Jilted Lover Reportedly Helped Exposed Sestak Visa Scandal – There’s a Hole In Your Wall?

– By Domani Spero

Thanh Nien Daily continues to cover the Michael Sestak case in Vietnam.  A recent update details how a jilted lover, referred to as “Lan” reportedly the anonymous source in the criminal complaint, exposed the $10 million visa fraud allegedly perpetuated by FSO Michael T. Sestak and four other conspirators.

A year ago, the US consulate in Ho Chi Minh City received a letter from a jilted man in central Vietnam that helped them crack a US$10-million fraud they otherwise might have never learned about.

Now he wants his fiancé back. He wants his money back. He wants President Obama to reform the US immigration system. And he wants protection from the roughly 410 people who should get deported any day now because he talked.


“First I called the consulate, but it wasn’t successful,” he said. “Then I sent them a letter.”

Last June, Lan sent pictures and personal details of seven of these women to the Fraud Investigator at the Ho Chi Minh City consulate. He also filed an online complaint with the State Department’s Office of Inspector General.

As he waited for a response, he monitored the lives of those who had left him behind and stewed.

“I watched their smiling, happy lives unfold on Facebook,” he said adding that he became too depressed to continue working.


Before Sestak’s arrest, the consulate fired three Vietnamese employees working in the non-immigrant visa department—including a longtime fraud investigator.

Coverage of the case in this paper and others quoted affidavits filed by DSS agents crediting an “anonymous source” for informing them about 50-70 villagers who bought visas to America in a three-month period.

It seems without Lan, there wouldn’t have been any case. But, he says, he’s received nothing for his help. The DSS agents he had worked with stopped returning his calls and emails.

He wasn’t exactly easy to handle.


Reached by phone, DSS Special Agent Tai N. Pham—whose business card was scanned onto Lan’s website—dismissed the claims.

“We tried to keep him anonymous,” Pham said. “Law enforcement has no authority to promise anyone anything […] If someone is truly being threatened it’s hard for me to believe he’d put everything he told law enforcement out there online.”

Continue reading: Jilted informant helps crack massive US visa fraud. The story is sort of weird but also sad.

Screen Shot 2013-07-10

Photo via state.gov/ds

The thing that is worrisome about this, if  true, is that ConGen Ho Chi Minh City is one of the few consular posts that actually has a Regional Security Officer-Investigator, an RSO dedicated to visa investigations.  If this case started with this reportedly jilted lover, the question then becomes how come the internal consular management controls did not trip up the FSO accused in this case? If there was no anonymous source, would the authorities have discovered what was right under their noses?

Visa issuing posts issue Certifications of Consular Management Controls where the responsible officer certifies not only that the review has been conducted and completed but also identifies areas of non-compliance.

One of the areas routinely reviewed is nonimmigrant visa refusals and issuances. These are reviewed electronically daily by the appropriate supervisors in the chain of command. In cases where the supervisory officer determines that an error was made during initial adjudication, the supervisory officer re-interviews the applicant and speaks with the adjudicating officer prior to adjudicating the case under his/her own login. When this happens, the supervisory officer reportedly is trained to enter a thorough explanation in the system.  Most of the alleged Sestak cases have been refused multiple times prior to issuance. Who reviewed his visa issuances?  Doesn’t the CCD broadcast a red alert when issuances go beyond the average norm particularly in high fraud posts?  Nah?

Another area is the Visa Lookout Accountability (VLA).  Consular supervisors reportedly review (although we don’t know how often), a random sampling of issuances to verify that adjudicating officers comply with VLA procedures. The Fraud Prevention Manager (FPM) apparently twice a month also pulls a database generated report that deals with visa issuances over “hits” to ensure that officers are compliant with published guidelines.  If the VLA review and the FPM review also failed to detect these alleged visa shenanigans, then that’s a wall with a big hole.


Ex-State Dept Contract Employee And Husband Plead Guilty To $53 Million Fraud

– By Domani Spero

We have previously posted about this case in May 2013 (See State Dept Contract Employee/Husband Indicted For Alleged Secret Scheme to Steer More Than $60 Million Contracts to Their Company).

On August 2, the USDOJ announced that the former contract employee Kathleen D. McGrade, age 64, and her husband, Brian C. Collinsworth, age 47, of Stafford, Va., pleaded guilty to major fraud against the government. Sentencing is scheduled for November 2013. Each faces a maximum sentence of 30 years imprisonment. The Daily Caller who broke this story in 2011 says that McGrade was a contractor working for the State Department’s office of Overseas Building Operation.


ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Kathleen D. McGrade, age 64, and Brian C. Collinsworth, age 47, of Stafford, Va., pleaded guilty today to major fraud against the government, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Harold W. Geisel, Acting Inspector General for the Department of State; and Thomas J. Kelly, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Section, Washington, D.C. Field Office, made the announcement after the plea was accepted by United States District Judge Liam O’Grady.

