Wednesday, November 30, 2016


The thrice-convicted fraudster, Okke Ornstein, now transferred to Panama's El Renacer prison, to begin serving a 40-month sentence, for two of those convictions, simply cannot stop defrauding victims. he has enlisted a number of associates, some of whom are also involved in his child pornography industry, to plead for monetary donations, ostensibly for upcoming legal fees. Ornstein has several pending criminal cases, one of which has been set for trial in December.

The problem is that a public defender has been appointed to represent him; any money donated by well-meaning individuals, taken in by his ficticious tale of "journalist" going to prison for writing articles, will be going right into the pockets of Ornstein and his confederates. Ornstein's co-conspirators have written a number of articles on the Internet, seeking financial support, though there is no factual basis for their stories; it's all an elaborate fabrication, designed to persuade readers to send in money.

Some of the additional white-collar charges that the Dutch fraudster skipped out on when he fled Latin America two years ago will now be heard in Panama's courts, and we trust that they will result in sufficient additional prison time to keep one of Panama City's most prolific criminals imprisoned for this decade, and the next.

Ornstein has civil judgments on file against him, for $5m and $1m, respectively.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016


Four thousand Bolívars to one US Dollar ! With Venezuela on the verge of defaulting on its sovereign debt payments in December, you can now list the country as having reached the highest risk level, for the purposes of Country Risk assessment. At this point, no transactions with Venezuelan companies, government institutions, and even private financial institutions are recommended, unless they are for US Dollars, paid when products or services are rendered.

It is humbly suggested that even dollar-denominated transactions are now very high risk, due to the strong possibility of nonpayment, unless the transaction is payable in advance of the rendering of products or service.


The recent news, to the effect that a report, by the court-appointed Monitor of HSBCs AML/CFT reform process, was leaked to the press, and that the report allegedly noted that there were more than a dozen HSBC accounts that were linked to Syrian terrorist organizations, was said to have immediately provoked a "furious" response from senior bank management, is extremely distrubing. Don't those chaps get it yet: HSBCs AML/CFT program was adjudged an utter failure, and yet you are angry at a whistleblower ?

When the corporate culture of a bank, with decades of AML failures on a global scale, refuses to reform, it is time for a new strategy. Inasmuch as the bank cannot clean up its compliance regime to the point where it attains a satisfactory level, dismantle the bank, and sell off the national components to banks that have a history of successful AML/CFT programs. Is this too radical for you to contemplate ?

The alternative is dreary; the bank, time & time again gets rapped for systemic compliance failures, but there is no true reform, no matter how punitive the sanctions visited upon the bank are. The greed (profit) factor is simply too strong in the bank's corporate culture to be tamed, with the usual dire consequences for effective/compliance.

If you have a viable solution for HSBCs compliance report card, which has earned an "F" for as long as I can remember, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, think about doing the unthinkable: break the bank up, so that narcotics profits, bribes & kickbacks, and the proceeds of corruption no longer have a welcome destination for placement of illicit funds.


As you know, in the aftermath of the release of the so-called Panama Papers, the European Union formed a committee, to insure that its member countries complied with its stance on tax evasion and money laundering. Unfortunately, senior government officials in Malta have chosen to make themselves unavailable, when the EU committee visits the island, to conduct interviews, claiming one lame excuse or another prevents them from meeting with committee members.

We all know why Malta's officials are avoiding talking to anyone that might ask the tough questions:  two of its most senior government leaders have themselves been exposed in the Panama Papers documents. Some bogus Maltese legal opinion about the status of the committee's powers has also been thrown around, to support the refusal of the country's officials to appear and answer questions.

Corruption and money laundering in Malta have been a topic discussed by compliance officers for many years. A decade ago, an article I wrote about a money laundering case in Malta drew the anger of government officials, who expressed their displeasure at what they regarded as news they did not want to appear in the media. The fact that it was true did not seem to matter. Is Malta an EU member, which is a banana republic, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea ?

Monday, November 28, 2016


Today, November 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, filed by R Allen Stanford, whose prior District Court conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. Stanford's best opportunity to revisit his criminal case has failed; any post-conviction relief that he seeks in the future is entirely discretionary with the District Court, and generally has a poor chance of success.

Stanford's presumptive release date is April 17, 2105, meaning that he will spend the rest of his life in custody; this may not satisfy his many victims, but it does more or less close the chapter on his criminal prosecution. His Stanford International Bank left victims strewn all over the Western Hemisphere, and the Ponzi scheme Stanford operated cost many Americans their life savings.  A sentence, such as the one in this case. that exceeds the life expectancy of a major Ponzi schemer, though stiff, could serve to deter future potential Ponzis from engaging in this type of criminal conduct.
* Robert Allen Stanford vs. United States, Case No.: 15-1490 ( US Sup. Ct.).


Most compliance officers now know to be wary of banking, or conducting transactions with, companies formed in the British Virgin Islands,  in light of the Panama Papers disclosures regarding the use of BVI corporations, formed with bearer shares, for tax evasion, for hiding the proceeds of corruption, or for a number of financial crimes. There is one additional caveat that should be observed: dealing with Restricted Purposes Companies (RPC) from that jurisdiction, could expose your bank, or your clients, to additional risks not generally known.

The BVI restricted purposes company has finite, and very limited, corporate powers and capacity; it is specifically limited to undertake a specific activity. Any other use of the company is outside its scope and authority. This means that banks, and clients, that conduct business with a restricted purpose company cannot presume that the transaction was authorized, and within the power of the company.

While BVI regulations require that such corporations carry the unique designation "(SPV)," for Special Purpose Vehicle, in their corporate name, unless one is aware of precisely what that means, individuals could fail to make the appropriate due diligence inquiries, to ascertain whether the transaction at hand is authorized. The other issue is, of course, whether a financial criminal will delete that restrictive designation from its corporate vehicle name, when seeking to deposit the proceeds of crime in an account in your bank.

As one legitimate purpose of an SPV is to remove debt from a corporation's balance sheet, it has a potential as an instrumentality of financial crime. Remember also that money launderers are only limited by their imagination, and they will certainly find a way to utilize an SPV to clean dirty money, if they haven't already done so.

The most pressing reason for compliance to be concerned, though, is the failure of a client, counter-party, or customer's customer to identify his BVI company as an RPC. Given your utter inability to identify the Beneficial Owner of a BVI company, a bank customer could be defrauded, and then have no recourse through litigation, when a default occurs, and it turns out to be an unauthorized transaction.

Do we need to obtain an affidavit, affirming that a certain BVI company is not an SPV, or will a certified copy of the articles of incorporation suffice, given the rampant use of Photoshop to alter documents ?   

Saturday, November 26, 2016


We have previously discussed the ongoing dispute, in the pending Federal Iran sanctions violation case against the Iranian golf trader, Reza Zarrab, where the defense has cited relevant case law limiting the right to obtain email information, from a server located outside the United States, and is seeking to exclude emails from a foreign-based Internet service provider, through a motion to suppress.

