In Burundi Secret Jails And Street Named For Militia Leader Amid Silence from Guterres and Swiss

By Matthew Russell Lee, Photo, Video, CJR

UNITED NATIONS GATE, June 30 – Burundi's Pierre Nkununziza government wanted all human rights presence out. Typically, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said nothing meaningful. Then it happened, on February 28, and from Guterres, nothing. Typical. 

  And here are examples of what's been going on in Burundi, colluded in by Guterres, unremarked on by his envoy Kafando who skipped even the UN Security Council's belated June 14 session on Burundi: secret jails have been found in Bugabira and Ntega, Carubambo, Kinyovu and Rutagara in the area of Mugendo, Kigari, Nyemera, Kigaga and Mugina. And Nkurunziza has renamed not only the airport but also a street, for Adolphe Nshimirimana who allegedly killed so many people in 2015.

  And from Guterres? Total silence, as so far from the Swiss whom Guterres has praised for moving to take their pro-dictator approach to Burundi onto the Cameroon issue, beginning with tear gassing anti-Biya protesters in front of the UN in Geneva. Who'll get a street named after themselves for this? Antonio "The Censor" Guterres Boulevard...

Also: "In the second week of May 2019, the ruling party in Rumonge province organized a fundraising campaign with shop and shop owners of business. Equipped with registers and ballpoint pens, Imbonerakure crisscrossed the neighborhoods of the city of Rumonge to demand money for "the purchase of party flags and other insignia of the CNDD -FDD ".

According to shop owners contacted, these young Imbonerakure demanded the minimum payment capped at 2000FBU per shop. Whoever paid this money was registered in a register. Traders members of the ruling party refused to give these contributions arguing that they were going to do it at party permanence. Collectors
thus fell on non-party traders who were intimidated before resign to pay the contribution. Shopkeepers and store sellers said they were overwhelmed by collections and forced contributions. They were trying to count the number of times they had been forced
contribute in particular to the 2020 elections at the household level, the Crusades of the ruling party."  Inside joke: sounds like UNCA dues, in which Guterres and his spokesman also collude. If a journalist doesn't pay, they are evicted from their work space then bannedfrom UN, while Guterres uses the group for propaganda. 

   On June 14 there was a belated UN Security Council meeting on Burundi - but Guterres' envoy Michel Kafando did not even speak at it. Inner City Press live tweeted the meeting, here; and is uploaded Albert Shingiro's speech, typical of Guterres' UN, here.

On 28 May 2019 even the briefing by Guterres' pro-Nkurunziza envoy Michel Kafando to the Security Council, was entirely cancelled. 

Now, typical of FrancAfrique as on Cameroon and elsewhere, Agence France Presse has come in revisionist trying to make France and Guterres look good, reporting for example: "Burundi is threatening to cut ties with the UN envoy appointed to the country, ahead of elections next year... France requested that the council hold a closed-door meeting on Burundi on Friday, but those talks were pushed back to June to allow time to defuse the situation, diplomats said.  Asked about the row with Burundi over the envoy, UN spokesman Farhan Haq said Thursday: "I am not aware of any official announcement from Burundi, so there is nothing to respond to as yet."   Kafando replaced Jamal Benomar, who was UN envoy for two years before the Bujumbura government demanded his resignation.  Burundi's threats come just four months after Somalia expelled a UN envoy who raised questions about human rights." 

AFP does not mention that Guterres threw the envoy Nicholas Haysom, whom they leave unnamed, under the bus by telling UN staff that he was impolite for signing a human rights letter. Exclusive video here, from Inner City Press banned by the UN of Guterres with anassist from... AFP. This is today's UN, and its apologists and censors.

  Now this: "Kigoma province in Tanzania has become like part of Burundian territory where Pierre Nkurunziza's regime makes rain and shine. The latter imposes an intense and terrible political repression against the refugees who fled the bloody persecution that has reigned in the country since 2015. Repeated attacks by armed men and weapons seizures firearms introduced into the camps by men from Burundi constitute a serious threat to the security of Burundian refugees in the camps in Tanzania. At least 37 grenades, one machine gun and 200 rounds have already been seized in Nduta camp. In addition to these attacks, there are cases of rape, arbitrary arrests, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, enforced disappearance, armed robbery are registered every day in these Burundian refugee camps. Obviously, the Tanzanian authorities play the complicity with the Burundian regime, and reinforce pressure to compel these refugees to return forcibly their country of origin. In their desperate attempts to flee the camps to Kenya and the Rwanda, they are caught by the Tanzanian police as criminals to shoot down, forced to two choices: return home or stay on the spot and suffer! (1) Since the announcement in April 2015 of President Pierre Nkurunziza's decision to run for third term, and public demonstrations against the fragrance violation of the constitution of 2005 and the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement, signed in 2000, a political crisis bloody has taken hold in Burundi and has had terrible consequences on the rights and freedoms individuals and groups of the population. Thus, more than 500.000 Burundians took the road of exile of which a significant number were hosted in the United Republic of Tanzania, which counted February this year, at least 274,445 refugees."

