ashe and Vuk Jeremic and Sam Kutesa to meet CEFC's Ye Jianming in Hong Kong. 
  Inner City Press has asked Guterres and his spokespeople, among many other questions, "Beyond the 37 questions from Inner City Press you refused to answer last week, still set forth below for promised answer, this is a request, given that Peter Thomson is the SG's rep on Oceans that you describe in detail Thomson's 2017 meeting with now disappeared Ye Jianming of CEFC, name which UN DSS officials were with him and what reports they filed, what their duties were; what was seen by those accompanying Thomson, at least two of whom are still in the UN (one is with China)."
  Typically, Guterres and his spokespeople did not answer. So here, pending listing those from UN Department of Safety and Security the group which roughs up the Press without accountability and maintains a retaliatory "lifetime" banned from the UN list, are the names: "During his two-day visit, the President of the UN General Assembly was accompanied by his senior advisors Abdelghani Merabet, and Zhang Yi, as well as by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’s Director of the Division for Sustainable Development, Zhu Juwang." Now, Thomson staffer or embed Zhang Yi has gone (back, or more openly) to working for the Chinese government: "On August 14 [2018], Deputy Director-General of China International Center for Economic and Technical Exchanges Zhang Yi was invited to attend the FOCAC - Africa-China Poverty Reduction and Development Conference, an important sub-forum under the FOCAC hosted by the State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development and co-organized by the International Poverty Reduction Center in China and the China Belt and Road Institute for Agricultural Cooperation of China Agriculture University. Attending were more than 300 participants including government officials, international organizations’ representatives, non-governmental organizations’ officials, business leaders, experts and scholars from China, United States, Japan, Denmark and 40 African countries like Angola, Botswana and Mauritius."
  What did they see during Thomson's meeting with now-known briber Ye Jianming? Zhu Juwang  is still with UN DESA; Abdelghani Merabet  is with the current PGA. We'll have more on this: the UN should be answering these questions, now.
  In 2017, the year in which CEFC's Patrick Ho was indicted and arrested for UN bribery, CEFC in the UN engaged at least twice with Lenni Montiel, including for example on 6 July 2017, and also with DESA official Pingfan Hong. Some photos here. Inner City Press before Guterres had it roughed up and banned now 176 days for its inquiries into Guterres' corruption has politely questioned both Montiel and Hong - but Guterres has made that impossible and his Spokesmen refused to answer any written questions, for more than a week now. There are more connections.
  Guterres got favors from Peter Thomson when Thomson was President of the General Assembly. Rudimentary open source research - including on the UN's own website here - finds that Thomson, like implicated Sam Kutesa and John Ashe and Vuk Jeremic, visited CEFC's Ye Jianming in Hong Kong. What was discussed? Inner City Press previously covered, critically but civilly, Thomson. Now corrupt Guterres has had Inner City Press roughed up and banned 175 days, with his Spokesman Stephane Dujarric refusing to answer any questions despite the promise of Guterres' USG Alison Smale. 
   After receiving favors from Thomson as PGA, Guterres gave him a job in his Secretariat, Representative on Oceans. Here is Patrick Ho, interviewed by Guterres' DESA, on Oceans. There should have been an audit. There still should be. Another of Guterres' special advisers, Jeffrey Sachs, after denying Inner City Press' documented report Sachs was on a UN - CEFC board, abruptly closed his Twitter account, story here. Guterres goes on robo-tweeting from parts unknown, spending public money undisclosed. Guterres should explain and / or resign.  We will have more in this series.
   A now-removed Gulbenkian Foundation web page says Guterres continued as a board member into 2018. Archived here. In fact it was on 9 February 2018 that Gulbenian tweeted that Guterres was no longer on the board - AFTER it was reported that Gulbenian was trying to sell, or even had already sold, Partex to CEFC. This is called guilty knowledge. 
 While Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric is refusing to answer Inner City Press' written questions, contrary to promises by Guterres' Global Communicator Alison Smale, it appears Guterres' evasive defense is claiming that he left Gulbenkian in November 2016 and therefore somehow had no conflict of interest in refusing and blocking the obviously needed UN audit of CEFC after the arrest of its Patrick Ho for UN bribery. This defense is dubious.