Though the Government is asserting that its position, regarding the admissibility of those emails, is correct, it has notified the defense that, if necessary, it intends to offer testimony in support of a fall-back position, that the emails would have been obtained, in any event, by subsequent investigation, and therefore they should be admitted, pursuant to the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery. This rule, established by appellate case law, provides that, if the excluded evidence would have been discovered anyway, in the course of the ongoing investigation, through other means, the Court will allow it to be admitted.

This means that the Government announced its readiness to put on the testimony of Federal law enforcement agents, probably the lead agency, the FBI, regarding their ongoing investigation into the Zarrab case. Should the Government meet its burden, and demonstrate that the Bureau would have, eventually, obtained access to the foreign-based emails, the Court could allow emails, obtained through the defendant's smart phone, after obtaining the password from him, without a Miranda warning, into evidence.


Those of you who wondered how Panamanian Immigration was able to identify, and detain, the fugitive (and thrice convicted) Dutch fraudster, Okke Ornstein, when he arrived in Panama, inasmuch as he was carrying a valid passport issued to another Dutch citizen, here's why: Panama, thanks to the able assistance of the US Department of Homeland Security, now conducts biometric scans of all foreign nationals coming into its international airport from abroad.

This means digital fingerprint scans, and a digital photograph, are taken from all foreign nationals. Okke Ornstein was immediately taken into custody, and send directly to prison, to begin serving the 40-month sentence, on two separate cases, that he evaded two years ago, by engaging in unlawful flight out of Panama. Whether he will be charged with passport and immigration offenses is not known. All the years that Ornstein lived in Panama, he never held legal residency. he simply came in and out every six months, posing as a tourist, when in truth and in fact, he was a career criminal, committing financial crimes, as well as the more serious variety, leaving many victims in his wake.

All those newspaper articles, from the Netherlands, claiming that he is merely a journalist, imprisoned for blogging in Panama, for libel and slander, are totally uninformed and misguided. This individual has a long and sordid criminal history in Panama, as a purveyor of child pornography, to extortion and blackmail, to managing and supervising the operation a Ponzi scheme, to securities fraud, and many more crimes that are too long to list here.

Any efforts to free Ornstein, for some misguided, benevolent purpose, are from individuals, and organizations that have fallen for his ficticious journalist persona. He poses a danger to the public at large, and frankly, he deserves to serve his entire sentence, so that he does not scam any other victims, for the rest of this decade, and then to be deported to the Netherlands, to serve a sentence there, for another criminal conviction.

Friday, November 25, 2016


Javier Caraballo, the lead organized crime prosecutor investigating Mossack and Fonseca since April 2016, has obtained an extension of time, in which to continue his ongoing investigation of alleged criminal conduct of Mossack. He has requested judicial assistance from sixteen foreign jurisdictions, and sent out material, after requests were received, from six, all arising out of the Panama Papers documents.

Of course, the public relations staff at Mossack Fonseca has gone to great pains to deny that the law firm is guilty of money laundering, or of facilitating the proceeds of crime, of corruption, or of terrorist financing. Perhaps the most maddening statement to come out of the Mossack firm is its insistence that, notwithstanding that it has drawn the largest six figure fine, ever levied by BVI regulators, for massive AML and CIP deficiencies, that it is innocent, because the firm was not charged with a crime in the British Virgin Islands. Do they take compliance officers, who have seen portions of the Panama Papers, for complete idiots ? Criminal liability is obvious.

Unfortunately, since Panama has literally no attorney discipline process worthy of the name, expect Herr Mossack and Sr. Fonseca to continue to operate their firm, which constitutes a clear and present danger, to financial institutions in North America and Western Europe, for some time in the future. You can thank a system where a lawyer can buy a law degree for cash, and obtain a law license, and later routinely return to the practice of law, after serving a term of imprisonment for a felony, and where no lawyers are ever disbarred.  


Zarrab airport questioning: Custodial Interrogation ?

The US Attorney's Office in New York has moved for an order, in limine,* precluding the defense in the Zarrab case from calling FBI SA Scott Geissler, as a witness, in connection with the pending defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his mobile telephone. Zarrab was asked to provide his passcode/password to his telephone, which he did, without being given any Miranda warnings, in advance.

The Government's position:

(1) Special Agent Geissler's testimony would be both cumulative and legally irrelevant; the Government has previously provided testimony from several other law enforcement witnesses, who are FBI and CBP, which were sufficient, detailing the circumstances of his Miami Airport interrogation.

(2) Affidavits provided showed, the Government argues, that the action taken, the search of Reza Zarrab's cellular telephone, was a border inspection, by Customs & Border Protection, and not a custodial search by the FBI, nor did the FBI order it.

Obviously, the defense wants to establish that Zarrab's encounter with US law enforcement, upon his arrival at Miami International Airport, amounted to a custodial interrogation, which then raises the issue of whether the failure to give Miranda warnings requires suppression of physical evidence discovered as a consequence of unwarned statements of the defendant. The Government asserts that any statements from Geissler are not relevant to the resolution of the issues raised in the suppression motion.

The defense wants to ask SA Geissler about his activities, on the day that Zarrab arrived at the airport.
* In limine: a motion filed to request that a Court order that certain testimony be excluded, in advance, from being presented at a hearing, or trial.


If you are familiar with the host of advance fee schemes perpetrated upon Internet victims in Western Europe & North America by Nigerian career criminals, you might be interested in this story. Many of those same Nigerians are now themselves being willingly defrauded by a Ponzi/pyramid scheme that makes no bones about how it operates, and it is an abject lesson in pure unmitigated greed.

the scheme is called MMM, for Mavrodi Mondial Moneybox, oddly enough named for the Russian career criminal who reportedly set it up in the 1980s. It promises a 30% return, in one month, with the money to come from the next player, who pays the older participant directly. It makes no apologies about its status as a criminal Ponzi scheme, but its success in Nigeria is said to be due to rampant unemployment, and a victim population that does not care about the fact that it is illegal; they just want to get paid.

Obviously, there are many, many victims, for if someone breaks the chain, after being paid, the next player loses everything he or she "invested." African media reports that there are an estimated 2.4m Nigerians playing this game. One wonder just how many end up without the promised payout, but others, having been paid that thirty per cent return, are now reinvesting, multiple times.

MMM reflects poorly upon both the lack of respect for the law exhibited by the Nigerian players, as well as the poor sate of the economy, though unemployments never justifies crime. One wonders jus how many Nigerian white-collar criminals, having fleeced Westerners with their phony advance fee schemes, have now themselves become victims of a local scam; Call it karma.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016


 For those of you who are perplexed as to why Okke Ornstein, who had previously fled Panama to avoid serving prison time for three felony convictions, would have the temerity (or foolishness) to return to a country that was ready to imprison him, as soon as they could take him into custody ? Most career criminals (he has a $5m judgment filed against him in Panama, and one for $1m in the Netherlands) would not tempt the fates in that manner. So why did he do it ?

