R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver asked a judge to sanction a Florida woman, who uses the Texas financier’s name and has two out-of-wedlock children by him, for selling a mansion the receiver hoped to seize to repay investors.
Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey said he wants U.S. District Judge David Godbey to find Rebecca Reeves-Stanford and her Florida attorneys in contempt for selling a $3 million house in May, after she learned Stanford’s assets were being sought to repay investors allegedly swindled in a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Reeves-Stanford, a resident of Key Biscayne, near Miami, is “one of several ‘outside wives’ with whom Stanford had an ongoing relationship” for “nearly two decades,” Kevin Sadler, Janvey’s attorney, said in court papers filed yesterday in federal court in Dallas.
Reeves-Stanford’s newest lawyer, Bradford M. Cohen of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, said Janvey won’t succeed in having his client or her previous attorneys found in contempt.
“The freeze order affects third parties who received something without consideration, and Rebecca Reeves-Stanford never received anything without consideration,” Cohen said in a phone interview. “She has two children by Allen Stanford.”
Cohen also said the house was in Reeves-Stanford’s name before she sold it.
2005 Purchase
Sadler said Reeves-Stanford’s attorney confirmed that Stanford paid $1.4 million of the Florida property’s 2005 purchase price.
“Indeed, the amount is likely far higher as Reeves- Stanford has no other apparent means of support beyond the ill- gotten funds Stanford lavished on her,” Sadler said in the filing. He also claimed Reeves-Stanford transferred the sale proceeds to an offshore account in the Cook Islands, in an attempt to keep the money out of Janvey’s hands.
Janvey, a Dallas securities lawyer, has been marshalling Stanford’s corporate and personal assets since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued the financier on Feb. 17. The SEC accuses Stanford of diverting as much as $1.6 billion from bogus certificates of deposit sold by Antigua- based Stanford International Bank Ltd. to fund a lifestyle that included multiple homes, a fleet of jets, a yacht and a private Caribbean island.
205th-Richest American
Stanford, who was ranked the 205th-richest American in 2008 by Forbes magazine, denies all wrongdoing and has been in jail without bond since he was arrested at the home of his fiancée, Andrea Stoelker, on June 18. He faces 21 criminal counts that mirror the SEC claims and may spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted of the most serious charges.
Stanford and Stoelker moved into a rented high-rise condominium in Houston’s museum district in April, after they were locked out of his apartments in Houston, Miami, Antigua and St. Croix by the February court order freezing his assets. A friend prepaid the $36,000 annual rent on the unit, which is located near the offices of Stanford’s Houston lawyer.
The receiver also has made property claims against Stanford’s estranged wife, Susan.
This month, Janvey asked Godbey to find Susan Stanford and the couple’s 26-year-old daughter, Randi, in contempt for refusing to cooperate with efforts to sell the $1.3 million Houston condominium that has been the daughter’s residence for several years. Janvey asked Godbey’s permission to evict the women immediately, although he had previously offered to let them live in the 2,803-square-foot unit in Houston’s River Oaks neighborhood until it was sold.
Randi Stanford
Randi Stanford’s lawyer yesterday submitted a copy of the initial check for $20,000 she claims to have used to buy the condominium in 2006, as part of a filing urging the judge to reject Janvey’s request to evict her.
Janvey also listed Susan Stanford’s residence, a $2.4 million, 7,000-square-foot Mediterranean-style mansion in Houston’s Tanglewood neighborhood, as one of the properties he hopes to sell to repay defrauded investors.
Susan Stanford, Allen’s wife of more than 33 years, began divorce proceedings in November 2007. The couple has been separated for 10 years, according to Bucky Allshouse, Stanford’s Texas divorce lawyer. She has offered to testify against him in the SEC case, and in February filed court papers indicating the former billionaire was already $250,000 in arrears on her $100,000 monthly court-ordered support payments.
Six Children
Allen Stanford told Bloomberg News in April that he has six children, ranging in age from 12 to 26 years old. At least four of these children, accompanied by their mothers, attended his June 25 arraignment in Houston federal court.
Stanford’s extended family crowded into two rows at the front of the courtroom gallery that day, where Stanford occasionally flashed the children a smile or a thumbs-up gesture. The ex-girlfriends greeted one another cordially, and the children exchanged hugs with one another and with Stanford’s 31-year-old fiancée, Andrea.
Louise Sage-Stanford, who said in a March 2008 Florida paternity filing that Allen Stanford paid more than $850,000 a year in housing, food and education costs for their two children, was among the extended family members attending his June arraignment. Sage-Stanford and her two children have since moved to Houston, where they’ve rented a condominium in the same building as Stanford and his fiancée, according to court papers.
Two Previous Lawyers
Janvey is asking that Reeves-Stanford’s two previous lawyers -- Melida Viera and John Priovolos, both of Miami -- be held in contempt for allegedly facilitating her sale of the property and movement of the proceeds to an offshore account. Priovolos declined to comment. Viera couldn’t be reached for comment after regular business hours yesterday.