  Why did Gulbenkian take down its webpagedisclosing that Guterres remained on board into 2018? Why - sixteen months after Guterres ostensibly left - did they wait until February 2018 to tweet that he left? Because their negotiations with CEFC became public (see 2 February 2018 Bloomberg here, and 6 February MacauHub here: "CEFC China Energy buys Portugal’s Partex Oil & Gas.")
  In any event, Guterres' "2017" Financial Disclosure, which explicitly says it covered the year 2016 in which even in this new story he remained on Gulbenkian's board into November, more than 80% of the year - did not disclose his role in Gulbenkian, only on the Club of Madrid. Guterres has had previous financial disclosure omissions, for example in Portugal, here. CEFC was hardly unknown: it bought a Portuguese insurance company in November 2017, here.
    Guterres' failure to disclose and, separately and even more so, his refusal to audit CEFC in the UN was a direct conflict of interest, which he has tried to cover up by roughing up and banning Inner City Press which asked him about it. (See January 2018 press conference here, July 2018 roughing up by Guterres' UN Security here, banning letter via Press Freedom Tracker here.)
Three times now Dujarric, his deputy Farhan Haq and Office of the Spokesperson colleagues Marcia Soares Pinto and Keishamaza Rukikaire, as well as Guterres, his chief of staff Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti and Deputy SG Amina J. Mohammed have refused to answer this: "Beyond the 36 questions from Inner City Press you refused to answer last week, still set forth below for promised answer, this is a reiterated request past deadline that you (1) state when SG Guterres left his position on the Gulbenkian Foundation, (2) state why Gulbenkian was not listed on SG Guterres' public financial disclosure which covered 2016; (3) explain how it is not a conflict of interest for SG Guterres to have refused to start an audit of CEFC in the UN, as requested by Inner City Press in January 2018, given CEFC's bid for the oil business of Gulbenkian. Also, again, state why under SG Guterres there have been no updates to the UN public financial disclosures since those filed for 2016. Also, again, explain your refusal to answer any of Inner City Press' questions this week despite USG Smale's statements to GAP, me and UNSR David Kaye." No response at all, even as spokesman Dujarric for example tweets at actor Seth Rogin. Dujarric, as simply one example, on 1 March 2018 evaded Inner City Press' in-person questions about CEFC and Guterres, less than a month after Gulbenkian said Guterres was off the board, amid oil negotiations with CEFC. Video hereThen Guterres and Dujarric had Inner City Press roughed up and banned from the UN. Guterres' wife Catarina Vaz Pinto also worked for Gulbenkian. This is today's corrupt UN.
   For years Guterres received money as a board member of the Calouste Galbenkian Foundation, which despite its name is the 100% owner of Partex Oil and Gas. Partex has operations in Angola, Abu Dhabi, Brazil, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Oman and Portugal. It was to a Portuguese court that Guterres, while justifying no listing some of his income, disclosed in 2016 that he was paid at least € 2735 per month for his position with the Gulbenkian Foundation.
   But while a now deleted Foundation web page (archived here) stated that Guterres continued with Gulbenkian into 2018, Guterres did not list it on his most recent, and so far lone, UN Public Financial Disclosure, which covered 2016 ("Disclosing financial and other interests for the 2016 reporting year"). 
  So why did Guterres disclose his position with the Club of Madrid, but not with the Gulbenkian Foundation / Partex Oil and Gas? It is worth noting that Guterres' wife Catarina Vaz Pinto has also been connected to Gulbenkian.
   Following the roughing up and banning from the UN of Inner City Press which has covered the CEFC scandal throughout, Guterres' head of Global Communications Alison Smale promised UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression David Kaye, who asked, that the UN would still answer Inner City Press' written questions.
   But as 2018 came to a close Guterres' spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and Farhan Haq left unanswered 36 questions in a row from Inner City Press, including this: “Beyond the 35 questions from Inner City Press you refused to answer this week, this is a request on deadline that you (1) state when SG Guterres left his position on the Gulbenkian Foundation,
(2) state why Gulbenkian was not listed on SG Guterres' public financial disclosure which covered 2016; 
(3) explain how it is not a conflict of interest for SG Guterres to have refused to start an audit of CEFC in the UN, as requested by Inner City Press in January 2018, given CEFC's bid for the oil business of Gulbenkian. 