The answer is twofold:

First, he flew in with a legitimate passport, using an alias. Unfortunately, for Ornstein, Panama now has state-of-the-art electronic fingerprint reader technology at the airport, and his true identity was discovered. Perhaps Mr. Ornstein thought he could enter Panama, with another identity, unnoticed.

Second, he had to go to a country that one of his victims could not enter. Marc Harris, who was Ornstein's boss when he was the general manager at Harris' investment firm, alleges that Ornstein stole millions from him, and you know he wants it back. Panama is off limits to Harris, and Ornstein certainly knows that. Since he fears Mr. Harris, he returned to Panama, where Harris would most certainly be banned upon arrival.

We don't know precisely how many years Ornstein owes the criminal justice system in Panama; I show more than three years, but my records do not have details on his third Panamanian criminal conviction, or the sentence handed down in the Netherlands, in that case. We have also heard, from our Panama City sources, that it is thought that he will eventually be extradited to Canada. to face charges, to be filed, in that country.



The long-awaited report of the Committee of Experts, engaged by the Republic of Panama to recommend reforms, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, has been filed. It is essentially a whitewash, and fails to address these critical issues:

(1) The bearer-share nightmare, through which Panama is able to attract dirty money, was not even discussed. The use, by Mossack Fonseca of such entities, and Panamanian foundations is the core of the problem, but it was ignored. The report is essentially useless as a vehicle for proper reform.

(2) Outside of some public relations statements on transparency, there's no solid recommendation to the Government, to remove the total financial opacity that is Panama.

(3) The utter failure to charge banks, and individuals with money laundering offenses, all on the books as active laws, is not in  the report.

(4) The last straw is the avoidance, in the report, of the country's totally corrupt court system, with bribes & kickbacks all the way up to the Supreme Court of Justice, keeping foreign nationals from pursuing their legal rights, and holding government agencies accountable for efrorcing the law.

The report does admit that the accounting world may soon lower its ratings on Panama, due to its lack of reform, but then goes on to say that public relations with the financial world is the solution, while unnamed reforms are carried out. Remember, the two foreign experts on the Committee withdrew, when they learned that the report was to be delayed, until Panamanian authorities had a chance to review it, and enter comments in the press, prior to release, and that there were other controls placed upon the members.

The report deserves to be in the trash; I generally link to all relevant material, but in this case, reading the complete text of the report is a waste of your time, in my humble opinion, as it is a well-edited public relations piece, with no substantive content. If you want to be bored, go to the Ministry of the Presidency website, to access it, but I am not giving it a scintilla of credibility.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016


For those readers who have been waiting, impatiently, for the US Supreme Court to rule on the Certiorari Petition of the convicted master Ponzi schemer, R Allen Stanford, it is scheduled for conference today, November 21st, according to the docket.

 The originally-set September conference was scheduled, after the Court requested that the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the United States, as Respondent, file a reply. The US had originally waived its right to file a response. Whether the Court made the request, due to the high profile nature of Stanford's case, or whether there may be a germ of merit in his petition, we cannot say, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction & sentence, so we wait for the high court's ruling, anticipating the expected outcome, but still knowing that one cannot predict what it will be; Stay tuned.

Monday, November 21, 2016


The law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, in a letter to the Court, has addressed the Government's written concerns, regarding a potential conflict of interest, in Kirkland's continued representation of Reza Zarrab, in his Federal Iran sanctions violations case. A number of attorneys, previously with another firm, joined* Kirkland, subsequent to their engagement as defense co-counsel, and Kirkland has represented both Deutsche Bank and Bank of America, both of which had processed barred international financial transactions for Zarrab.

The firm's response:

(1) The interests of the two banks are not adverse to that of Zarrab, and the Government's theory of damages is flawed.
(2) Kirkland & Ellis confirms that "is not representing Deutsche Bank, or Bank of America, in any matter related to Mr. Zarrab, or his alleged conduct."
(3) Thought it does not believe that there is any potential conflict of interest, the Kirkland firm has erected a 'Chinese Wall,' which is an ethical wall, or an information barricade, which prohibits access to any material related to Kirkland's representation of Zarrab. to anyone at Kirkland who has worked for any of the two banks, or anyone at the firm who has not been pre-cleared by Kirkland's conflicts department.
(4) The firm has no objection to a Curcio hearing, to query the client, and to obtain a waiver from him, of the possible conflict of interest, suggested a November 30th hearing date, and filed proposed questions, to be asked of Zarrab, which are modified from the Government's previously filed set.
* Kirkland stated that the Government statement was incorrect, it did not "acquire" the firm which previously represented Mr. Zarrab. The lawyers simply joined the firm.


If you have been reading the Dutch press this week, a local journalists association is protesting the arrest, & imprisonment, of the Dutch fraudster, Okke Ornstein. He is NOT a journalist; he uses his blogs for criminal purposes. He's got 4 criminal convictions that I know of, in Panama, plus the case in the Netherlands. he also has a $5m judgment against him. Journalists do not engage in white-collar crime. The Dutch journalists association is being duped; this man is a career criminal, who preys on legitimate businessmen, and is suspected of murdering a man in Panama, for his wealth.

Read my previous dozen articles, all on this blog, if you require more proof.   


Kenia Porcell Díaz

If you were wondering, like me, why the US has not yet extradited its former president, Ricardo Martinelli, to face multiple (12) money laundering and corruption charges, Panamanians are in an uproar over disclosures that the documents transmitted to Washington are deliberately defective. This means that someone in Panama has obstructed justice.

Panama's Fiscal (Attorney General) Kenia Porcell Díaz is listed as the primary suspect, as her office is charged with the ultimate responsibility for forwarding the extradition request to the United States, but the country's president, Juan Carlos Varela, is also a candidate, for many of the corrupt ( and profitable) acts that Martinelli committed, are alleged to have been shared with his then-Vice President, who now runs Panama.

If there truly are procedural defects in the documents, the United States may have quietly informed Panama of the problems, so as not to embarrass the Varela administration, but if this information is not made public, Panama's corrupt system will merely delay amending the papers indefinitely. Many in the current Panamanian government clearly do not want Martinelli blowing the whistle on them, in order to mitigate his own ultimate sentence.

Some pessimistic Panamanians fear that Martinelli will never face justice in Panama City.

Sunday, November 20, 2016


The corrupt government of president Juan Carlos Varela, in the Republic of Panama, is not lifting a finger to close up the law firm of Mossack and Fonseca, notwithstanding the clear evidence of massive and systemic tax evasion facilitation, and money laundering. Therefore, countries who want to remove MF's illegal operation from their own jurisdiction, would do well to hit it where it hurts: by arresting the sleazy staff members working there.