   Nor has Guterres or his spokes - / hatchetman Stephane Dujarric answered banned Inner City Press' written questions on Burundi, for example this one: "March 20-6: On Burundi and freedom of expression, what is the SG's comment and action if any on that arresting seven schoolchildren last week. The children were accused of having scribbled on Nkurunziza's photo in their school books.  Six girls were taken to the local police station jail. Three were later released, but the three others, all teenagers under the age of 18, remained in jail over the weekend. They were charged on Monday with insulting the head of state, and could spend up to five years in prison if found guilty. AGAIN, immediately explain how it is legitimate to ban from enter into the UN the media that has been asking about these and other questions, with no hearing or appeal."

On April 15 banned Inner City Press asked the UN, "April 15-3: On Burundi, what is the SG's comment and action if any on the six schoolgirls and one boy, arrested last month for doodling on the Burundian president’s photo and charged with “insulting the head of state" and expelled them permanently from the school, now facing charges of “insulting the head of state"?  By April 16, no answer from the UN; spokesman Stephane Dujarric and head of Communications Alison Smale didn't even acknowledge the question, despite both having promised answers. This is Guterres' UN.

  Back on 6 December 2018, the day after Guterres like any dictator moved from his Mercedes with guards to a fancy dinner refusing a Press questions about corruption in his organization, Inner City Press asked Guterres and his spokesmen: "December 6-1: On Burundi, on which you have been refusing to respond to Inner City Press' written questions, please immediately confirm or deny that Burundi has asked the UN system to decrease its human rights presence and state the SG's view and response. Also, what is the UN's comment on the reporting about the Nkurunziza government's “torture house”?"Still, no answer at all, despite USG Alison Smale's promises such questions would be answered. Now on March 19 from Code Blue, this: "Since 2015, President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi has ordered his defense forces to attack anyone deemed to oppose his regime, an onslaught that has generated international condemnation.  During the same period, the United Nations has paid the Nkurunziza regime large sums of money for the services of those same Burundian defense forces, who don blue helmets and patrol crisis zones as UN peacekeepers.  There are currently 767 Burundian peacekeepers serving with the United Nations. A total of 751 of those 767 peacekeepers are in MINUSCA, the UN’s mission in the Central African Republic, which has been rocked by numerous sexual exploitation and abuse scandals.  The UN continues to deploy Nkurunziza’s forces despite an explicit statement from the United Nations Independent Investigation on Burundi (UNIIB) that Burundian soldiers are not fit to be peacekeepers.  "The United Nations and the African Union should phase out the use of Burundian troops in Peacekeeping operations while the crisis continues," the UNIIB said in a report from September 2016.  Burundian peacekeepers serving in UN peacekeeping missions have been accused of committing sexual abuse against those they are pledged to protect: A total of 43 Burundian peacekeepers have been accused since 2015 of committing child rape, sexual activity with a minor, sexual assault of an adult, or rape of an adult, according to the UN's Conduct and Discipline database. None of the 43 has been punished. The alleged victims include 50 children, 25 adults, and five individuals of unknown age.   As of July 2018, the UN pays USD 1,428 per month for each soldier provided by a troop-contributing country to a peacekeeping mission, a rate set by the UN General Assembly. The UN delivers the money not to the soldier but to the troop-contributing country.  The UN, then, pays Burundi $1,095,276 a month for its 767 peacekeepers, which amounts to $13,143,312 a year.  The money is a significant contribution to the coffers of the East African nation. Burundi’s military budget was $56.3 million in 2017.  UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly claimed that the UN is vetting troops to weed out individuals with criminal records of sexual offenses. But what about an entire military with a criminal history of sexual offenses, with a record of rape-as-policy?" As in Cameroon, some say, Big Tony likes to watch. Only through regional media we learned that Guterres' part time Burundi envoy Michel Kafando used public funds to visit Uganda's Museveni on January 31 and, according to the story, praise him for his tireless efforts on Burundi? Really? How? On February 19 at a UNSC press encounter Inner City Press was banned from for the 230th day in a row by Guterres, South Africa's Permanent Representative told those present that the UN and the African Union should "help Burundi to move on," and said the East African Community and the AU are capable of managing the situation. No one there asked him any follow up questions. Then Kafando said"Je me suis ensuite rendu le 31 Janvier 2019 a Kampala pour une visite de travail avec le President Museveni, Mediateur du Dialogue inter-burundais. Cette rencontre m'a permis de reiterer au President Museveni, le soutien du Secrtaire general." This as Museveni's foreign minister Sam Kutesa took $500,000 from UN briber CEFC China Energy, to which Guterres himself is connected, and roughs up and bans the Press which asks. This is thuggery. And UN  Spokesman Stephane Duajrric said on camera he would be answering questions, here. Now this, from Burundi: "President Pierre Nkurunziza says he has given wealth to Burundians since 2002, he wants to be thanked. Thus, offerings in money, livestock or food products are collected throughout the provinces and have been used for some time. A crusade of prayer and collection of offerings was organized from 24 to 27 January 2019 in Gitega province where President Pierre Nkurunziza was in person. On the basis of the verses of the Old Testament, he compared to Moise and asked the Burundians to offer him offerings. "God said to Moses today in Nkurunziza because two lightnings do not share the sky- give him offerings ... ", said Pierre Nkurunziza in front of a parterre composed of all the high personalities of his diet. At least 1.8 billion Burundian francs were collected during this crusade. In Gitega province, the young Imbonerakure have traveled the town of Gitega from 21 January 2019 to raise money and food. From boutiques to boutiques, from shops to stores, from pharmacies in pharmacies, kiosks in kiosks, ... they required between 2000 and 5000 FBU in failing which they closed the doors. The food traders gave the food. On January 22, 2019, it was the turn of households and services. Every household had to give 2000FBU, and to the service, each employee had to give 2000FBU to his department head responsible for collecting this money. The person who paid this contribution was mentioned on a listing. The one who gave nothing received a very severe warning. This was done in all municipalities of Gitega province. In Rumonge province, the provincial secretary of the ruling party, Diomede Niyonsaba sent invitations to all heads of public and private services, organizations 21 non-governmental organizations and association leaders working in the province for their ask to participate in this presidential crusade, and especially to contribute to its success. According to one of the officials who received this invitation, "it's amazing to be invited and forced to contribute in activities of a political party of which one is not a member." Sounds like Guterres and his UN press corpse.  Nor will SpokesmanStephane Dujarric answer on Guterres obvously incomplete Public Financial Disclosure, here. 