Kevin Callahan, an SEC spokesman, and Stanford’s criminal- defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, declined to comment on Janvey’s filing.
The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09cv298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Friday, 14 August 2009
Monday, 10 August 2009
Stanford Political Contributions Trickle Back In
Sir Allen Stanford during his heyday, splashed out at least $5 million on lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions to several U.S. lawmakers. But so far, only $87,800 of that contribution has been returned.
Stanford gave $95,000 alone to the 527 groups of then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, then-House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost, and then-Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott ($5,000). Stanford also gave an additional $100,000 to the Bush Inaugural Committee - as the new administration prepared its own money laundering strategy. He also donated thousands to the Republican National Committee.
DeLay was among the largest recipients of Stanford's largesse. DeLay's committees paid for flights on Stanford's jets at least 16 times since 2003, including on Oct. 20, the day the former House majority leader was booked in a Houston courthouse on money-laundering charges,` according to Bloomberg News.
But so far a listing of funds returned as disclosed by receiver Ralph Janvey, shows that Senator Chris Dodd was among the biggest returnees of funds.
He returned over $27,000 received by `Friends For Chris Dodd,` and `Chris Dodd For President.`
The second largest returnee was ` Shelby for US Senate,` at $14,000 and Friends of Jay Rockefeller and Friends of John Boehner, at $5,000 each.
Stanford, accused by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a multi-billion fraud, continued to give money to scores of members of Congress, as well as the Obama presidential campaign. He is now awaiting trial in a Texas jail as the receiver tries to obtain all monies spent in order to somehow pay back investors allegedly scammed.
Stanford gave $95,000 alone to the 527 groups of then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, then-House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost, and then-Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott ($5,000). Stanford also gave an additional $100,000 to the Bush Inaugural Committee - as the new administration prepared its own money laundering strategy. He also donated thousands to the Republican National Committee.
DeLay was among the largest recipients of Stanford's largesse. DeLay's committees paid for flights on Stanford's jets at least 16 times since 2003, including on Oct. 20, the day the former House majority leader was booked in a Houston courthouse on money-laundering charges,` according to Bloomberg News.
But so far a listing of funds returned as disclosed by receiver Ralph Janvey, shows that Senator Chris Dodd was among the biggest returnees of funds.
He returned over $27,000 received by `Friends For Chris Dodd,` and `Chris Dodd For President.`
The second largest returnee was ` Shelby for US Senate,` at $14,000 and Friends of Jay Rockefeller and Friends of John Boehner, at $5,000 each.
Stanford, accused by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a multi-billion fraud, continued to give money to scores of members of Congress, as well as the Obama presidential campaign. He is now awaiting trial in a Texas jail as the receiver tries to obtain all monies spent in order to somehow pay back investors allegedly scammed.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Florida regulators failed to stop Stanford's Miami operation
As Ecuadorean officials investigated questionable dealings from Allen Stanford's Miami office, Florida officials took no action.
Desperate to prop up Allen Stanford's financial empire, his Miami brokers jetted to South America with a sales pitch they said would deliver gold to investors: Invest in the Miami bank and reap spectacular returns.
There was just one catch: Stanford didn't have a bank in Miami.
When regulators in Ecuador caught wind of the scheme in 2005, they banned Stanford's employees from selling their prime investments and threatened legal action.
But in Florida, where Stanford's operation was rooted, regulators weren't even watching.
Florida investigators, in fact, were among the slowest in responding to the massive fraud that prosecutors say fleeced $7 billion from investors around the world -- most of the money now missing.
The crisis in Ecuador revealed major breakdowns in Florida's enforcement system at a time the Miami office was generating hundreds of millions a year for Stanford's questionable ventures, The Miami Herald found.
It exposed the office's heated campaign to recruit new clients -- and raise millions -- while breaking state banking laws.
And it shook the foundation of Stanford's financial network years before it was shut down by federal agents.
For years, brokers from the Miami office flew to Ecuador, cutting deals and sending the money to Stanford's Antiguan bank -- the records later shredded at the Miami office.
``They were breaking our laws,'' said Diego Garcés, a lead agent for the Ecuador agency that investigated the case.
The Miami center opened under a special arrangement with Florida regulators in 1998 as a foreign trust representative office -- the only one of its kind.
Because the unit was allowed to operate without any regulation -- including fraud checks -- there was no crackdown in Florida, records show.
By the time the criminal case broke open this year -- including Stanford's arrest in June -- the Miami office had generated nearly $1 billion.
Like many of Stanford's offices, the Miami center excelled in the sale of Stanford Group Company's key investment: certificates of deposit.
But to maintain the lucrative returns promised on the CDs, as much as 2 percent over competitors, Stanford needed a constant stream of money from new investors to pay off the earlier ones.
In 2005, he turned to the Miami office -- a luxury highrise adorned with expensive artwork -- to target new markets in South America.