Remember, Mossack Fonseca satellite offices overseas are operated by non-lawyers, and slippery attorneys who have been disbarred or disciplines by their state bar associations, or Provincial law societies. These individuals seeks to evade the control of professional associations, by being not duly licensed and qualified to practice law, even though that is precisely what they are doing, which is Mossack's achilles tendon.

When an individual counsels you on tax law, corporate law, and "asset protection," he or she is dispensing legal advice, which is the exclusive territory of licensed attorneys at law.  Do not claim that it is merely providing a non-legal service, Señores Mossack y Fonseca, for your overseas staff members are actually practicing law.

Therefore, in light of the fact that unauthorized practice of law, and holding one's self out as qualified to give legal advice, and thus an attorney, is a felony in most civilized jurisdictions, arrest these Mossack Fonseca legal pirates, and shutter their offices, after seizing all the files as a search incident to arrest. Put Mossack Fonseca out of business, in its Panama City sanctuary, by terminating all their overseas branches and offices.  

Put the pirates in the brig, please.

Saturday, November 19, 2016


The US Attorney in Manhatten has sent a letter to the Court., in the Reza Zarrab Iran sanctions case, indicating that one of the principal defense firms representing the defendant has a potential Conflict of Interest. The national American law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP is the firm named by the prosecutor.

As many of our readers know, large law firms routinely conduct what is known as a conflicts check, before undertaking legal representation of a client. This means they look as their list of existing clients, to insure that this new client, and the current client, have no claims, reduced to judgment, or pending and outstanding, against one another.

In criminal defense, it usually means the ongoing representation of a co-defendant, or even a major target in the case, or a crime victim. Most firms stop there, with their inquiry, but sometimes that is not sufficient. Occasionally, a conflict can actually arise during a case, and that is what happened here. One of the firms that represents Reza Zarrab, accused of massive Iran sanctions violations, involving US banks, is Bancroft PLLC. That firm was subsequently acquired by Kirkland & Ellis, and three of the Bancroft attorneys who represented Zarrab, became Kirkland & Ellis members, and thereafter continued to represent him in the criminal case.

Here's the reason for the conflict; Kirkland & Ellis happens to represent Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America, two financial institutions that Zarrab allegedly manipulated; they are banks that he illegally moved Iranian money through. These banks, as victims, may be testifying at trial, have the inherent right to address the Court at sentencing, and also to directly participate in any mandatory restitution that might be ordered by the Court.  Some sharp lawyer involved in the case, on the prosecution side, most likely spotted the new issue.

These issues, according to the US Attorney, require what is known as a Curcio* hearing, to insure that the defendant, Zarrab, and the two banks, are advised of the circumstances, and have the the opportunity to elect to waive the conflict. The letter was filed on November 18, 2016 and the Court has not yet addressed this issue.
*United States vs. Curcio, 694 F.2d 14 (2nd Cir. 1982).


Joseph Stiglitz
Joseph Stiglitz and Mark Pieth, the two foreign experts who removed themselves from the government committee, tasked with reforming Panama's offshore tax haven culture, because they were denied autonomy, and their report was not going to be made public, have released their own report. Entitled Overcoming the Shadow Economy, the report makes three principal recommendations;

(1) Public registers. of beneficial owners of corporations and other business organizations, must be created, and made available for research and due diligence inquiries, in all the countries, with real-time access. There must be total transparency.

(2) The United States and the European Union have the strength to force reform, through denial of access to financial markets and structures.

(3) The identities of beneficial owners of real estate transactions must be public knowledge.

(4) Attorneys, financial services officers, and other intermediaries who facilitate money laundering and tax evasion must be held criminally liable for their sins.

Mark Pieth
I recommend that you read the entire white paper; you may access the complete text here.

Friday, November 18, 2016


The fugitive Dutch fraudster, Okke Ornstein, who owes the Republic of Panama several years in prison, due to three outstanding convictions, was detained upon arrival from Europe, and transferred directly to prison, to begin serving his three consecutive sentences. He fled Panama last year, to avoid imprisonment, after exhausting what were considered to be frivolous appeals, all of which were futile. One of his victims actually pursued him to the Netherlands, where he prevailed in a civil action.

 Ornstein, who sustained yet another criminal conviction in the Netherlands, has an unpaid $5m civil judgment, and is the prime suspect in an unsolved murder that took place in Panama City, as well as a number of other financial crimes, and the production of child pornography.

As if his problems weren't serious enough, he was the general manager of Marc Harris' Ponzi schemes, and reportedly received immunity, for testifying against Harris; he allegedly stole a substantial sum from Harris, who was released from Federal Prison in August, and is understood to be seeking the return of his money. Ornstein is also said to be wanted by Hamas, the designated global terrorist group, for diverting aid money collected for Palestinian victims in Syria, and putting in into his own pocket.

Over the last six years, we have extensively covered Ornstein's financial crime activities in Panama; as well as his criminal cases. Readers who wish to review them may access this information by entering his name in the search boxes that appear at the extreme top left, and right-hand middle areas of this page.

Thursday, November 17, 2016


We note that many readers of this blog access the site through google's secure (https) search page, which conceals search information from prying eyes. There is now an alternative available to you, hypertext transfer protocol secured.

Visitors to the Financial Crime Blog are advised that they may now access the site through a secure webpage, to wit:   https:/  You may also wish to know that the original pages will continue to be available, in their nonsecure format.

Thank you for your continued interest in Kenneth Rijock's Financial Crime Blog.


According to reports published in the Republic of Panama, the Ministry of Finance of France is still labeling Panama as a tax haven, and pointing its finger at what remains broken, confirming Panama's flawed steps at reform. The fact that the French conclusion, about Panama's missteps, is appearing in prominent Panama City media, speak volumes about the growing anger among Panamanians, at the so-called "reform" do-nothing government of President Varela. Panamanian government officials have repeatedly sought to suppress what they regard as negative press about government, and for this story to be published demonstrates the level of frustration with failures to implement broad-based reforms, especially in the financial services sector.

The complaints:

(1) Panama's much publicized agreement, with the OECD, for exchange of information, is considered by France to be "imprecise," meaning defective. Also the definition of which countries the agreement applies to is insufficient.

(2) Of the 40 requests for information, sent to Panama by France, 25 of the responses have been considered by French authorities to be incomplete.

Therefore, Panama shall remain classified as a non-cooperative tax haven, by France. Compliance officers, govern yourselves accordingly.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016


It's not just the fact that half of the companies formed by the Panama law firm of Mossack and Fonseca were BVI corporations, and it's not just that Cayman Islands corporate service firms choose to form BVI companies, rather than those of their own jurisdiction, and it's not just that BVI government rebuffed the UK request for a public registry of beneficial owners. It is that, given the ability to totally and completely hide the true identity of the ultimate beneficial owner, you have no business accepting a BVI company for a bank client, because you can never be certain that he or she truly owns that company, now or in the future.