Also, again, state why under SG Guterres there have been no updates to the UN public financial disclosures since those filed for 2016. Also, again, explain your refusal to answer any of Inner City Press' questions this week despite USG Smale's statements to GAP, me and UNSR David Kaye. On deadline.” 
   The question was also sent to the e-mail addresses of Guterres, his chief of staff Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, his Deputy Amina J. Mohammed, and Smale, who earlier in the week told Inner City Press she would take “under advisement” her 17 August 2018 pretextual withdrawal of Inner City Press decade long UN media accreditation.
  It seems clear that Guterres and his team have engaged in censorship for corruption, to conceal a blatant conflict of interest by Guterres. It has been raised by Inner City Press to the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and others.  Watch this site.
Back on 5 December 2018 Patrick Ho was found guilty of seven of eight counts of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and month laundering. (He was only not guilty on money laundering in Chad - where the bribe was not through any US bank but in cash, $2 million in a gift box). The evidence showed that the NGO he ran, China Energy Fund Committee, used its ongoing UN consultative status to pay bribes to Ugandan foreign minister - and Ashe's successor as President of the UN General Assembly -- Sam Kutesa.. He was working with precedessor Vuk Jeremicwhile Jeremic was UN PGA. CEFC even offered weapons, tanks and drones, to Chad's long time president Idriss Deby for oil blocks or a stake in the Chad Cameroon pipeline. (Inner City Press published documents here.)
The night of the verdict I asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres what he will do to clean up the UN, where he has left CEFC without any audit, still in consultative status with the UN. On his way from his Mercedes to a glitzy fundraiser including George and Amal Clooney, Guterres refused to answer. The next day when asked by another journalist why Guterres had refused to answer banned Inner City Press' question, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric claimed that the UN has “cooperated” with the prosecution. But the bribery group remains in the UN, unaudited.
Why has the case of US versus Ho, and now the guilty verdicts, garnered relatively so little interest, with the corruption of the UN exposed by it scarcely mentioned all? SG Guterres is hoping it goes away. In terms of corruption, he did not disclose and refuses to answer on the African business links of his son Pedro Guimarães e Melo De Oliveira Guterres. He refuses to answer how much he spends in public funds flying to his home in Lisbon at least sixteen times sofar as SG. 
   So CEFC remains an accredited non governmental organization with the UN's Economic and Social Council, while investigative Inner City Press for which I have been covering the case has been dis-accredited by and ousted from the UN, put on a list of those permanently banned without notice, due process or appeal. On December 7 I was informed I am banned from a “UN Human Rights” event on December 10 to be addressed by Guterres and his human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet. But this reporting will not stop - Guterres' corruption of the UN must be addressed, through oversight or as is discussed elsewhere, impeachment. From the lofty goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Guterres' censorship for corruption is UNacceptable.
  With UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and her Deputy Andrew Gilmour set to speak in the UN on human rights day on December 10, Inner City Press responded to an invitation and was told, "Thank you for registering to attend the Human Rights Day event at the United Nations on Monday 10 December. On Monday, please come to the UN Visitors’ Gate on First Avenue opposite 45th street starting at 2pm, at which time entry passes will be distributed." 
Then, past six p.m. on Friday, December 7 thisfrom Bachelet's and Gilmour's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: "Dear Matthew, We have received notification from UN Security that your name was flagged as "BARRED" on the list we submitted for passes for Monday's event (3pm, ECOSOC Chamber).We will therefore not have a pass for you and are unable to facilitate entry.
Thank you for your interest and best regards,
OHCHR New York Office." Photo of email here.
   Inner City Press immediately wrotback, to the sender and Bachelet and her assistant, to Andrew Gilmour and to the moderator of the event, "Particularly since you are the UN Office of the High Commissioner for *Human Rights,* did you not ask why a journalist who asks the Secretary General and his spokesmen about the killings in Cameroon, Burundi, UN corruption, UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of civilians, and Sri Lanka, is “BARRED” from attending your human rights event - without any hearing or appeal? I will appreciate your Office's answer to this."  We'll have more on this.