More here.

In SDNY Prosecution of PPI Hedge Funders Ahuja Now Shor Lawyers Want Majidi Recording In

By Matthew Russell Lee, Periscope, Photos

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 29 – In the US prosecution of Premium Point Investments hedge funders Anilesh Ahuja and Jeremy Shor, the government doggedly tried to show the jury the so-called sector spread and mid-bid mis-marking scams by which the two defendants allegedly overvalued their portfolios. 

   U.S. District Court for the Southern District Judge Kathleen Polk Failla requested permission to ask her own questions, as to to clarify for the jury the difference between the bid and "mid" price, between the bid and asked.

  Now on Saturday, June 29 the lawyers for Shor have asked Judge Failla to allow in some evidence - this as other defendants are convicted, with assigned lawyers they say they don't trust, in trials lasting three days, covered here by Inner City Press. The new Shor filing: "Dear Judge Failla: We write on behalf of defendant Jeremy Shor to request the Court’s permission to introduce a single recorded statement made by Amin Majidi to Mr. Shor on December 22, 2015. Mr. Majidi’s statement is relevant to Mr. Shor’s state of mind as to why Mr. Shor continued to work at Premium Point Investments (“PPI”) following his meeting with the Chief Compliance Officer on December 15, 2015; specifically, the statement constitutes evidence that Mr. Shor was led to believe that the pricing practices at PPI were going to improve. We seek to introduce the recording through cross examination of Evan Jay by playing a portion of the audio (the statement by Mr. Majidi and the preceding non-substantive statement by Mr. Shor to identify him as the other participant in the conversation) to Mr. Jay who we believe will be able to identify the voices on the recording. Once verified, we seek to play Mr. Majidi’s statement in open court. We would play the approximately one-minute clip from the December 22, 2015 conversation during our cross examination of Mr. Jay: 

[SHOR: You have a vacation coming; I’m starting vacation on Thursday, I’m in tomorrow… (to Mr. Jay only)] 

