Peru investigates Stanford for money laundering

[seafan]

Source: Reuters

LIMA (Reuters) - Peru has started an investigation to see if the local unit of Stanford Financial Group engaged in money laundering, the country's lead public prosecutor for such crimes said in an interview on Friday.

Jorge Luis Caldas told Reuters that Peru's investigation would also look into whether the company sold high-yield certificates of deposit without a licence.
The CDs are at the core of what U.S. authorities have called an $8 billion (5.5 billion pound) "massive" fraud allegedly carried out by Texas billionaire Allen Stanford and several of his companies.
Caldas disclosed the inquiry a day after Peru's securities regulator suspended the operations of the local Stanford office for 30 days.

"We are going to investigate to verify if, in effect, there was money laundering," Caldas said.

ABC News reported the U.S. FBI and other agencies have looked into whether Stanford was involved in laundering drug money from Mexico's drug cartel.
Peru is the world's No. 2 cocaine producer after Colombia, and officials say Colombian and Mexican cartels work in Peru.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE51J5BS20090220

---

FBI inquiry links Stanford to Mexican cocaine cartel, February 19, 2009


Past probes sought to tie Stanford to drugs, February 20, 2009

Authorities for years have investigated R. Allen Stanford, looking for ties to organized drug cartels and money laundering, going back at least a decade when the Texas billionaire’s offshore bank surrendered $3 million in drug money, state and federal sources told the Houston Chronicle Friday.

But no one has ever been able to make a criminal case.

Texas securities officials investigated, as did the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. But none found solid evidence of a link between drug money and Stanford, who now stands accused of running a multibillion-dollar fraud at his offshore bank in Antigua and Houston-based brokerage firm.

In the late 1990s, according to court documents, operatives of the Juarez cartel began opening accounts at Stanford’s Antigua-based bank in an effort to launder money amassed under one of Mexico’s most vicious drug lords, Amado Carrillo Fuentes. Together, they used Stanford International Bank to open 10 accounts and deposit $3 million — a small sliver of the cartel’s fortunes but enough to pique authorities’ interest.

Now, more than a decade later, federal sources tell the Chronicle, any alleged Stanford connection to drug cartels and their money could lie buried in the paperwork gathered for the Security and Exchange Commission’s civil inquiry.

After the FBI located Stanford in the Fredericksburg, Virginia area on Thursday, February 19, and serving him with SEC papers for $8 billion fraud, and without arresting him, IS ANYONE TAILING THIS MAN??

[opihimoimoi]

1. They let him go??? WTF?

[seafan]

2. The amount of corruption is too much to absorb. Why was Stanford not arrested Thursday????

The SEC stood down on its investigation of Stanford in 2006. Who gave that order, and why?


Who in the sam hill is running things in all of these agencies? Where is our law enforcement?


God, we are in trouble.

[lurky]

11. He must REALLY know some embarrassing shit.

Especially given the whole "stand down" situation Kucinich was talking about.

[sattahipdeep]

12. Chris Dodd on Mary L. Schapiro WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgymGJ4uNxA

6:30 7:07

:crazy:

[sattahipdeep]

3. Finally

As investigations into Stanford's businesses widened, evidence emerged that his Stanford Group Co had been disciplined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). the U.S. broker-dealer watchdog.


In November 2007, FINRA fined Stanford Group $10,000 for misleading sales literature that failed to prominently disclose risks, such as that the CDs were not issued by a U.S. bank and were not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51H5IO20090219?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

....
Stanford's personal fortune was estimated at $2.2 billion last year by Forbes Magazine.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51H5IO20090219?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

Schapiro's corrupt as Markopolos pointed out.

01:02:11 MARKOPOLOS

01:02:39 REP.SHERMAN

....
01:05:01 REP.CASTLE

01:05:36 MARKOPOLOS

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283836-1

....
FBI Probes Stanford Ties to Mexico's Gulf Cartel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5uFXD2E0rc

[seafan]

4. Update Saturday: Stanford's whereabouts: again a mystery

UPDATE 2-Stanford's whereabouts: again a mystery

Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:39am IST

FREDERICKSBURG, Virginia., Feb 20 (Reuters) - Texas billionaire Allen Stanford was nowhere to be seen on Friday in this historic Virginia town, site of a fierce battle in the American Civil War and reputed through local lore to be haunted.

The home of relatives of a woman said to be a girlfriend of Stanford became a magnet for reporters and photographers, but there were no signs that anyone was inside.

Intense speculation had surrounded Stanford's whereabouts since Tuesday, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil charges against him, two of his colleagues and three of his companies, accusing them of an $8 billion fraud.

Stanford, who failed to respond to a subpoena earlier this week, surfaced here on Thursday and was served with court papers related to the SEC charges.

.....

The FBI said its agents were acting at the request of the SEC when they served Stanford with papers in Fredericksburg, about 50 miles (80 km) south of Washington, D.C.