 Bachelet gave a speech on October 15 in the UN's Third Committee, she emphasized a prioritization of social and economic rights and said one of the officials of her office is "on mission in Silicon Valley" in the US. There are questions about this - but Inner City Press which has covered human rights and the UN for more than a decade was for the first time banned from access a High Commissioner's speech. This has been raised repeated to Bachelet since she took office but she has so far done nothing, not even responded. Meanwhile on October 12 Cameroon, from whose Paul Biya Secretary General Antonio Guterres took a golden statue and favors in the Fifth (Budget) Committee and remains silent on the slaughter of Anglophones, was elected to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This system is failing - but if Bachelet cannot even answer on Guterres maintaining a secret banned list including not only Inner City Press but also "political activists" - and anti-corruption campaigners - then the UN of Guterres has hit its newest low. 

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

As Second Circuit Tells Trump To UNblock Critics UN Spox Dujarric Blocks Inner City Press


By Matthew Russell Lee, Post-argument video

COURTHOUSE of 2d Circuit, July 9/10 – When the U.S. Department of Justice sought to call President Donald Trump blocking his critics on Twitter a purely personal act, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 26 had many questions and analogies. Isn't the Twitter reply space a public forum? Doesn't Trump use his Twitter account to announce North Korea policy, and most recently his nomination the Federal Reserve Board of Stephen Moore? DOJ argued that Trump does his own blocking, and that people are free to reply elsewhere. 
Now on July 9 the Second Circuit has ruled that Trump canNOT block critics, here. But note for example that UN "Spokesperson" Stephane Dujarric blocks Inner City Press, which has reported more about UN corruption including as exposed and under-pursued in the SDNY than any other media. Should a spokesperson for Antonio Guterres, (over) paid by global taxpayers, be able to block investigative Press? Even after having the Press roughed up and banned from any entry of the UN, now for 372 days? See U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which the UN ignores, here.  Today's UN is corrupt - and for now has impunity. But there is the Supreme Court's Jams v. IFC decision...
   Back in March Judge Christopher Droney brought up a case where even a privately owned venue, when rented by the government, could not block a production of "Hair." Judge Barrington Parker called the tweets a dialogue of transcendent public importance; he asked if Trump could for example block anti-Semitic tweets. (The plaintiffs' lawyer Jameel Jaffer's answer, that the only test is whether the blocking is content neutral, did not seem to answer the question.)  The case is Knight First Amendment Institute, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, audio herepost-argument Periscope here.
Judge Peter Hall said that DOJ's presence in court to defend the blocking tended to show that it was a governmental action. At the end a safe travel back to Washington was wished. The decision was reserved - but Inner City Press notes that for example the Spokesman for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Stephane Dujarric, blocks it on his Twitter feed which makes official UN announcements. But the UN is not covered by the First Amendment, and uses its impunity to the maximum, including to ignore decisions like the March 25 three year sentence in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Patrick Ho for UN bribery. We'll have more on this.
The day before Michael Avenatti was brought into the SDNY court on charges of extorting Nike and defrauding banks, he sat alone at the defense table for twenty minutes. The two Federal Defenders lawyers representing him then came in, and huddled twice with a group of prosecutors. It emerged they hammered out a bail package: $300,000 bond, turning in both American and Italian passports and not contacting Co-Conspirator 1 without counsel present. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge  Katharine H. Parker accepted the bail package, and told Avenatti if he does not show up a warrant will be issued for his arrest. Later, much later, Avenatti emerged in front of the SDNY court's Worth Street entrance and spoke without taking questions, saying he will continue to fight. On his way to his 4 by 4 Inner City Press asked, What information do you have on Nike? And, to try to get some response, Has your [NCAA March Madness] bracket been broken? There was no answer. Periscope video here. College basketball scandals involving Adidas and University of Louisville on March 5, with a glancing reference to Rick Pitino, resulted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in prison sentences of nine months for James Gatto, and six months each for Merl Code and Christian DawkinsSince then LSU coach Will Wade has been suspended - even as LSU with named Javonte Smart in March Madness beat Maryland on March 23, to next face off against the Spartans of Michigan State, with Wade still sending text message to "his" playersMeanwhile after Pitino's former team Louisville lost against Minnesota coached by his son by 10 - call it karma -- then Minnesota lost to Michigan State (slated to play LSU).  