MAJIDI: I mean even, even, even, even, even, you know, it’s, w-, w-, what kills me is that all that, you know, I, I have the ability to, I think to be human and, and fair about things and you know and see positivity in stuff. Like, even, even, like even the conversation you, you had with, with Evan, which, you know, one level, and you know I see you sitting there with the compliance guy, my, my, I’m pins and needles, and, s-, stomach acid is going crazy, then I get pulled into a three-hour meeting when I was coming out and joking and thanking and dreaming of sushi, I see positives come out of that. We, we fixed one trade, we show we’re making an effort, we’ll clean up the book, mark it down for the end of the year. So I’m appreciative of something that caused me a lot of distress, I, I know there’s something good will come out of it. So, what I’m, what I’m, again I’m disappointed that even despite, you know, the shitty year and stuff like that, I think your mindset is that we can’t, we can’t salvage. But, but, it’s like, shit, these, these things are, these careers and relationships are long term. Mr. Majidi’s statement to Mr. Shor constitutes relevant, admissible evidence for at least two reasons. First, Mr. Majidi’s assurances—that “something good will come out of” Mr. Shor’s actions and that his actions caused PPI to “fix[] one trade” and would cause PPI to “clean up the book” and “mark it down for the end of the year”—are relevant to Mr. Shor’s state of mind in December 2015 and thereafter because he was told that his concerns were going to be addressed. Through recent testimony, the Government has suggested to the jury that Mr. Shor is guilty of the charged offenses in part because he continued to participate in wrongful conduct after his meeting with Mr. Jay. Specifically, the following testimony was elicited during the redirect examination of Mr. Majidi: Q. Is Mr. Shor talking here about going to -- AOC is where Frank Dinucci worked; right? A. Yes. Q. What's PT short for? A. Performance Trust. Q. This is approximately a month after you saw him go into the compliance officer's office? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Shor mark the Mortgage Credit Fund for month end December 2015? A. Yes. Q. Did he also do so for January 2016? A. Yes. (Tr. 2844: 9-16.) 

The Government also suggested yesterday through redirect examination of Mr. Dinucci that reporting issues to Compliance does not obviate past or continued criminal activity. (Tr. 3699: 6-11.) While that generally may be true, Mr. Majidi’s statement is relevant..." We'll have more on this.

 Back on June 10, before some post jury arguments, Ahuja's lawyer after receiving a note from him via Lena at the defense table returned to questioning Ashish Dole about the fees that PPI left on the table, by not calling in all pledges and by returning some money they could have managed.

 Now on June 11 Judge Failla has kept the case going with this ruling, beginning: "The Court has considered the motion of Defendant Jeremy Shor, which motion is joined by Defendant Anilesh Ahuja, (i) announcing an intention to cross-examine cooperating witnesses Amin Majidi and Frank Dinucci (together, the “Cooperating Witnesses”) regarding certain alterations identified between proposed plea allocutions and the actual allocutions given at their respective guilty plea proceedings; (ii) announcing an intention to call additional witnesses, including counsel for each cooperating witness, “to testify about the Government’s apparent efforts to influence the relevant plea allocutions…”; and (iii) requesting an adverse inference instruction from the Court regarding the timing of the Government’s disclosures. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court precludes the two forms of testimony identified and denies the requested instruction. After obtaining clarification from counsel during oral argument this afternoon, the Court understands that there are two issues implicated by Mr. Shor’s request. The first issue concerns whether the Government acted improperly in seeking, obtaining, reviewing, and/or commenting on the proposed plea allocutions of the Cooperating Witnesses. On the record before the Court — which includes extensive questioning of those prosecutors with firsthand knowledge of the events — the Court finds no improper conduct. As suggested by its questioning, the Court does not believe that it is per se improper for a prosecutor to review, or even to comment on, a proposed plea allocution. Among other things, the Government has an interest in ensuring that the plea allocution suffices to state an offense. The conduct recalled by the prosecutors in this case was neither improper nor meriting of disclosure to the jury. There is nothing to suggest, for example, that the prosecutors compelled either witness to change his allocution, or that they suggested any modifications that were inconsistent with the substance of the witness’s proffer statements. More to the point, and paraphrasing Mr. Shor’s argument, there is nothing in this record to suggest that “the Government conveyed a message to [the cooperating witness’s] counsel that the proposed allocution should be revised to eliminate portions that would have been favorable to [Defendants] and inconsistent with the Government’s theory of the prosecution, and to replace them with statements that aligned with the Government’s prosecution theory and undercut [Defendants’] defense.” For completeness, the Court intends to inquire of the Cooperating Witnesses’ attorneys, Mr. Seth Rosenberg and Mr. Daniel Zinman, as to their recollections of their conversations with the prosecutors concerning the respective plea allocutions. The Court contemplates that such inquiry will take place outside of the presence of the jury, prior to the testimony of the witness. The Court emphasizes, however, that it intends to steer clear of questions that would implicate the attorney-client privilege held by each of the Cooperating Witnesses. "