The global firestorm, generated by the Panama Papers, has reportedly caused increase distrust of any jurisdiction where corporate shares are not registered, and a record of all transfers available for examination. Inasmuch as the British Virgin Islands' popularity as an offshore incorporation destination, specifically for the reason that it allows bearer shares, it will not willingly reform its corporation laws.

Compliance officers who do not consider BVI corporations are high risk, and allow their bank clients to open accounts, using them, may later find themselves accused of violating their own risk-based compliance program, even if they institute enhanced due diligence procedures. Do you really want to be the object of a finding of compliance malpractice ? A report like that will be a career ender.

Learn which jurisdictions still permit bearer share corporations, and make a conscious decision to reject them; otherwise, you must assume the risk of the consequences down the road, and that is not an effective compliance policy.


The British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission (FSC) has imposed a $440,000 administrative penalty upon the beleaguered Panama City law firm of Mossack and Fonseca. More than 100,000 of the corporations MF formed for dodgy clients were formed in the BVI, which offers bearer-share corporations whose beneficial owners are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify.

The AML/CFT deficiencies that the FSC found were:
1. Failure to establish and maintain a written and effective system of external controls for forestalling and preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
2. Failure to carry out risk assessment in relation to each customers or one-off transactions.
3. Failure to undertake customer due diligence, and engage in enhanced due diligence.
4. failure to carry out verification and identification of written introductions to third parties.
5.Failure to maintain due diligence and identity records.
6.Failure, on the part of the compliance officer, to carry out obligations, duties and responsibilities.

Some observers have already expressed an opinion that the failure of the FSC to terminate MF's operations in the BVI is a gross mistake, but that the BVI regulators fear corporate formation flight if it comes down too hard on Mossack. The revenue generated by company formation is a large portion of the country's cash flow.

The FSC is thought to share the blame, due to the fact that it took the Panama Papers to expose Mossack's tax evasion and money laundering facilitation. Whether the $440,000 fine is too small, given the circumstances, is a question that deserves further inquiry.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016


The defense lawyers for Reza Zarrab, in a letter to the Court, have made a strong case for their position that the existing Protective Order in the case not only interferes with their ability to prepare a proper defense, it will give the US Attorney's Office a detailed preview of their trial strategy, and how they intend to present their client's case at trial.

In a letter to the trial judge, defense counsel lays out the huge volume of discovery that was turned over to them by the Government:

(1) Over 600,000 documents.
(2) 350,000 emails.
(3) Over 600,000 funds transfers.

In order for the defense to gain permission to show specific items of evidence to defense witnesses, to obtain an exception to the Protective Order, the defense must petition the Court, on a case-by-case basis, to get judicial approval. This gives the Government valuable insight into the defense's strategic decision-making, which is privileged, and similar to the argument supporting the Work Product Privilege*.

The Government's stated reason for the Protective Order with the emails, protection of an ongoing investigation is flawed. The defendant's right to prepare his defense outweighs any interest the government may have in keeping secret the seizure of the contents of an email box, from the target of an ongoing investigation. It is unlikely, the defense contends, that any such target, is not already aware that he or she may be under investigation, or that he or she is susceptible to arrest or extradition.

One has to conclude that the defense argument is sound, but given the rulings thus far in this case, the odds that the Court will revise a Protective Order that it has already found to be proper, are small.
* The actual trial strategy, and written or oral materials prepared by an attorney in preparation for litigation, are protected from discovery under the Work Product Privilege.


The anti-corruption prosecutors in Spain's Canary Islands, who have been illegally holding Vladimir Kokorev, his wife and son, for more than one year, on a bogus material witness warrant, have outdone themselves. They have now declared that the entire investigative file is a State Secret, and it cannot be examined by anyone, not even defense counsel. Has Spain now become a banana republic ?

The case, which is the principal reason that I have personally raised the level of Country Risk, upon Spain, in my records, is not the only Canary Islands case, where foreign nationals are incarcerated at length, without trial or hearing, and their assets are seized or forfeited to the Government of Spain. Spanish business interests, unhappy because its former colony, Equatorial Guinea, chose American oil companies to develop their country's petrochemical industry, have created a kangaroo court in Tenerife, for the sole purpose of removing EGs current President Obiang, and replace him with a new administration that will allow Spanish interests to exploit their former colony all over again, but this time, for oil.

The money laundering investigation against Vladimir Kokorev is a politically motivated case, with no basis in fact. It is a violation of human rights.


The Court has handed a setback to the defense lawyers for Reza Zarrab, in their attempt prove that the information, from a purported Turkish police report, used in an FBI affidavit, used to obtain a search warrant, was known to be discredited, and untrue. They are seeking to exclude the evidence seized, pursuant to that warrant, and are asking that the Protective Order be lifted, to allow the Turkish Ministry of Justice to see the affidavit, in order to authenticate the document, and the information contained therein.

After reciting that the existing Protective Order in the case was appropriately negotiated, and entered into by both the prosecutors, and the defense team, the Court, speaking through Judge Berman, ordered:

                 Based upon the record herein, the Court perceives no basis to depart
                 from the parties Protective order, and to determine that access to the
                 September 3014 affidavit is necessary for the purpose of preparing
                 the defense of this case. the defense application herein is respectfully
                 denied. Endorsement and Order.

The purported police report, which was found on the Internet, may have contained untrue information, and have been planted for purely political purposes.



Lost in the shuffle, in recent years, as the American economy rebounded from the crisis that it experienced a couple of years ago, is the exposure of sharp bank lending practices, that often crossed the line into fraud, whether it be fraud upon the court, or fraud upon the borrower. Most of these cases involved misconduct that was discovered during contested foreclosure proceedings.

I am presently reviewing a case, pending in one of Florida's District Courts of Appeal, where a number of the pressing lender misconduct violations are present, and appear as issues presented on appeal. Taken as only one example of the rampant lender misconduct that never shows up in major media, the case will analyze the principal points that we need to address, lest more illegal or improper foreclosure actions divest property owners of their realty, and commercial banks get away with it.

While most readers might wonder why I choose to cover this topic on a financial crime blog, rest assured that these are criminal actions, that deserve to be covered here; watch for it here shortly.


Recent disclosures, involving the use of Mossack Fonseca "legal services," in the formation of shell companies, which were used to purchase millions of dollars of pricey Miami real estate, by front men working for the corrupt Argentinian president's family, reinforces the ongoing money laundering threat that the Mossack firm presents to the United States. We are wondering aloud when the Department of Justice will see fit to indict these two partners, and put them out of business, once and for all.