Stanford had brokerages in South America, but there was an advantage with the Miami office: Agents promised customers the security of investing with a U.S. business.
Because Miami operated without oversight, employees were free to move in and out of countries to sell CDs without disclosing anything to regulators.
``They could do whatever they wanted to do,'' said Gonzalo Tirado, 39, president of Stanford's Venezuelan office. ``There was an astounding lack of controls.''
The sales blitz sparked cut-throat competition among the Stanford offices, prompting a flurry of angry phone calls between office managers.
``They terrorized customers,'' Tirado said. ``They told them, `Look, if you have your money in Venezuela, the government is going to know about it. If you have it in Miami, that's not going to happen.' ''
Miami brokers swept into Ecuador at least a dozen times in 2005, said Norta Llana, the Miami office administrator.
The battle with regulators in Ecuador started when officials got hold of one of Stanford's mailings. The letter not only boasted of the glowing returns on Stanford's CDs, but claimed the Miami office was a bank.
``They went crazy,'' said Steven Riger, 63, a vice president at the Miami office.
The letter said Stanford was the second largest bank in Ecuador -- a totally false claim.
Ecuador eventually banned Stanford brokers from selling CDs -- the main source of Stanford's income -- and expansion plans in Peru and Colombia were halted.
Word began to spread among regulators in other South American countries about Stanford's problems, Tirado said.
In the ensuing investigation, agents found the mailing was not only misleading, but Miami employees jetting to Ecuador were routinely breaking the law by taking deposits and leaving the country without reporting anything.
The probe sparked tense negotiations between Stanford's advisors and Ecuadorean regulators.
Riger, the former Stanford Miami executive, said several of Stanford's top brokers pleaded with him to find a way to keep the Ecuadorean business afloat.
``They were really shook up about this,'' Riger said. ``They were trying to save a book of business in Ecuador.''
While Ecuador's banking agency investigated Stanford, a second agency found the existing brokerages in Ecuador were reaping illegal commissions.
In December 2005, that agency imposed a $2,628 fine and declared most of Stanford's business practices illegal.
Garcés, the Ecuadorean agent, said Stanford's lawyers appealed the decision by the Superintendencia de Companias, but the order was upheld.
Despite the ban on CD sales, the Miami office continued to bombard residents with mailings and e-mails pushing the sales, said Santiago Noboa, a regulator who investigated Stanford.
``We couldn't stop the letters,'' he said.
In addition, the mailings -- sent to other South American countries -- spurred outrage in Stanford's foreign offices.
Tirado, who was dismissed by Stanford in a bitter employment dispute in late 2005, said he was alarmed because Miami brokers were not checking the backgrounds of customers.
He described a heated conversation with Miami office director Nelson Ramirez: ``I called Nelson and told him, `Don't do that, grow only by referral. You don't know who you're sending mail to. Be careful. If you open an account for a politically exposed person or money launderer, you will get in trouble.' ''
Ramirez did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
Eventually, regulators let Stanford resume his business in Ecuador without further sanctions while Colombia let Stanford open his brokerage the following year.
Throughout the crisis, the company dodged U.S. regulators.
Under federal law, firms that get into trouble selling securities overseas must report the problems on their regulatory records. But Stanford's brokerage failed to disclose the crackdown, and the Miami office -- running without any regulatory controls -- did not have to file anything. ``It was a black hole,'' said Mark Raymond, a Miami lawyer representing investors.
Several securities lawyers said such disclosures often spark investigations by regulators in this country.
But nothing happened in Florida.
Linda Charity, acting commissioner of Florida's Office of Financial Regulation, said the state's authority was restricted by the agreement it struck with Stanford a decade ago. ``We really couldn't do anything,'' she said.
But under the law, state agents are empowered to probe any company they believe is violating banking and securities statutes.
During a key visit by Florida examiners in 2005 -- while Stanford was under investigation in Ecuador -- agents found employees shipping checks to Antigua, marked as deposits, and shredding the records left behind. No investigations were launched.
Under Florida statute 655, only licensed companies can take deposits, and anyone violating the law is subject to a felony charge.
``The state had the right to go in there,'' Raymond said. ``As soon as it saw what was going on, it should have issued a subpoena.''
Charity said the state began probing the office after a 2007 visit turned up ``red flags,'' but her agency took no enforcement action. She declined to give details of the visit.
Jonathan Winer, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, said the breakdowns began when Florida struck the deal with Stanford in 1998.
Once in charge of money laundering investigations in the Caribbean, Winer said he remembers when the agreement was reached.
``At the time, I was totally perplexed. I wasn't in the business of questioning state regulators. I presumed they knew what they were doing,'' he said. ``I am disgusted that the state of Florida let this happen.''
Raymond said the events in Ecuador offer a stark contrast in regulatory actions. ``Their regulators did what we didn't do,'' he said. ``We supposedly are the gem of banking regulatory systems, but in the end, we dropped the ball.''