 On June 9 Ajuha's lawyer Robert Finzi of Paul Weiss wrote to Judge Failla: "Although we are still reviewing the productions, they appear to include material directly relevant to our defense. So, for example, one of the WhatsApp conversations  [REDACTED] (The relevant text is being submitted under seal as Exhibit A so that it is not available to Mr. Dole, who is on cross, or his counsel.)  While we do not wish to further delay our cross-examination, and plan to proceed with it on Monday morning, we respectfully request that the Court order that (i) the government be precluded from using any material contained in these productions without notice to the defense and leave from the Court; and (ii) that Mr. Dole’s cross be kept open (such that the defense could re-call him for additional cross) until it has had time to review the newly-produced documents and determine what use, if any, it may make of them at trial."

  Meanwhile, among the exhibits now made available is Gx 855, a message from Shor to Anish Dole and Majidi, "I’m done giving frank a BJ. Sorry to be crass boss. Back in 3." Watch this site.

Earlier on Sunday, June 9 the lawyers for Jeremy Shor submitted several sealed exhibits and a letter that began, with redactions, "We respectfully write on behalf of defendant Jeremy Shor to advise the Court that we may seek to introduce at trial testimony and evidence concerning what appear to be the Government’s efforts to influence the guilty plea allocutions of cooperating witnesses Amin Majidi and Frank Dinucci in a manner designed to eliminate exculpatory information for Mr. Shor and to avoid impeachment information regarding these witnesses. As Your Honor has recognized, the proposed plea allocution that Mr. Majidi’s counsel forwarded to the Government for review should have been disclosed previously under United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, the proposed allocution is materially different from that which Mr. Majidi ultimately offered in court, and the language added after Government review seems designed to implicate Mr. Shor in alleged criminal acts. Over the weekend as part of its re-review of its files, the Government for the first time disclosed a proposed allocution for Mr. Dinucci that the Government asked to review and which was provided by his counsel [REDACTION.] As with Mr. Majidi, after the Government’s apparent tinkering, Mr. Dinucci allocuted in a manner that went well beyond the elements of the charged offenses and inculpated Mr. Shor with factual claims that did not appear in Mr. Dinucci’s proposed allocution. The proposed allocution included [REDACTION.] With respect to Mr. Majidi and Mr. Dinucci, the proposed allocutions would never have seen the light of day but for the Brady/Giglio issues that have arisen before and during trial and defense counsel’s repeated efforts to ensure compliance with the Government’s constitutional obligations."

  On Saturday, June 8 Assistant US Attorneys Andrea M. Griswold, Joshua A. Naftalis and Max Nicholas filed a letter including that "Pursuant to our colloquy with the Court on June 6, 2019, we have reviewed our file, including archived emails, for all communications with attorneys for witnesses in this case, in order to determine if there were additional materials that should be disclosed pursuant to United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008). In the course of this review, we produced to defense counsel, on June 7, a draft plea allocution that counsel for cooperating witness Frank Dinucci sent to the Government. We also produced on June 7 certain bank records that we received from counsel for cooperating witness Amin Majidi earlier that day relating to an account formerly held by Majidi; a document relating to Majidi’s citizenship; a memorandum of agreement relating to a subdivision of land owned by Majidi and his wife; and communications with counsel for Dinucci relating to travel requests. This evening, we produced to defense counsel additional communications with counsel for Dinucci relating to travel requests; communications with counsel for cooperating witness Ashish Dole relating to travel requests; communications with counsel for Majidi regarding a bail modification request; communications with counsel for Dinucci and the FBI regarding setting up an account for Dinucci to make recorded calls; and emails with counsel for James Nimberg regarding the production of documents. 

Having completed our review and produced the materials described above, we believe that we have complied with our disclosure obligations under Triumph Capital and the related case law." The trial resumes June 10 and Inner City Press will be there, watch this site, @InnerCityPress and the new @SDNYLIVE.

  The underlying Complaint in the case, from Paragraphs 25 to 40, does a fine job of explaining. But juror are not supposed to go online. So, lengthy testimony in a sure to be lengthy trial.

  Set to testify against Ahuja is one time PPI portfolio manager Amin Majidi. Ahuja's lawyer on June 5 told the jury they will be shown how Majadi lied not once but three times to prosecutors about an account he owned. The case is USA v. Ahuja, et al., 18-cr-328 (Judge Failla).