“Defendants McGrade and Collinsworth- now convicted felons-defrauded and stole from the American people, plain and simple,” said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride.  “We, along with our law enforcement partners, are committed to ferreting out and prosecuting those that destroy the integrity of the government contracting process.”

“I commend our investigators on their excellent work in this case, and diligence in protecting taxpayer dollars,” said Harold W. Geisel, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors.

“The scope and breadth of this fraud is reprehensible, not just because of the dollars involved, but because of the position of trust that Ms. McGrady held,” said Special Agent In Charge Kelly.  “Her actions denied small businesses the opportunity to compete for these government contracts and that is unacceptable.  Today’s pleas put corrupt business owners like Ms. McGrade and Mr. Collinsworth on notice, that the government will get to the truth no matter how they try to disguise their business transactions.  IRS-CI will continue to work with the United States Attorney and our other law enforcement partners to root out these corrupt business owners.”

McGrade and Collinsworth were indicted on April 25, 2013, by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy, major fraud against the government, wire fraud, false statements, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.  Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of 30 years imprisonment when they are sentenced on November 8, 2013.

In a statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, the defendants admitted that McGrade was a contract employee for the Department of State and performed the role of a contract specialist for an office that awarded construction contracts for work done at U.S. embassies worldwide.  Collinsworth worked at one of the companies that received contracts.  In 2006, the defendants married, but did not tell others at the Department of State.  The defendants started a company, the Sterling Royale Group, or SRG, with McGrade serving as the president and Collinsworth the vice-president and project manager.

In late 2007, McGrade caused a State Department contracting officer to sign a contract between the Department of State and SRG, and McGrade failed to disclose her role in SRG, her marriage, or that proper contracting competitive procedures had not been followed.  The contract made SRG eligible to receive task orders for work to be done at embassies and McGrade  began steering work to the company. She acted as the contract negotiator between the Department of State engineers responsible for getting the jobs done, on the one hand, and Collinsworth, who was acting on behalf of SRG and the subcontractors, on the other.  Between 2008 and 2011, McGrade caused  Department of State contracting officers to sign 17 task orders awarding work worth almost $53 million.  In 2010, the defendants also lied about their marriage to investigators conducting McGrade’s background investigation regarding renewal of her security clearance.

In the summer of 2011, a news article disclosed the defendants’ marriage and the Department of State terminated her employment.  The Department of State, however, had paid SRG about $39 million, and after the defendants had paid their subcontractors, they still had millions of dollars.  Among other things, they bought houses, a condominium, a yacht, a Lexus automobile, jewelry, and a Steinway piano with the fraudulently obtained money.  The defendants have agreed to forfeit all of those items.

This case was investigated by the Department of State, Office of Inspector General, and the Global Illicit Financial Team, a task force led by the Criminal Investigation Section of the Internal Revenue Service.  Assistant United States Attorneys Jack Hanly and Mark Lytle are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia at http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov or on https://pcl.uscourts.gov.


Michael Sestak Visa Scandal: USG to seek forfeiture money judgment of at least $9.7 Million

– By Domani Spero

This is an update of the Sestak Visa Scandal that’s winding its way through the court system.  The publicly available Superseding Indictment posted on July 9, 2013 now includes the names of all five defendants — three U.S. citizens and two residents and nationals of Vietnam.  For previous posts, see below:

The August court hearing for Sestak, Hong Vo and Truc Thanh Huynh was rescheduled for 9/13/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 30A before Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at 2.42.57 PM

Excerpt from the Superseding Indictment:

From at least in or around February 2012, continuing through at least in or around December 2012, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States and within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3237 and 3238, within the venue of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the defendants SESTAK, BINH VO, ALICE NGUYEN, HONG VO, and TRUC HUYNH, a joint offender who was arrested in the District of Columbia, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, together and with persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, that is, bribery of a public official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 201(b)(2), and visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1546(a), and to defraud the United States Government by interfering with and obstructing a lawful government function, that is, the unbiased and disinterested issuance of visas by the Department of State to non-United States citizens, by deceit, craft, trickery, and dishonest means, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Forfeiture Allegations:

Upon conviction of the offense alleged in Count One of this Indictment, defendants MICHAEL T. SESTAK, BINH TANG VO, ANHDAO T. NGUYEN, also known as Alice Nguyen, also known as Anhdao Thuy Vo, also known as Thuy Anh Dao Nguyen, also known as Anhdao Thuy Nguyen, also known as Dao Thuy Anh Nguyen, HONG CHAU VO, and TRUC THANH HUYNH, shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from or is traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of the offense, and any property, real or personal, which was used to facilitate the commission of the offense, or was intended to be used to facilitate the offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 982(a)(6), and any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. Section 2461(c). The property subject to forfeiture includes: Any and all funds and securities seized from Scottrade account #58490015, held in the name of ANHDAO THUY NGUYEN.

The indictment includes descriptions of “transactions” where  individuals, some with multiple visa denials were allegedly issued visas by Mr. Sestak.  The government alleges that defendant Binh Vo informed defendant Sestak of the identity of each foreign national who had agreed to pay money in exchange for obtaining a visa, before the foreign national appeared at the Consulate for a visa interview.