Desperate to prop up Allen Stanford's financial empire, his Miami brokers jetted to South America with a sales pitch they said would deliver gold to investors: Invest in the Miami bank and reap spectacular returns.
There was just one catch: Stanford didn't have a bank in Miami.
When regulators in Ecuador caught wind of the scheme in 2005, they banned Stanford's employees from selling their prime investments and threatened legal action.
But in Florida, where Stanford's operation was rooted, regulators weren't even watching.
Florida investigators, in fact, were among the slowest in responding to the massive fraud that prosecutors say fleeced $7 billion from investors around the world -- most of the money now missing.
The crisis in Ecuador revealed major breakdowns in Florida's enforcement system at a time the Miami office was generating hundreds of millions a year for Stanford's questionable ventures, The Miami Herald found.
It exposed the office's heated campaign to recruit new clients -- and raise millions -- while breaking state banking laws.
And it shook the foundation of Stanford's financial network years before it was shut down by federal agents.
For years, brokers from the Miami office flew to Ecuador, cutting deals and sending the money to Stanford's Antiguan bank -- the records later shredded at the Miami office.
``They were breaking our laws,'' said Diego Garcés, a lead agent for the Ecuador agency that investigated the case.
The Miami center opened under a special arrangement with Florida regulators in 1998 as a foreign trust representative office -- the only one of its kind.
Because the unit was allowed to operate without any regulation -- including fraud checks -- there was no crackdown in Florida, records show.
By the time the criminal case broke open this year -- including Stanford's arrest in June -- the Miami office had generated nearly $1 billion.
Like many of Stanford's offices, the Miami center excelled in the sale of Stanford Group Company's key investment: certificates of deposit.
But to maintain the lucrative returns promised on the CDs, as much as 2 percent over competitors, Stanford needed a constant stream of money from new investors to pay off the earlier ones.
In 2005, he turned to the Miami office -- a luxury highrise adorned with expensive artwork -- to target new markets in South America.
Stanford had brokerages in South America, but there was an advantage with the Miami office: Agents promised customers the security of investing with a U.S. business.
Because Miami operated without oversight, employees were free to move in and out of countries to sell CDs without disclosing anything to regulators.
``They could do whatever they wanted to do,'' said Gonzalo Tirado, 39, president of Stanford's Venezuelan office. ``There was an astounding lack of controls.''
The sales blitz sparked cut-throat competition among the Stanford offices, prompting a flurry of angry phone calls between office managers.
``They terrorized customers,'' Tirado said. ``They told them, `Look, if you have your money in Venezuela, the government is going to know about it. If you have it in Miami, that's not going to happen.' ''
Miami brokers swept into Ecuador at least a dozen times in 2005, said Norta Llana, the Miami office administrator.
The battle with regulators in Ecuador started when officials got hold of one of Stanford's mailings. The letter not only boasted of the glowing returns on Stanford's CDs, but claimed the Miami office was a bank.
``They went crazy,'' said Steven Riger, 63, a vice president at the Miami office.
The letter said Stanford was the second largest bank in Ecuador -- a totally false claim.
Ecuador eventually banned Stanford brokers from selling CDs -- the main source of Stanford's income -- and expansion plans in Peru and Colombia were halted.
Word began to spread among regulators in other South American countries about Stanford's problems, Tirado said.
In the ensuing investigation, agents found the mailing was not only misleading, but Miami employees jetting to Ecuador were routinely breaking the law by taking deposits and leaving the country without reporting anything.
The probe sparked tense negotiations between Stanford's advisors and Ecuadorean regulators.
Riger, the former Stanford Miami executive, said several of Stanford's top brokers pleaded with him to find a way to keep the Ecuadorean business afloat.
``They were really shook up about this,'' Riger said. ``They were trying to save a book of business in Ecuador.''
While Ecuador's banking agency investigated Stanford, a second agency found the existing brokerages in Ecuador were reaping illegal commissions.
In December 2005, that agency imposed a $2,628 fine and declared most of Stanford's business practices illegal.
Garcés, the Ecuadorean agent, said Stanford's lawyers appealed the decision by the Superintendencia de Companias, but the order was upheld.
Despite the ban on CD sales, the Miami office continued to bombard residents with mailings and e-mails pushing the sales, said Santiago Noboa, a regulator who investigated Stanford.
``We couldn't stop the letters,'' he said.
In addition, the mailings -- sent to other South American countries -- spurred outrage in Stanford's foreign offices.
Tirado, who was dismissed by Stanford in a bitter employment dispute in late 2005, said he was alarmed because Miami brokers were not checking the backgrounds of customers.
He described a heated conversation with Miami office director Nelson Ramirez: ``I called Nelson and told him, `Don't do that, grow only by referral. You don't know who you're sending mail to. Be careful. If you open an account for a politically exposed person or money launderer, you will get in trouble.' ''
Ramirez did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
Eventually, regulators let Stanford resume his business in Ecuador without further sanctions while Colombia let Stanford open his brokerage the following year.
Throughout the crisis, the company dodged U.S. regulators.