   First, Ahuja's Paul Weiss lawyer said, Majadi told the prosecutors he had set up the account to take money out of Iran but had never put anything in it. Then he said, yes, there was $900,000 in it from the sale of a property but he claimed he did not know how it got there. It turns out, the opening statement went, that the money was taken out of Iran through illegal money brokers: hawala. This should get interested.

 Judge Failla told the jury they will be getting a 45 minute lunch break each day during the trial at around 12:45, and will knock off at 3 pm. She said she could get them breakfast and "heavy snacks." Some of the opening statements were drown out by disappointed attendees of the proceeding against the U.S. Census citizenship question, which SDNY Judge Jesse Furman restricted to setting a briefing schedule. But things in Special Courtroom 110, where in the past UN briber Ng Lap Seng was tried and convicted as reported daily by Inner City Press, should get interesting. Watch this site. 

  

Back on May 14 former health care investment banks Sean Stewart appeared in the run-up to a September 9 re-trial on insider trading charges, now with pro bono counsel from Fried Frank, in the SDNYcourtroom of Judge Jed Rakoff. Things got off to a rocky start.

   Judge Rakoff wanted to know why, for a retrial, it was taking so long. He asked, Why not do the trial in July? The Fried Frank lawyers said they were new to the case - although they had appeared, strangely, in a status conference on it before SDNY Judge Andrew Carter in March, Lawrence Gerschwer and Steven Witzel - and that they were reviewing discovery. Or really, that the "cavalry" would arrive next Monday, in the form of summer associates.

  Stewart was previously represented by the Federal Defenders; Judge Rakoff said while Fried Frank might be good they could not match the Federal Defenders. (He smiled as it said it). The Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard A. Cooper and Samson A. Enzer are also new to the case, which began under Judge Swain. Judge Rakoff seems determined to end it one way or the other.  Judge Rakoff finished the proceeding with a shout-out to a Julia Green in the back of his courtroom, seemingly his law clerk in 2007 and now, after a corporate stint, with the SEC. 

 Judge Rakoff set deadlines and said that the September 9 trial date will not be changed, although the jury will not sit on the Thursday and Friday of the second week. The case is USA v. Stewart, 15-cr-287.

On Bangladesh Bank Heist US Federal Reserve Provides Only 1 Page Under FOIA Amid SDNY Case

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, June 29 – 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. The first pre-trial conference in the case was held on May 21, see below.

  Back in March Inner City Press submitted a request under the US Freedom of Information Act to the US Federal Reserve about its role in and action on the Bangladesh Bank heist. After four months of delay from the Fed, and an appeal by Inner City Press of their constructive denial, the Fed finally ruled on June 27 - releasing only one page, a two paragraph cover letter.

  This is the opposite of transparency. Inner City Press on June 29 submitted an appeal: "Dear Governor in charge of FOIA Appeals:  On behalf of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch (ICP), this is a near immediate FOIA appeal of FRB absurd denial by providing only one page, a two paragraph cover letter, in response to Inner City Press' FOIA request four months ago regarding the Federal Reserve's role in and action on the Bangladesh Bank heist      As you must know, agencies are request to provided all reasonably segregable information and are not allow mass withhold, as here. Beyond the Bangladesh Bank, to withhold in full records about the oversight by the Board over the Reserve Bank is an outrage. See also Inner City Press' timely comments on the FRB's current proposals to modify - and weaken - its FOIA responsibilities.    

We requested and request: records regarding the Federal Reserve System's [role] including the FRBNY's role in what is known as the Bangladesh Bank hack or cyber heist and assistance provided to Bangladesh Bank and investigative authorities since the heist, including but limited to in connection with the SDNY case Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-00983.  and, for the record, from Inner City Press' May 21 submission: " First, the FRB denied the request for expedited processing, finding no threat of physical harm (??) and also reciting and presumably denying under this standard:     "[t]he requester is a representative of the news media ... and there is urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Board activity.”     Still, the Fed in further extending its time said there would be response by April 2. There has been none, nothing at all.   Today in the SDNY counsel for Bangladesh Bank directly referred to the Federal Reserve. The Fed's delay, contrasted to the fast if bad faith turn around on Inner City Press' BB&T money laundering enforcement action termination FOIA, is in this context unacceptable, even a cover up.    This is an appeal. The FRB should provide an explanation of nothing since April 2, and the long ago requested documents."    Inner City Press is hereby appealing from the withholding, demanding that all segregable information be provided, immediately." Watch this site.