Auburn, see below, again reversed the karmic trend with a win over Kansas after its squeaker win over New Mexico State. The next NCAA corruption trial starts April 22 in the SDNY, with Will Wade already served a subpoena... On March 19 Chuck Personformer coach at Auburn, pled guilty in the SDNY to receiving approximately $91,500 in cash bribes from athlete advisers in exchange for using his influence over Auburn basketball players to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes.  Person pled guilty before SDNY Judge Loretta A. Preska, who on March 25 is set to sentence UN briber Patrick Ho who paid $500,000 to UN PGA Sam Kutesa of Uganda, and offered $2 million to Chad's Idriss Deby.  Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he has now admitted, Chuck Person abused his position as a coach and mentor to student-athletes in exchange for personal gain.  In taking tens of thousands of dollars in cash bribes, Person not only placed personal financial gain above his obligations to his employer and the student-athletes he coached, but he broke the law"....  In one recorded meeting, Person stressed to an Auburn University player the importance of keeping their relationship with CW-1 a secret.  Person stated, “most important part is that you  . . . don’t say nothing to anybody . . . don’t share with your sisters, don’t share with any of the teammates, that’s very important cause this is a violation . . . of rules, but this is how the NBA players get it done, they get early relationships, and they form partnerships.”   Person later told that player that CW-1 would purchase him a separate cell phone over which they could communicate so as to conceal the nature of the scheme. It's called guilty knowledge.
On March 5 SDNY Judge Lewis A. Kaplan heard from each of the defendants' lawyers and then from the defendants themselvesA particular wiretap played during the trial was cited by Judge Kaplan, in which the parties said they had to leave Rick Pitino "plausible deniability." Since then Pitino, who was fired by Louisville in 2017 as the school’s basketball program was being investigated as part of the federal corruption probe, has complained. “The Southern District of New York used me for publicity, the University of Louisville buried a Hall of Fame career,” Pitino said in a text message to the Louisville Courier-Journal from Turkey, where his Greek EuroLeague team Panathinaikos plays Thursday. “Let me rest in peace. Please, you have killed enough of my life.  "And by the way, if you care to ask, there are 50-plus players that will attest to my honesty, not some gullible judge. And Judge Kaplan is as guilty as the people he just sentenced for bringing up an innocent person with his remarks." In fairness, Judge Kaplan was quoting for a transcript of a wiretap played in the trial. And it is such a wiretap that has Will Wade not coaching. Now there's speculation, for now shot down, of Pitino returning to Washington State Universitydespite "the sleaze factor." We'll have more on this.
 On March 5, Merl Code's lawyer did most of the talking, in a Southern accent, at one point favorably comparing Judge Kaplan to his own mother. There was laughter in the courtroom. It won't help you, Judge Kaplan quipped. But who knows? In the argument for bailing pending appeal, Judge Kaplan hearkened back to having won bail for a client some forty years ago by arguing to a judge in Rhode Island that the judge's decision was likely to be reversed. The U.S. Attorney's office, represented at the sentencing by Edward B. Diskant, said they were convicted "for conspiring to defraud universities by funneling illicit payments to the families of high-school and college basketball players and concealing those payments – which were prohibited by university policies and NCAA rules – from the schools. GATTO, the Director of Global Basketball Sports Marketing at Adidas, CODE, an Adidas consultant, and DAWKINS, an aspiring manager of professional athletes, will be sentenced on March 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. by Judge Kaplan, who presided over the four-week trial. Two other scheme participants, MUNISH SOOD, a financial advisor, and THOMAS “T.J.” GASSNOLA, a former Adidas consultant, previously pled guilty in connection with their participation in the fraudulent scheme." Gatto will be back in front of Judge Kaplan on the restitition issue on Paril 9 at 10 am...
The day before in the same courthouse the jury in a week-long Bronx gang case  passed a note on to Judge Robert W. Sweet, who said it indicted a lack of unanimity, but not necessarily division. But should he read the note into the record? Initially the prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office said yes, and provided Judge Sweet a citation. But when he re-emerged from his chambers agreeing to show both sides the note, he asked why he should read it into the record. Now the prosecutors said they would defer to the lawyers for the defendant, Christopher Howard, and not read it into the record. Which meant, and still for now means, that the press and public have no way to know what it says. 