Under federal law, firms that get into trouble selling securities overseas must report the problems on their regulatory records. But Stanford's brokerage failed to disclose the crackdown, and the Miami office -- running without any regulatory controls -- did not have to file anything. ``It was a black hole,'' said Mark Raymond, a Miami lawyer representing investors.
Several securities lawyers said such disclosures often spark investigations by regulators in this country.
But nothing happened in Florida.
Linda Charity, acting commissioner of Florida's Office of Financial Regulation, said the state's authority was restricted by the agreement it struck with Stanford a decade ago. ``We really couldn't do anything,'' she said.
But under the law, state agents are empowered to probe any company they believe is violating banking and securities statutes.
During a key visit by Florida examiners in 2005 -- while Stanford was under investigation in Ecuador -- agents found employees shipping checks to Antigua, marked as deposits, and shredding the records left behind. No investigations were launched.
Under Florida statute 655, only licensed companies can take deposits, and anyone violating the law is subject to a felony charge.
``The state had the right to go in there,'' Raymond said. ``As soon as it saw what was going on, it should have issued a subpoena.''
Charity said the state began probing the office after a 2007 visit turned up ``red flags,'' but her agency took no enforcement action. She declined to give details of the visit.
Jonathan Winer, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, said the breakdowns began when Florida struck the deal with Stanford in 1998.
Once in charge of money laundering investigations in the Caribbean, Winer said he remembers when the agreement was reached.
``At the time, I was totally perplexed. I wasn't in the business of questioning state regulators. I presumed they knew what they were doing,'' he said. ``I am disgusted that the state of Florida let this happen.''
Raymond said the events in Ecuador offer a stark contrast in regulatory actions. ``Their regulators did what we didn't do,'' he said. ``We supposedly are the gem of banking regulatory systems, but in the end, we dropped the ball.''
Friday, 7 August 2009
McChesney Emanuel's Letter to Hillary Clinton in December 2003 regarding Stanfords Illegal Practices in Antigua
Antigua and Barbuda Justice Movement
C/O McChesney Emanuel
P.O. Box 377
Bronx, NY 10466
Principal of St. Pius V Elementary School
413 East 144th Street,
Bronx, NY 10454
Pbone: 718-665-5075 Cell: 914-469-2612
Email: b257@adnschools.org
Email: macbritney@optionline.net
Senator Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510-3204
December 18, 2003
Re: Antigua & Barbuda - Request for Inquiry of Violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by a US-Based Company.
Dear Senator Clinton:
I am writing to let you know that I appreciate the work you are doing on behalf of the people of New York. You doing a superior job in the US Senate is merely a continuation of the superior job you did when you were First Lady. You can rest assured that this constituent stands ready to help you in what ever way I can so that you can continue to work in the US Senate on behalf of this State in general and on behalf of this District in particular.
The other purpose of this communication is to bring to your attention a matter that has national and international implications. It is a personal issue for me because although I have been a US citizen for nearly 20 years, the matter touches and concerns the place of my birth - the tiny Island Nation of Antigua & Barbuda. I am requesting that your office make an urgent and appropriate inquiry to determine whether there bas been a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCP A") by a US-based business operating in Antigua & Barbuda, and determine whether or not enforcement action is warranted by the US Department of Justice.
Antigua & Barbuda is a twin-island nation with the seat of government in Antigua. The matters referred to herein relate to events in the Island of Antigua only. The people of Antigua, including expatriates like myself, are in an uproar over widespread reports that certain Antigua government officials are soliciting and accepting large sums of money in bribery payments from a Texas businessman named R. Allen Stanford in order to allow Mr. Stanford to obtain and retain business in Antigua on behalf of Stanford Financial Group ("SFG") of Houston, Texas.
SFG, operates an international network of financial entities in the US, Antigua, Aruba, Ecuador, Mexico, Switzerland and Venezuela. It is an international banking concern that as of April 2003 has $17 billion under management. At least four of SFG's enterprises are located in Antigua:
1. Stanford Trust Company: Through “trust arrangements" this entity offers private banking~ financial planning, brokerage services and insurance to its clients.
2. Stanford International Bank Ltd.: This entity has its "head office" in Antigua. Presumably because Antigua has strict .laws protecting private financial information; and it employs a "sophisticated internal security system" to protect electronic data.
3. Bank of Antigua Ltd.: This entity is classified as a leading commercial. bank in the Eastern Caribbean that caters primarily to international business people and visitors to Antigua arriving by cruise ships.
4. Stanford Development Company, Ltd. This entity apparently is involved in real estate development.
All four of these entities are located adjacent to the International Airport in Antigua (aka, V.C. Bird International airport). You should note that an international businessperson wanting to do business with any of these entities is able to fly nonstop from Antigua to New York, London, Miami, Toronto, Zurich, Caracas, Newark, Frankfurt and San Juan.