On May 21, SDNY Judge Lorna G. Schofield expressed serious concern if she has subject matter jurisdiction.

  Judge Schofield encouraged the defendants to jointly file two briefs supporting a motion to dismiss by June 14. 

  Late on June 14, this was filed, urging that the case be sent back to the Philippines: "This lawsuit, brought by a foreign plaintiff premised on conduct allegedly undertaken in the Philippines, belongs in the Philippines, not New York. Through this action, Plaintiff Bangladesh Bank, a Bangladeshi bank, asserts an insufficiently pled RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and eight state law claims, arising from an alleged conspiracy with computer hackers in North Korea, RCBC in the Philippines, and casinos, including Bloomberry and EHL, in the Philippines, to launder funds in the Philippines. 

All of the Defendants reside in the Philippines, all of the alleged acts by Defendants giving rise to this action against the Philippine defendants occurred in the Philippines, and almost all of the witnesses and evidence are located in the Philippines. Rather than filing suit in the Philippines, however, Plaintiff initiated this action here, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff’s choice of a New York forum is nothing more than forum shopping and should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds because the Philippines—not the Southern District of New York—is the most appropriate and convenient forum for this lawsuit. Retaining jurisdiction in this District would not be convenient for the parties or witnesses, nor would it promote the efficiency of this litigation, or be economically advantageous. In short, the ends of justice would be best served by dismissal of this action on forum non conveniens grounds." Inner City Press will have more on this.

 Back on May 21, Rizal Commercial Banking Corp (RCBC), through its counsel Tai-Heng Cheng of Sidley Austin marveled that Bangladesh Bank has still not succeeded with service of process of the complaint - actually handing the document to those charged, in essence - for example failing to use a sheriffunder provisions of Philippines law.

  There also remain questions about service on the other named defendants, one of whom (Mr. Go) is now deceased. The others include: "MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO, ANGELA RUTH TORRES, LORENZO V. TAN, RAUL VICTOR B. TAN, ISMAEL S. REYES, BRIGITTE R. CAPIÑA, NESTOR O. PINEDA, ROMUALDO S. AGARRADO, PHILREM SERVICE CORP., SALUD BAUTISTA, MICHAEL BAUTISTA, CENTURYTEX TRADING, WILLIAM SO GO, BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC. D/B/A SOLAIRE RESORT & CASINO [represented on May 21 by Daniel M. Perry of Milbank], EASTERN HAWAII LEISURE COMPANY, LTD. D/B/A MIDAS HOTEL & CASINO, KAM SIN WONG A/K/A KIM WONG, WEIKANG XU, DING ZHIZE, GAO SHUHUA, and JOHN DOES 1-25." 

  Judge Schofield encouraged Bangladesh Bank to try to perfect service, but remained focused on whether she and the SDNY court havesubject matter jurisdiction. She asked, as to the RICO claim in the complaint, when the alleged conspiracy began and ended. Bangladesh Bank's response referred to US government complaints, including in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California, against North Korea for the SONY hack in 2014.

   Afterward Inner City Press asked Bangladesh Bank's lead lawyer, John J. Sullivan of Cozen O'Connor, if he had been surprised by Judge Schofield's approach. He said he had expected it, and argued that the judge is considering whether the case is best placed in Federal court or New York State Supreme Court on the other side of Pearl Street. 

  Inner City Press asked him, Doesn't forum non conveniens in this case point to the Philippines? And why hasn't Bangladesh Bank also sued North Korea? Sullivan said he was not at liberty to answer. We'll have more on this - for now, more on Patreon, here. 

To the Federal Reserve, Inner City Press requested records relating to the Fed's role with response officially due in 20 working days. But now this from the Federal Reserve: "Re:       Freedom of Information Act Request No. F-2019-00095     Dear Mr. Lee,     On February 19, 2019, the Board of Governors (“Board”) received your electronic message dated February 17, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for records regarding the Federal Reserve System's [role] including the FRBNY's role in what is known as the Bangladesh Bank hack or cyber heist and assistance provided to Bangladesh Bank and investigative authorities since the heist, including but limited to in connection with the SDNY case Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-00983.      Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until April 2, 2019, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.     If a determination can be made before April 2, 2019, we will respond to you promptly. It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law." And since then, nothing. We'll have more on this.

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. 

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. 

Exclusive: UN Guterres Set To Reward Sexual Harasser Colin Stewart Exposed Like Shiotani By Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive, Patreon

UN GATE, SDNY, June 26 – UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres claims he has a zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment, but continues to reward UN officials who are charged with harassment. Inner City Press previously reported on Guterres promoting his official Fabrizio Hochschild Drummond of Chile, after sexual harassment in his own 38th floor office, to "Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Preparations for the Commemoration of the United Nations’ 75th Anniversary."    