The evidence is overwhelming, and there must certainly be drug traffickers, currently under indictment in America, who will want to reduce their ultimate sentences, by testifying about their purchase of shell companies, and opening of bank accounts, through the services of Mossack Fonseca. While we understand that such investigations take time, the clear and present danger that this law firm poses should serve to prioritize this case, ahead of all others, save terrorist financing matters, at Treasury.

Can someone please show some leadership, and indict these money launderers; One can only assume that they believe they are immune from extradition, but the US, when it is necessary, has shown that it can prod the Panamanian Government to release major criminals, and these two lawyers are the worst of the worst, when it comes to facilitating financial crime. Charge them both, please, forthwith.

Monday, November 14, 2016


A Colombian criminal court judge in Bogotá has reportedly asked that a request be made, to the United States, to extradite master Pyramid/ Ponzi schemer David Eduardo Helmut Murcia Guzmán, when his prison sentence ends, supposedly in 2019. Murcia's 30-year sentence, which he did not serve, was reduced to 22 years in appeal, but he still owes that debt to Colombia. An estimated 350,000 Colombians lost their money, through Murcia's vastly popular (criminal) enterprise, known as DMG, though some observers attribute their losses to improper actions taken by the Governments of Colombia and Panama. Murcia still has a major following in Colombia, notwithstanding the fraud.

Colombia's problem is this: it is believed that Murcia is not longer in Federal custody, and that he was quietly released, after providing substantial assistance to law enforcement agencies of the United States. He is said to have entered some sort of witness protection (WitSec?) program, and he has not been listed as being in US Bureau of Prisons custody for some time.

Details of his case have never ben released to the public, but he is said to have padded  DMG proceeds with two to three billion dollars of drug profits of the FARC, which he was allegedly laundering in Panama, through local banks, and in real estate. If he did supply the details of his contacts with the FARC to US law enforcement, it may have been the reason for the subsequent favorable treatment that he received, and why he never served his full sentence. Do not expect the US Government to assist Colombia in recovering Murcia, in my humble opinion.

Some Panama sources claim that he has already begun a quiet campaign to recover some of the millions of dollars of real estate holdings, which were stolen from him, when he was summarily deported from Panama, allegedly upon the direct orders of then-President, Ricardo Martinelli, who associates had designs upon Murcia's Panamanian assets. Much of Murcia's real estate wealth was stolen by fraudster Gary James Lundgren, who had purchased much of the real property for him, in the name of bearer share corporations, which are extremely easy to appropriate, using forged instruments, and bribed notary publics. Lundgren laundered bulk cash for Murcia, through purchases of real estate.

Gary James Lundgren
Will David Murcia ever recover his stolen millions in Panama ? We cannot say, but the unfolding story of his efforts will certainly be interesting to watch; Stay tuned.

Sunday, November 13, 2016


The modified peace agreement, signed recently between the Government of Colombia, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples' Army (FARC-EP), is said to provide that victim compensation will be funded through payment from FARC assets earned from narcotics trafficking and kidnapping. The FARC reportedly has earned billions of dollars from its criminal enterprises.

Given that Panama's openly money laundering banks have, for decades, served as the conduit into which FARC narco-dollars have flowed, and abrupt, unusual, or extremely large, funds transfer, from these banks, during the months of November and December, could very well be FARC wealth. It has long been expected that some greedy FARC senior leaders will swiftly conceal wealth that they control, to prevent it from being used for rehabilitation, and compensation, of the heirs of Colombians killed by FARC action against civilians.

Greed may also be a factor; some FARC may decide to divert a portion of their Communist organization's wealth to their personal accounts, reasoning that the theft will not be discovered, in the confusion of FARC demobilization and disarmament, after a peace treaty is ratified and implemented.

In any event, keep your eyes peeled for any suspicious transfers, from Panama's dirty banks (you should know who they are by now), and decline any transactions before they are processed, automatically alerting the most senior compliance officers at your bank, to your actions. 


World Info Report ( stole two of the copyrighted articles I published on this blog, way back in 2013, then back-dated them to a date just prior to the original posting date here, and placed them on its website, with the bogus date. I guess they think we don't keep good records of our articles. Well, think again, Mister Hacker.

The website did not exist before October, 2016, so how could it claim that it had articles up with 2013 dates ? Simple, they lie. Then, immediately World Info Report complains to your ISP, and files a DMCA copyright violation, with the company carrying my article, whether on my blog, or elsewhere, to get them taken down, World Info Report staff commit perjury to accomplish this, but these are criminals, so they do not care.

I would think that ALL the articles on the World Info Report website are stolen, for the express purpose of eventually causing the ISPs to take down websites, where the original articles report the damaging truth about companies, which are the hackers' clients.This is known as Internet fraud, for which there shall be legal consequences; Stay tuned.
For further reading: The World Info Report Scam and how it is trying to Shut Down the Truth, Kenneth Rijock's Financial Crime Blog, November 7, 2016.


Christopher Brenner, one of a pair of predatory lawyers who fleeced investors, in an advance fee scheme that later morphed into a Ponzi scheme, and who is being sued by the Securities & Exchange Commission, in Federal Court* in New York, is claiming that venue is proper only in Colorado, where  his clients' scheme, to steal fees and not deliver loans, and his former law office, operated.

Brenner, and his co-defendant, Jay Mac Rust, are two Texas lawyers who promised to place client fees in their escrow accounts, but, along with their clients, known as Atlantic Rim Funding, stole millions from companies who needed financing, get my vote for the title of Most Despicable Lawyers in America, if there ever was such a contest. In addition to this scam, Rust was a major player in a massive patent troll scheme, where he attempted to intimidate small businesses in to paying outrageous fees, for bogus patent claims of Rust's corporations. Both of these lawyers destroyed businesses, and lives, through their fraudulent acts, hence their targeting by the securities regulator.

Jay Mac Rust, cowboy, attorney & advance fee fraudster & rustler
Brenner's position, that the case must be moved, is being hotly contested by the SEC, which correctly has asserted that, since a stockbroker handled stolen money, in Brenner's law firm operating (not escrow) account, and paid out to Brenner, on his demand, venue is proper in the Southern District of New York . The Court has not yet ruled, but Brenner failed to respond to the SEC reply, and the law appears to favor the plaintiff agency. We will advise when a decision has been handed down.
* Securities & Exchange Commission, vs. Jay Mac Rust and Christopher K. Brenner, Case No.: 1:16-cv-03573 (SD NY).


As we go further and further into an analysis of the Panama Papers, one question is being asked, again and again: what about some of the dubious practices that the law firm of Mossack Fonseca engaged in. Do they constitute criminal acts, in the Republic of Panama, or in jurisdictions where these MF dodgy actions have an impact ?

While there are literally dozens of dirty tricks the Mossack firm engaged in, here are a couple of outrageous examples that should make your hair stand on end:

(1) To completely hide the identities of clients, the Mossack firm at times listed itself as the beneficial owner of some of its offshore corporations. Given that this is, by definition, not true, as the money in those companies' accounts belonged to wealthy clients, is this a crime, and where ?