As an aside: You should also note that in 2001 the US State Department described Antigua as one of the “Primary Concern" jurisdictions for money laundering. (See Excerpts from State Department's 2001 report “Money Laundering and Financial Crimes"). While I am not accusing Mr. Stanford of engaging in monney laundering in view of Antigua's history with this activity, there is concern as to whether or not such activity could be effectively monitored given Antigua’s strict" privacy laws for financial transactions which is One of the selling-points used by Stanford International Bank Ltd, in its advertisements.
In the past few years, there have been a number of transactions between the government of Antigua and Mr. Stanford that are of questionable legality. In addition to the local media, independent news agencies such as the Wall Street Journal and the BBC have widely reported on corruption by public officials and the widespread disaffection of the people of Antigua. However, the most recent uproar came about when in October 2003 Mr. Stanford paid two government officials ED$100,000.00 each while they were negotiating a multi-million dollar land exchange deal with Mr. Stanford on behalf of the government of Antigua. The two government officials, Messrs. Gaston Brown and Molwyn Joseph, happen to be ministers of the Antigua & Barbuda Parliament. As such they exert substantial influence over the government and the enactment of Parliament. Mr. Stanford also paid EC$500,000.00 to the ruling Antigua Labor Party (ALP) headed by Mr. Lester Bird at about the same time. In addition, despite public condemnation, Mr. Stanford gave Messrs. Brown and Joseph an additional bribe of $400,000.00 dollars November 26, 2003. The land exchange deal involved the acquisition of land upon which the Antigua General Post Office is located. This piece of real estate just happens to be located near where the cruise ships dock in St. Johns, the capital city; and it is land upon which Mr. Stanford intends to erect a financial center.
Mr. Stanford's conduct appears to be in violation of the FCP A. Under the FCP A it is unlawful to bribe a foreign government official to obtain or retain business. The anti-bribery provisions of the Act make it unlawful for a firm, or an officer, employee or agent of the firm, to offer, pay, promise to pay any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with or directing business to any person. In this instance it appears that the payment to members of the Antigua Parliament with whom Mr. Stanford was negotiating was a bribe for their vote in favor of the land exchange. Mr. Stanford became a citizen of Antigua in 1999. However, questions have been raised about the validity of his citizenship and whether he has actually renounced his US citizenship, a pre-requisite for Antigua & Barbuda citizenship. As I understand the act, Mr. Stanford’s Antigua-Barbuda citizenship does not provide any immunity from prosecution under the FCPA. Mr Stanford is the chief executive officer of SFG, an entity based in the US.
This is a brief overview of what I believe is illegal conduct by a United States-based business in a foreign jurisdiction and it is conduct that warrants the attention of the United States government. I have a particular interest in Antigua because it is my ancestral home. Its government is being purchased by Mr. Stanford, with the active participation of corrupt government officials, in order to assure that SFG's business entities obtain and retain business in Antigua. Indeed, according to the Wall Street Journal of March 5, 200l Antigua is the "personal fief of R. Allen Stanford, a Texas developer and international banker." There is an abundance of published information about Mr. Stanford's relationship to the tiny Island Nation and the corrupt activities by certain members of the ruling ALP. However, I believe that Mr. Stanford should not be allowed to continue violating the FCPA.
Right now there is both a political and an economic crisis in Antigua and Barbuda. News reports suggest that things are at a boiling point because the people are angry and they resent the fact that Mr. Stanford is using money to bribe government officials and to exert a corrupting influence over the government of Antigua and Barbuda in order to maintain and retain business in this nation for himself and for SFG. The US Congress has shown, by its enactment of FCPA and the various amendments to the Act, that it takes this issue of bribery and corruption seriously. Indeed the amendments of 1988 and 1998 were designed to bring the Act in compliance with the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the "Convention}. As you know, the Convention was signed by the twenty-nine countries, including the United States, that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the "OECD") and five non-members collectively referred to as the "OECD Convention.” That Convention was ratified by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. (See S.237SJ Pub. L. 105-366 (November 10,1999).
Antigua & Barbuda is a tiny nation (Population 70,000). It appears that by paying bribes to the government officials, the County is being used as a convenient place for a US-based business with huge amounts of resources to conduct international business and escape the scrutiny of the FCPA. I will appreciate any help your office can provide in exposing this matter. If warranted, the Department of Justice should be asked to take appropriate action to enjoin SFG and Mr. Stanford from further violations of the FCP A. I believe meaningful action on the part of the Department of Justice pursuant to the enactment of Congress will discourage other businesses from violating the Act.