   Today Inner City Press, now banned from the UN by Guterres for 361 days, exclusively reports on another reward being fulled in Guterres' world of double-speak, harassment and hypocrisy.      

  Colin Stewart is accused of sexual harassment, covered up by Guterres official to protect yet another official - and Steward is about to have his UN contract extended at head of MINURSO, another of Guterres' failing peacekeeping missions. There is pushback by some UN staff and whistleblowers, but these people under Guterres are ignored and retaliated against.     

  While Stewart was Political Director at the UN Office in Addis Ababa the serious charge arose. In typical UN fashion a cover up began. But the charge gathered force and was soon seen as being inconvenient for Stewart's immediate supervisor Haile Menkerios.   

That's when the real cover-up team got active, including Kyoko Shiotani who Inner City Press has previously shown to have gotten her husband an entirely unmerited paid UN job on the UN website while serving as chief of staff to UN Political Affairs boss Rosemary DiCarlo.    

  More on Patreon, here: it's even worse than it looks...

  When Inner City Press, after receiving no answers to its questions from Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric, ran its exclusives about the all-in-the-family website contract to John van Rosendaal, it was twice roughed up by Guterres UN Security Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins and five others who refused to give their names. It has now been banned from any entry of the UN for 361 days, with its written questions unanswered by Dujarric. 

Also involved in the sexual harassment cover up: Nathalie Ndongo-Seh, then Menkerios' chief of staff, and Fatemeh Ziai. Guterres' UN is totally corrupt, answers to questions and roughs up and bans the Press which asks.    

  Now there are voices inside the UN, sources of banned Inner City Press, outraged that the absent and bloated Secretary General Antonio Guterres is about to reward another harasser while spending public money to cultivate a false image of himself to try to get a second term. L'affaire Colin Stewart is another test. Guterres has already failed enough tests to be fired or worse. And this one? Watch this site. 

   Downtown at the SDNY courthouse which Inner City Press now covers daily, Vivian Wang, who as money manager for convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng's South South News made payments to disgraced President of the UN General Assembly John Ashe, was given a time served sentence on June 26 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge George B. Daniels.

   Wang's lawyers at Goodwin Proctor, in a heavily redacted sentencing submission, stated that her deceased husband Forest Cao "was 57 years old adn had no known health problems of medical conditions. No autopsy was performed."

 It also says, as to UN President of the General Assembly John Ashe, that while awaiting trial on UN bribery charges "his death was reported as the result of a 'weightlifting accident' after a barbell apparently crushed his throat."

  After the sentencing, Inner City Press with covered the Ng Lap Seng trial before SDNY Judge Vernon Broderick daily asked Wang's lawyer Derek A. Cohen if he was implying that Forest Cao and John Ashe were killed, and why he had so heavily redacted this sentencing submission.

 "It speaks for itself," Cohen said by the elevators. Likewise the Assistant U.S. Attorney on the case Daniel C. Richenthal declined Inner City Press' question about who beyond Ng Lap Seng Ms. Wang had cooperated against.

 Judge Daniels did not preside over the trial of Ng Lap Seng. He accepted the government's recommendation of time served with very little inquiry. 

  He said as if by rote that corruption of the UN is a serious matter. But if so, why should a person who paid bribes in the UN get such a light sentence with little public showing of the benefit of their cooperation?

   Corruption has continued at the UN since the prosecution of Ng Lap Seng, resulting in his four year prison sentence. A second, separately prosecution was brought against Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, an entity which also tried to buy the oil company of Lisbon-based Gulbenkian Foundation which employed current UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres as a compensated board member. 

  Neither in the Ho nor Ng Lap Seng cases where any of the UN Secretariat officials implicated in the bribery schemes prosecuted. 

  This laxity can be contrasted with another SDNY proceeding a mere hour later, in which Judge P. Kevin Castel looked behind the U.S. Attorney's Office's 5k1.1 cooperation letters and imposed jail time on the four siblings, the Seggermans, who evaded taxes. That underlying case was USA v. Little, 12-cr-647 (Castel). This bifurcated case is USA v. Wang, 16-cr-495 (Daniels).

 Vivi Wang helped bribe the UN, and on June 26 she got a time served sentence for undefined cooperation. Judge Castel looked behind the government's 5K1.1 letter but Judge Daniels did not. And the UN continues corrupt. Inner City Press will have more, much more, on this.