(2) MF set up bogus email accounts, not related to the law firm, with anonymous names, and had their clients, also using aliases, communicate with them via this means. invented code names, and "nicknames," were used to hide client identities, even during telephone calls.

(3)  Setting up Panamanian foundations strictly for tax evasion purposes. A foundation is supposed to have a charitable, or benevolent, purpose, and for that reason it has no owners per se. Is the intentional act of forming, and then employing a foundation for an illegal purpose itself a crime, and in what jurisdiction, that of the client, perhaps ?

(4) Giving the clients access to professional front-men, affiliated with MF, who pretended to be the actual beneficial owners, and were paid for their 'services." Was the use of MF relatives as front-men, by definition, a criminal conspiracy ?

Will MF partners Jurgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca ever stand in the dock, somewhere in a criminal case, to answer for their sins and transgressions ? We cannot say at the moment,  but we will be watching.

Saturday, November 12, 2016


Reports from the United Kingdom indicate that three local bankers have been arrested, and charged with insider trading, based upon information that was released in the Panama Papers. The bankers, who remain unidentified, most likely will face serious charges, as UK prosecution for insider trading of late has been robust, with sentences longer than expected.

Precisely how the Mossack Fonseca offshore corporate formation information released by the ICIJ was responsible for the arrests is not known, but the most likely scenario is that the bankers were identified as Mossack clients, who obtained bearer share companies, or foundations, used to make covert securities purchases and sales. UK law enforcement agencies and regulatory entities reportedly declined to comment on the reports.  

Friday, November 11, 2016


Alan Koslow, a prominent Broward County attorney, was sentenced this week to one year and one day in Federal Prison for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, in a money laundering case. Koslow, who was stung in an FBI  operation, thought he was cleaning illegal gambling and drug profits. Initially arrested in September, 2013, he spent three years covertly rendering substantial assistance to law enforcement.

It is not known if he was required to wear electronic recording devices, or work undercover, but those are customary requirements of cooperating individuals who are seeking to minimize their ultimate sentences. A former Hollywood, Florida City Attorney, Koslow admitted to having a substance abuse problem; he successfully completed rehabilitation after his arrest, and prior to sentencing.

An Information was not filed until early 2016, meaning that Koslow carried that secret around with him for just under three years, not something that any lawyer would wish to bear. He was charged with defrauding the US, and not money laundering,  which was a decision by the US Attorney, most likely due to his cooperation over an extended period of time. We do not know the details of that cooperation, but since Grand Jury secrecy was mentioned, it is assumed that his assistance has, or is expected to, lead to Federal indictments.

Due to his substantial assistance, he avoided a possible three or four year sentence for money laundering conspiracy, but the three years he worked with law enforcement were most likely
extremely stressful, possibly dangerous, and not the sort of activity for the faint at heart. He earned the short sentence by taking actions that are not recommended, under any circumstances. Espionage may look exciting when you see it on television, but up close and personal, it only appeals to those who relish taking risks.

 Perhaps all the lawyers who are tempted, by clients, to earn "fast money," by cleaning dirty cash, might want to imagine what Koslow's life was like, during the time he was secretly obtaining incriminating information from targets, usually accomplished through close personal contact. If there was ever a person who might be a poster boy for deterrence, Mr. Koslow is surely the candidate.

Thursday, November 10, 2016


Gary Lundgren

If you are a close follower of the news from Panama, you know that the American President-elect Donald Trump has a pending $75m civil suit against the Alaskan expat, the Panama City fraudster, and sexual predator, Gary James Lundgren. Rumors have been swirling around Panama for months, that Lundgren has not entered the United States lately, because of an arrest warrant, though there is a dispute as whether it is for tax evasion, securities fraud*, or sexual battery. we are aware that there have been investigations against him, on all three topics, but we do not know their status.

It is believed that Lundgren has been more or less immune from extradition, for two reasons:
(1) He is a lawful permanent resident of the Republic of Panama.
(2) He is reputedly a Confidential Informant for an unnamed US law enforcement agency.

Now, however, we expect that, come January 20, 2017, he will shortly find himself on a Miami-bound flight, in the custody of the United States Marshals Service, and end up before a Magistrate Judge, where he will learn of the charges against him. The wheels of justice sometime turn slowly, but they do turn, nevertheless.

We understand that Mr. Lundgren has not shown up at his office since the election results were released. It sounds like he is awaiting that dreaded knock on the proverbial door. He should save himself some stress, engage a US criminal defense attorney, and arrange his surrender.
* It is not known whether Lundgren's former attorney, Ismael Gerli Champsaur, now facing multiple counts of fraud in Panama, will also be charged in the United States.


Believe me, I am no fan of the Foreign Account tax Compliance Act of 2010, or FATCA, because it is making it nearly impossible for legitimate Americans to open accounts anywhere outside the US, but if it is released, as the ascendant Republicans are promising in 2017, it will help facilitate global money laundering. Here's why.

American laundering money abroad choose to go to the most out-of-the-way places abroad, as well as the tax havens/offshore financial centers, but if FATCA, which is reportedly making them pariahs everywhere, is abolished, then it will be right back to business as usual, and foreign banks will not longer be afraid to open accounts for them. It is the fear of G_d that the US Treasury Department has instilled in them that is frustrating American laundrymen, and forcing them to use front men, which is high risk, when you cannot report theft of criminal proceeds, to the police if stolen by your local partner  in crime.

Yes, I know, FATCA is a reputed failure, with only $10bn collected, not the projected $100bn, and most of the money taken in is for fines & penalties, but please, leave it alone ! According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, it is making money laundering & tax evasion, by Americans, more difficult to accomplish.


As we reported in detail, yesterday, the affluent clients who used the Panama city law firm of Mossack Fonseca were, more often than not, individuals in a wide variety of endeavors and industries, and most of them were not Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).  Data from the Panama Papers  continues to expose yet additional categories of tax cheats and money launderers.

Grand Masters, many of whom were, at one time, world champions, of chess, went to Mossack Fonseca, or other offshore corporate service providers, for anonymous, bearer-share companies, for obvious reasons. Some of the names that have appeared, either directly as clients, or indirectly, as corporate officers, are Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, and Anna Burtasova.

Additionally, organizations involved with world-class chess have showed up in the Panama Papers, leading to a presumption that dodgy efforts, to conceal income from the taxman, on the part of Mossack and Fonseca were at work. As the analysis of the Panama Papers continues, you can expect more surprises to emerge, as heretofore unknown groups of wealthy businessmen, and even types that you least expect, show up as Mossack Fonseca clients, not just as purchasers of offshore corporations, but individuals whom Mossack opened accounts for, at known Panamanian money laundering banks.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016


The defense team has filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion to suppress the emails obtained by the government, pursuant to a warrant whose evidentiary basis was an affidavit, based in large part upon a Turkish police report, whose accuracy, and even authenticity, has been questioned. The defense contends that the report has been discredited, and that the government knew that, when it presented the affidavit to as Magistrate Judge, to apply for the search warrant.