  Isn't there's an interest in the public, separate from the government's interest, in knowing of this process? The interest was cited recently in this SDNY to release some of what was seized in the raid on Michael Cohen's home. Why does that logic not apply to this? And how does the Press, entering each day from the metal detectors, go about asserting and pursuing that interest? Inner City Press, on this day and in this case the only media in the courtroom, last month covered the decision by SDNY Judge Pauley 
From the SDNY decision in U.S. v. Cohen, 18-cr-00602: "the presumption of access is at its core tethered to the need for public monitoring of the federal courts and their exercise of judicial power. Cf. SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 847 (5th Cir. 1993) (explaining that “[t]he public’s right to information does not protect the same interests that the right of access is designed to protect”). As the Second Circuit explained, Monitoring both provides judges with critical views of their work and deters arbitrary judicial behavior. Without monitoring, moreover, the public could have no confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, or honesty of judicial proceedings. Such monitoring is not possible without access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050." 
  The same question has been raised in another SDNY case, this one civil and involving the employment practices of the Qatari royals who live in a mansion on 72nd Street. There, Judge Oetken told the parties to agree among themselves how much to seal. But this is a criminal case. 
On March 1 with the jury already out, defendant Howard upon returning to the courthouse at 2 pm had to jump to the front of the security line to ensure arrival in the courtroom on time. So did others. This case in ongoing - watch this site. How guns eject shell casings was the subject of expert testimony in this case on February 27. An ATF agent traced a bullet back to Illinois; under cross examination he said a shell casing might eject feet rather than yards unless it bounced on something. The next day on February 28 the defense's failure to cross examine this testimony was emphasized in the government's summation; that the bullet was made in Illinois was presented as a basis to find that these half-block gangs impact inter-state commerce. A Facebook official testified, and the defendant's messages were shown, aiming to "peter roll that birch ass 'N-word.'" Judge Sweet in his March 1 lengthy charge to the jury said that "the defendant is not even required to cross examine witness." He told the jurors to disregard any questions he had asked witnesses, add that he didn't remember asking any (unlike for example Judge Hellerstein in the other racketeering trial still ongoing in the SDNY, of Joe Cammarano.) The differing demographics of the two courtrooms, and the lack of any other media in the Bronx case, were striking. The testimony went back to 2007, a 14-year old with a gun heading from the Millbrook projects to the Mitchell Houses. The defense asked for a mistrial when the name of a second gang was introduced; the prosecution shot back (so to speak) that it came from the photos on the defendant's own Facebook page. And so it was in summation. Back on February 25 a prison sentence of life plus five years was imposed for a Bronx murder by SDNY Chief Judge Colleen McMahon on February 25. She presided over the trial in which Stiven Siri-Reynoso was convicted of, among other things, murder in aid of racketeering for the death of Jessica White, a 28 year old mother of three, in the Bronx in 2016. Jessica White's mother was in the court room; she was greeted by Judge McMahon but declined to speak before sentencing. Siri-Reynoso was representing himself by this point, with a back-up counsel by his side. Judge McMahon told him, "You're a very smart man... a tough guy, a calculating person... You are a coward, sent a child to do it for you... Your emissary shot the wrong person, a lovely lady... It was a vicious, evil attack against the good people of that neighborhood." When she imposed the life plus five sentence, a woman on the Jessica White side of the courtroom cried out, yes Ma'am, put the animal away! Later, after Siri-Reynoso ended asking how he can get more documents about the case, a woman on his side of the courtroom said, "No te preocupes, muchacho, Dios sabe lo que hace" - don't worry, God knows what he is doing. But does He? Earlier on February 25 when the government tried to defend its 2018 change of policy or practice on Special Immigrant Juvenile status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge John G. Koeltl had many questions about the change. He asked, are you saying that all the decisions before 2018 were just wrong, under a policy in place but not implemented at the time? In the overflow courtroom 15C the largely young audience laughed, as the government lawyer tried to say it wasn't a change of policy but rather an agency interpretation of the statute. Shouldn't there have been notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act? The government said the argument proffered for this was about the Freedom of Information Act (on which, as Inner City Press has noted, the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has similarly reversed its policy 180 degrees without justification). SDNY Judge Koeltl demanded t know if the government is arguing that no juvenile court in New York, California (and maybe Texas for other reasons he said) is empowered to grant relief. The answer was far from clear - but where the ruling is going does seem so. Watch this site. The Bangladeshi Central Bank which was hacked for $81 million in February 2016, on January 31 sued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Now the first pre-trial conference in the case has been set, for 2 April 2019 before SDNY Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Inner City Press will be there. 