"We were helping out there to locate and serve papers," said Bill Carter, an FBI spokesman in Washington. Stanford, 58, was not taken into custody, Carter said. He declined to discuss how Stanford had been located. Other officials said he was not a fugitive and had not been hiding.

SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan said that Stanford and his two co-defendants had surrendered their passports in keeping with a judge's order. The co-defendants are James Davis, SIB's chief financial officer, and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of a Stanford affiliate.

Callahan declined to comment on when and where the passports had been given up.

.....

Let's see. We have a man who is accused by the SEC of running an $8 billion financial fraud scheme. The FBI located him 2 days ago to "assist" the SEC in delivering court papers, didn't arrest this bastard, and now he's disappeared again.

Is that right?

[EFerrari]

5. What's fascinating about this case is the way it's revealing the spine

of a corrupt and complicated enterprise in a way probably nothing else could have. Are we looking at Iran-Contra II here?

Venezuela, Peru, Antigua, El Salvador, Mexico . . . . I don't understand it all yet but "aqui hay gato encerrado" -- there's a cat locked in a closet here somewhere.

[ret5hd]

7. Nugan-Hand II???

[EFerrari]

8. I had to go look that up, but, yes! Doesn't it look like that? n/t

[ret5hd]

9. I guess it would really be Nugan-Hand III. I forgot BCCI.

[EFerrari]

10. We have to ask blm what she thinks. She knows BCCI inside out. n/t

[seafan]

6. Hoo, boy: Judge recuses self from Stanford SEC lawsuit in Texas

Judge Removes Self From Stanford SEC Fraud Lawsuit (Update1)

February 20, 2009

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Sam Lindsay, the federal judge in Dallas hearing the R. Allen Stanford securities-fraud suit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, removed himself from the case today.

“The court learned today that a person with the third degree of relationship to it has substantial holdings managed by Stanford Group Co.,” Lindsay said in a court order. Stanford Group is a defendant in the SEC lawsuit.

The SEC sued Stanford, the Stanford Group and Antigua-based Stanford International Bank on Feb. 17, accusing them of a “massive, ongoing fraud,” in which they misled investors about $8 billion in certificates of deposit. Two of Stanford’s associates are also named in the suit.

Stanford, 58, was served with court papers by FBI agents yesterday near Fredericksburg, Virginia, following a two-day search for him.

ABC News reported yesterday that Stanford’s lobbyist, Ben Barnes, said the financier had hired Brendan Sullivan of the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly LLP to represent him.

Sullivan today didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment about the judge’s decision to step down from the case.

Kevin Callahan, an SEC spokesman, declined to comment on Lindsay’s recusal.

Today’s order directed the court’s clerk to reassign the case to another judge. Phone calls to the clerk’s office after hours went unanswered.

The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

.....

[antigop]

13. "But no one has ever been able to make a criminal case."

Criminal charges have not yet been filed...and until they are filed, I don't think we will see any arrest warrants.

Here is a good rundown..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aNOkyot5pWo4

No criminal charges have been filed against Stanford or his co-defendants in the SEC case: Stanford Chief Financial Officer James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of the Stanford Financial Group. Federal marshals shut the Houston office of Stanford Group Co.

“The SEC case is a precursor for the criminal investigation and inevitable criminal charges,” said Dan Cogdell, a Houston attorney who defended several Enron Corp. executives against federal securities-fraud charges.

Based on allegations in the SEC complaint, prosecutors might have grounds to charge some of the defendants with mail fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, money laundering “and a host of less felonious acts,” he said.

Houston U.S. Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Angela Dodge referred questions regarding possible charges against Stanford to the SEC. Alfredo Perez, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshal’s office in Houston, said he wasn’t aware of any arrest warrants for the three executives, which he said wouldn’t be issued until any charges are filed.

[EFerrari]

14. Speaking of Negroponte, seafan -- check out #32 ff on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3749851

[seafan]

15. May 5, 2006: "Intelligence Czar Negroponte Can Waive SEC Rules"

Thank you, EFerrari, for pointing this out again. The answer to the thread title below just may be Mr. John "death squad" Negroponte. I remember reading about this when it went down, and thinking WTH....


From this thread: Kucinich on Stanford Group Fraud: Who Told SEC to "Stand Down?", February 21, 2009, with hat tip to DUer JackRiddler for posting the info:


Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules

May 23, 2006

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision. .....

How about The Stanford Group?

Recent media reports have indicated that the SEC was aware of improprieties at Stanford Financial Group as early as October 2006, but withheld action at the request of another government agency.

U. S. House, Dennis Kucinich, February 20, 2009

More from the May 23, 2006 Businessweek linked above:

The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.

FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.

In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.

AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

Once again, it is clear that George W. Bush, the Outsourcer-in-Chief, abused the vast power of the US Government, using it as a weapon for unprecedented robbery of its citizens.