I will be happy to meet with you or your staff to discuss this matter in greater detail. I will also be willing to make appropriate arrangements for your office to confer with persons from Antigua who are familiar with the facts and will be able to provide additional information about this matter. Because of the nature of this issue, I am forwarding a courtesy copy of this letter to the entire New York delegation.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks for your assistance in this matter, and please keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
McChesney E.manuel
Cc: Rep. Tim Bishop
Rep. Steve Israel
Rep. Peter King
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep- Gary Ackerman
Rep. Gregory Meeks
Rep. Joseph Crowley
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. Anthony Weiner
Rep. Edolphus Towns
Rep. Major Owens
Rep. Nydia Velazquez
Rep. Vito FosseUa
Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Rep- Charles Rangel
Rep. Jose Serrano
Rep. Eliot Engel
Rep. Nita Lowey
Rep. Sue Kelly
Rep. John Sweeney
Rep. Michael McNulty
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. John McHugh
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert
Rep- James Walsh
Rep. Thomas Reynolds
Rep. Jack Quinn
Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Rep. Amory Houghton
===================================================================================
Follow up Letter January 16th 2004
From: Mr. McChesney Emanuel
Please note that a copy of this letter was sent to Congressman Meeks and Mr. Meeks is aware of the investigation of Mr. Allan Stanford, yet be has decided to accept a free: trip from Mr. Stanford to Antigua.
The Antigua and Barbuda Justice Movement will ask the Congressional Committee to take a look at Mr. Meeks action.
McChesney Emanuel 1/16/04
C/O McChesney Emanuel
P.O. Box 377
Bronx, NY 10466
Principal of St. Pius V Elementary School
413 East 144th Street,
Bronx, NY 10454
Pbone: 718-665-5075 Cell: 914-469-2612
Email: b257@adnschools.org
Email: macbritney@optionline.net
Senator Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510-3204
December 18, 2003
Re: Antigua & Barbuda - Request for Inquiry of Violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by a US-Based Company.
Dear Senator Clinton:
I am writing to let you know that I appreciate the work you are doing on behalf of the people of New York. You doing a superior job in the US Senate is merely a continuation of the superior job you did when you were First Lady. You can rest assured that this constituent stands ready to help you in what ever way I can so that you can continue to work in the US Senate on behalf of this State in general and on behalf of this District in particular.
The other purpose of this communication is to bring to your attention a matter that has national and international implications. It is a personal issue for me because although I have been a US citizen for nearly 20 years, the matter touches and concerns the place of my birth - the tiny Island Nation of Antigua & Barbuda. I am requesting that your office make an urgent and appropriate inquiry to determine whether there bas been a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCP A") by a US-based business operating in Antigua & Barbuda, and determine whether or not enforcement action is warranted by the US Department of Justice.
Antigua & Barbuda is a twin-island nation with the seat of government in Antigua. The matters referred to herein relate to events in the Island of Antigua only. The people of Antigua, including expatriates like myself, are in an uproar over widespread reports that certain Antigua government officials are soliciting and accepting large sums of money in bribery payments from a Texas businessman named R. Allen Stanford in order to allow Mr. Stanford to obtain and retain business in Antigua on behalf of Stanford Financial Group ("SFG") of Houston, Texas.
SFG, operates an international network of financial entities in the US, Antigua, Aruba, Ecuador, Mexico, Switzerland and Venezuela. It is an international banking concern that as of April 2003 has $17 billion under management. At least four of SFG's enterprises are located in Antigua:
1. Stanford Trust Company: Through “trust arrangements" this entity offers private banking~ financial planning, brokerage services and insurance to its clients.
2. Stanford International Bank Ltd.: This entity has its "head office" in Antigua. Presumably because Antigua has strict .laws protecting private financial information; and it employs a "sophisticated internal security system" to protect electronic data.
3. Bank of Antigua Ltd.: This entity is classified as a leading commercial. bank in the Eastern Caribbean that caters primarily to international business people and visitors to Antigua arriving by cruise ships.
4. Stanford Development Company, Ltd. This entity apparently is involved in real estate development.
All four of these entities are located adjacent to the International Airport in Antigua (aka, V.C. Bird International airport). You should note that an international businessperson wanting to do business with any of these entities is able to fly nonstop from Antigua to New York, London, Miami, Toronto, Zurich, Caracas, Newark, Frankfurt and San Juan.
As an aside: You should also note that in 2001 the US State Department described Antigua as one of the “Primary Concern" jurisdictions for money laundering. (See Excerpts from State Department's 2001 report “Money Laundering and Financial Crimes"). While I am not accusing Mr. Stanford of engaging in monney laundering in view of Antigua's history with this activity, there is concern as to whether or not such activity could be effectively monitored given Antigua’s strict" privacy laws for financial transactions which is One of the selling-points used by Stanford International Bank Ltd, in its advertisements.
In the past few years, there have been a number of transactions between the government of Antigua and Mr. Stanford that are of questionable legality. In addition to the local media, independent news agencies such as the Wall Street Journal and the BBC have widely reported on corruption by public officials and the widespread disaffection of the people of Antigua. However, the most recent uproar came about when in October 2003 Mr. Stanford paid two government officials ED$100,000.00 each while they were negotiating a multi-million dollar land exchange deal with Mr. Stanford on behalf of the government of Antigua. The two government officials, Messrs. Gaston Brown and Molwyn Joseph, happen to be ministers of the Antigua & Barbuda Parliament. As such they exert substantial influence over the government and the enactment of Parliament. Mr. Stanford also paid EC$500,000.00 to the ruling Antigua Labor Party (ALP) headed by Mr. Lester Bird at about the same time. In addition, despite public condemnation, Mr. Stanford gave Messrs. Brown and Joseph an additional bribe of $400,000.00 dollars November 26, 2003. The land exchange deal involved the acquisition of land upon which the Antigua General Post Office is located. This piece of real estate just happens to be located near where the cruise ships dock in St. Johns, the capital city; and it is land upon which Mr. Stanford intends to erect a financial center.