In Dhaka, the Criminal Investigation Department which failed to submit its probe report into the heist on time has now been ordered by Metropolitan Magistrate Sadbir Yasir Ahsan Chowdhury to do so by March 13 in Bangladesh Bank cyber heist case. 
In the U.S. District Court for Central California, the unsealed criminal complaint against Park Jin Hyuk lists four email addresses involved in spear-phishing Bangladesh Bank and among others an unnamed "African Bank;" one of these addresses is said to also have communicated with an individual in Australia about importing commodities to North Korea in violations of UN sanctions. 
To the Federal Reserve, Inner City Press has requested records relating to the Fed's role with response due in 20 working days - watch this site. In the SDNY, the case is Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-00983. On February 3 in Dhaka Bangladesh Bank's lawyer Ajmalul Hossainsaid it could take three years to recover the money. The Bank's deputy governor Abu Hena Razee Hasan said those being accused -- in the civil not criminal suit -- include three Chinese nationals. Ajmalul Hossain said the Bank is seeking its hacked million plus interest and its expenses in the case. He said US Federal Reserve will extend its full support and that SWIFT, the international money transfer network, also assured of providing all the necessary cooperation in recovering the hacked money.  The Philippines returned $14.54 million in November 2016, so $66.46 million has yet to be retrieved. Now defendant RCBC Bank of the Philippines has hired the Quinn Emanuel law firm to defend it, and it already fighting back in words. RCBC’s lead counsel on the SDNY case, Tai-Heng Cheng, said:  “This is nothing more than a thinly veiled PR campaign disguised as a lawsuit. Based on what we have heard this suit is completely baseless. If the Bank of Bangladesh was serious about recovering the money, they would have pursued their claims three years ago and not wait until days before the statute of limitations. Not only are the allegations false, they don’t have the right to file here since none of the defendants are in the US." But it seems the funds were transferred to and through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And as Inner City Press reported in the US v. Patrick Ho case last year, the wiring of funds through New York can confer jurisdiction. Inner City Press will be covering this case. The first paragraph of the 103 page complaint reads, "This litigation involves a massive, multi-year conspiracy to carry out one of the largest banks heists in modern history right here in New York City. On February 4, 2016, thieves reached into a bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“New York Fed”) and stole approximately $101 million (out of the nearly $1 billion they attempted to steal). The bank account was held for the benefit of Bangladesh Bank, which is Bangladesh’s Central Bank. Bangladesh Bank has had a 45-year banking relationship under which it has placed its international reserves with the New York Fed. The New York Fed is a critical component of the United States’ central banking system and its link to the international financial system." Bangladesh's lawyers on the case are "COZEN O’CONNOR John J. Sullivan, Esq.  Jesse Loffler, Esq. Yehudah Gordon, Esq." We'll have more on this.
Debaprasad Debnath, a general manager at the central bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit, Joint Director Mohammad Abdur Rab and Account and Budgeting Department General Manager Zakir Hossain all left Dhaka to head to New York, for the filing of the lawsuit, which Inner City Press will be following. 
They say the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which on January 29 was instructed by the US State Department to allow Juan Guaido to access Venezuelan accounts, will be helping its Bangladeshi counterpart to get to the bottom of the hack.  Those eyed include Philippines’ Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation or RCBC and some of its officials, and Philrem Service Corporation, casino owners and beneficiaries. Ajmalul Hossain QC, a lawyer for the central bank, is with them to file the case. 

It is an interesting twist on the SDNY as venue for the money laundering and FCPA prosecution of Patrick Ho of CEFC for bribery in Chad and to Uganda - in this case, too, the money flowed through New York. Inner City Press intends to cover the case.