To summarize the defense position:

(1) The Government knowingly, or recklessly, omitted critical information necessary to determine whether Probable Cause existed, to search Zarrab's emails.

(2) The FBI recklessly omitted information about the discredited nature of the purported police report.

(3) had the FBI not  recklessly omitted information, about the discredited "report," there would have been no Probable Cause to search Zarrab's Hotmail account.

(4) Therefore, the contents of Zarrab's Hotmail account should be suppressed.

The memorandum also cites to the recent Second Circuit Microsoft decision, for the principle that US warrants cannot reach email in servers located outside the United States. It has been previously referred to as the controlling law on these facts.

In a letter, delivered to the Court, the defense attorneys advised that they desire to have the Court partially lift the existing Protective Order, so that they may show the unsigned "police report" to officials at the Turkish Ministry of Justice, for the purpose of determining whether the format of the report is consistent in format and content, with authentic Turkish police reports, and whether the information contained in the report is consistent in format and content, with genuine Turkish police reports, and whether it is authentic, and the information contained is accurate.

The Government, according to the letter, has gone on record as opposing this defense request. 


A data analysis, by an independent company, of the information contained in the 11.5m documents, has yielded results not previously found. Technicians, employing software designed to help businesses analyze large amounts of data have found additional categories of individuals who used Mossack Fonseca's corporation formation services for tax avoidance, and, reportedly, for the illegal purpose of tax evasion.

The software found:

(1) Politically Exposed Persons, more commonly known as PEPs,. were not the largest group who used Mossack Fonseca to form offshore corporations with bearer shares, or foundations, as well as open bank accounts in the name of these anonymous entities, in tax haven jurisdictions.

(2) Professional athletes represented the largest single group. The next largest group were artists; PEPs, most of whom were politicians, were third.

(3) Among the athletes, the ranking was as follows:
     (A) Soccer [Football] players.
     (B) Tennis & Basketball players.
     (C) Hockey & Volleyball players.

Professional athletes. whose playing careers often only span a few years, earn huge salaries, and are often motivated to shelter that income from the high tax brackets that their income confers, in their countries of residence. Obviously, some of their advisers choose to engage in tax evasion, in an effort to hide their clients' wealth from the taxman, according to this data analysis.

Based upon these results, compliance officers would be best served by designating all professional athletes for enhanced due diligence,  at account opening, and subsequent account monitoring, to insure that these categories of bank clients are not engaged in tax evasion, using offshore companies & bank accounts.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016


INTERPOL, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, has voted against admitting the nonexistent "State of Palestine" as a member. The vote, which came at the annual General Assembly meeting, was 68 against, with many abstaining.

The organization took additional steps regarding future members; it plans on creating specific criteria for membership, to be presented at its 2017 meeting, in Beijing. For the time being, all applications for membership have been suspended.

The well-founded fear that designated terrorist organizations would gain access to classified counter-terrorism intelligence, through Palestinian membership, has been a major factor. The long history of the association between terrorists, and Palestinian groups, has given a factual basis to that threat.  An additional issue has been the fact that Palestine is not a sovereign state, and is only an observer at the United Nations. 


Mohammad Zarrab, the brother of accused Iranian gold trader Reza Zarrab, was named yesterday, in a Superseding Indictment, in the high-profile Iran sanctions violations Federal case in New York. Mohammad Zarrab, also known as Can Sarraf, and Kartalmsd,  allegedly conspired with the previously named defendants, to utilize entities, located in Turkey, and the UAE, to evade American sanctions upon Iran.

Two unindicted co-conspirators are mentioned in the charging instrument, but not identified. The reluctance of the US Attorney's Office to allow third parties access to the discovery provided by the Government may now be partially explained by the Government's need to conceal their identities, as they may have been named in that discovery.

Readers who wish to review the complete text of the Supeseding indictment can access it here.

Monday, November 7, 2016


Recently, I was advised by Google that they had taken down one of my blog articles, as it violated the copyright of another blogger. it was a 2013 article, and the other article, dated just prior to mine, had exactly the same content, and the same photographs. As you know, I write all my own material, always have, on this blog, and previously on World-Check and Complinet. I had no idea what had happened.

Today, the same hackers tried the same thing, with a website that republishes my financial crime articles, alleging that it was the copyrighted content of the claimant,
WORLD INFO REPORT  The problem is: it is MY ARTICLE from 2013, entitled Government Files Motion in Limine in El Paso Money Laundering case against Prominent Attorney, dated March 23, 2013. I have the sole rights, and anyone who says the article is his is a liar and a perjurer; one must file a sworn statement to claim rights to internet content, and the claimant broke Canadian law.

What these hackers/fraudsters had done was steal my article, back-date it to March 20, 2013, and publish it on their totally bogus website. the author calls himself Tom Mathews.
Afterwards, they claimed copyright, alleging that they are but young students with a blog We call that fraud, both in cyberspace, and in the real world.

A check of shows a tiny archive, which only includes articles these hackers use to try to shut down the website. There are no other, authentic, legitimate articles.  Remember, if you have multiple copyright complaints against your blog, where theft of content is repeatedly alleged, the ISP can shut down your blog. That is the aim of the hackers at World Info Report. They file multiple complaints, and hope the victims will not realize that it is a total scam.

Obviously, someone does not want me to continue to publish, and have republished, all over the world wide web, my financial crime articles. That is why they are looking to have me, and my associated blogs, cited, punished, and ultimately, banned from the Internet. I will identify the perpetrator and his  company in a future article, and the corporation paying the hackers. You can expect to see photographs.


A month ago, the Republic of Panama delivered extradition papers to the United States, regarding its former president, Ricardo Martinelli Berrocal. Martinelli is facing a dozen criminal cases in Panama City, and has been living free in Miami, since January 2015. So why won't we send him home ?

While president, Martinelli, together with his ministers, and other associates, engaged in massive corruption and theft of government assets, said to approach $300m. He is accused of insider trading, money laundering, extortion, abuse of power, taking bribes, misappropriation of public funds, and a boatload of other crimes and transgressions.

The problem appears to be this: Martinelli came to exile in Miami, through the good offices of some unnamed US law enforcement agency, which he acted as a confidential informant, and as such, he is enjoying some form of protection from extradition. The American public, which rarely sees the back room dealings between its law enforcement agents, and its sleazy informants, deserves to know precisely why one of the most corrupt leaders that Panama ever had the misfortune to elect is enjoying the high life in our country, when he should be facing the long list of charges pending against him ?

Where is the US Department of Justice in all this ?