Mr. Stanford's conduct appears to be in violation of the FCP A. Under the FCP A it is unlawful to bribe a foreign government official to obtain or retain business. The anti-bribery provisions of the Act make it unlawful for a firm, or an officer, employee or agent of the firm, to offer, pay, promise to pay any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with or directing business to any person. In this instance it appears that the payment to members of the Antigua Parliament with whom Mr. Stanford was negotiating was a bribe for their vote in favor of the land exchange. Mr. Stanford became a citizen of Antigua in 1999. However, questions have been raised about the validity of his citizenship and whether he has actually renounced his US citizenship, a pre-requisite for Antigua & Barbuda citizenship. As I understand the act, Mr. Stanford’s Antigua-Barbuda citizenship does not provide any immunity from prosecution under the FCPA. Mr Stanford is the chief executive officer of SFG, an entity based in the US.
This is a brief overview of what I believe is illegal conduct by a United States-based business in a foreign jurisdiction and it is conduct that warrants the attention of the United States government. I have a particular interest in Antigua because it is my ancestral home. Its government is being purchased by Mr. Stanford, with the active participation of corrupt government officials, in order to assure that SFG's business entities obtain and retain business in Antigua. Indeed, according to the Wall Street Journal of March 5, 200l Antigua is the "personal fief of R. Allen Stanford, a Texas developer and international banker." There is an abundance of published information about Mr. Stanford's relationship to the tiny Island Nation and the corrupt activities by certain members of the ruling ALP. However, I believe that Mr. Stanford should not be allowed to continue violating the FCPA.
Right now there is both a political and an economic crisis in Antigua and Barbuda. News reports suggest that things are at a boiling point because the people are angry and they resent the fact that Mr. Stanford is using money to bribe government officials and to exert a corrupting influence over the government of Antigua and Barbuda in order to maintain and retain business in this nation for himself and for SFG. The US Congress has shown, by its enactment of FCPA and the various amendments to the Act, that it takes this issue of bribery and corruption seriously. Indeed the amendments of 1988 and 1998 were designed to bring the Act in compliance with the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the "Convention}. As you know, the Convention was signed by the twenty-nine countries, including the United States, that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the "OECD") and five non-members collectively referred to as the "OECD Convention.” That Convention was ratified by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. (See S.237SJ Pub. L. 105-366 (November 10,1999).
Antigua & Barbuda is a tiny nation (Population 70,000). It appears that by paying bribes to the government officials, the County is being used as a convenient place for a US-based business with huge amounts of resources to conduct international business and escape the scrutiny of the FCPA. I will appreciate any help your office can provide in exposing this matter. If warranted, the Department of Justice should be asked to take appropriate action to enjoin SFG and Mr. Stanford from further violations of the FCP A. I believe meaningful action on the part of the Department of Justice pursuant to the enactment of Congress will discourage other businesses from violating the Act.
I will be happy to meet with you or your staff to discuss this matter in greater detail. I will also be willing to make appropriate arrangements for your office to confer with persons from Antigua who are familiar with the facts and will be able to provide additional information about this matter. Because of the nature of this issue, I am forwarding a courtesy copy of this letter to the entire New York delegation.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks for your assistance in this matter, and please keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
McChesney E.manuel
Cc: Rep. Tim Bishop
Rep. Steve Israel
Rep. Peter King
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep- Gary Ackerman
Rep. Gregory Meeks
Rep. Joseph Crowley
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. Anthony Weiner
Rep. Edolphus Towns
Rep. Major Owens
Rep. Nydia Velazquez
Rep. Vito FosseUa
Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Rep- Charles Rangel
Rep. Jose Serrano
Rep. Eliot Engel
Rep. Nita Lowey
Rep. Sue Kelly
Rep. John Sweeney
Rep. Michael McNulty
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. John McHugh
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert
Rep- James Walsh
Rep. Thomas Reynolds
Rep. Jack Quinn
Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Rep. Amory Houghton
===================================================================================
Follow up Letter January 16th 2004
From: Mr. McChesney Emanuel
Please note that a copy of this letter was sent to Congressman Meeks and Mr. Meeks is aware of the investigation of Mr. Allan Stanford, yet be has decided to accept a free: trip from Mr. Stanford to Antigua.
The Antigua and Barbuda Justice Movement will ask the Congressional Committee to take a look at Mr. Meeks action.
McChesney Emanuel 1/16/04