Below is a video posted by Thanh Nien Daily of the December 2012 wedding of alleged conspirators, Vietnamese national Anhdao Thuy Nguyen and U.S.citizen Binh Tang Vo with Sestak as one of the groomsmen.  The Thanh Nien Daily reported that the wedding cost $300,000.  More wedding photos on FB here.

The indictment says that the “United States will seek a forfeiture money judgment against the defendants in the amount of at least $9,780,000.”

The indictment also seeks  forfeiture of “any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from or is traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of the offense, and any property, real or personal, which was used to facilitate the commission of the offense, or was intended to be used to facilitate the offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 982(a)(6). The United States will seek a forfeiture money judgment against the defendants equal to the value of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to this offense.”

If any of the property cannot be located, or has been transferred or sold, or deposited with, a third party; or has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the indictment seeks, upon conviction of defendants, forfeiture “to the United States any other property of the defendants, up to the value of the property described above, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 853(p).”

Vietnamese newspaper Tuoi Tre reported that Binh Tang Vo and his wife Anhdao Thuy Nguyen last entered Vietnam on April 7, 2012.  Thanh Nien Daily also reported that the publication of their names has sparked widespread speculation as to their whereabouts but that the couple has disappeared from public sight.


US Embassy Caracas: Former FSN Pleads Guilty for Receiving Illegal Gratuity

In May 2012, we blogged about a US Embassy employee in Caracas, Venezuela who was was arrested in Washington, D.C., on one charge of conspiracy and two charges of bribery in connection with visa applications scheme (see US Embassy Caracas FSN Arrested on Conspiracy/Bribery Charges in Visa Applications Scheme)

On Wednesday, USDOJ announced that the former employee, Christian Adolfo Paredes Uzcategui, 44, of Caracas, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Below is the statement released:

WASHINGTON – A former visa assistant for the United States Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, pled guilty today to a federal charge of receiving an illegal gratuity by a public official, stemming from a scheme in which he allegedly accepted payments to aid people in facilitating visa applications, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. and Scott Bultrowicz, Director of the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, announced.

Christian Adolfo Paredes Uzcategui, 44, of Caracas, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Honorable James E. Boasberg scheduled sentencing for Dec. 7, 2012. The charge carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Paredes was arrested in May 2012 following an investigation by the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.

According to a statement of facts, signed by the defendant as well as the government, Paredes worked for the State Department at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas as a visa assistant for non-immigrant visa applications. His duties included screening incoming documentation and information from a variety of sources to organize and track non-immigrant visa requests and ensuring that the legal requirements of non-immigrant visa applications were met.

As a visa assistant, he had access to Embassy databases, but only for official business and on a need-to-know basis. He was not to share this information without official permission.

In the middle of 2011, Paredes began receiving money from a private individual who acted as a “facilitator” for Venezuelan applicants seeking non-immigrant U.S. visas. In exchange, Paredes provided information about the facilitator’s clients. Between March 2011 and February 2012, the facilitator wire-transferred more than $5,000 to bank accounts controlled by Paredes in exchange for information about clients.

In announcing the plea, U.S. Attorney Machen and Director Bultrowicz commended the efforts of those who investigated the case for the Diplomatic Security Service. They also praised those who worked on the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia, including Special Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Mudd.

The original statement is posted here.






Expatriated US Dollars Out of Kabul? Why Don’t We Just Wire the Money to Their Dubai Secret Account?

On May 14, 2012, NPR Morning Edition’s Renee Montagne had a sit down interview with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker. Below is the part where they talked about American taxpayers money flying out of Kabul International Airport to Dubai or other parts unknown. WARNING: You might need a barf bag

MONTAGNE: Suitcases filled with billions…

CROCKER: Oh, yeah. Exactly.

MONTAGNE: …of American dollars out of Kabul into parts unknown – Dubai, other parts unknown.

CROCKER: Ironically, you know, the fact that vast sums of money have been expatriated may lessen the impact on the overall economy of the true drawdown, because the money, in many cases, never made it into the Afghan economy. You know, I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it may significantly lessen the blow when we get to the end of 2014.

MONTAGNE: Meaning, of all the billions that poured into this country, enough of it went to make some people rich and didn’t find its way into the economy, so that the economy will not be as hurt as it might have been had the money been more honorably distributed.

CROCKER: Absolutely. You know, in many cases, arguably, there was nothing illegitimate about a lot of it. I mean, these were contractors. They made their profits. Capital will go anywhere, where it’s the best investment opportunity. That’s where the capital will go, and that’s what happened in many of these cases.

If you need more, read here.

Just to be clear – this is President Obama’s official representative in Kabul, and does he believed this is just good money — profits and capital “fleeing” to other places like Dubai – in search of better investment opportunity?

Whoops! I think I just fell off my chair and gashed my poor brain!

Are we really this stupid?

In 2010, the WSJ reported that more than $3 billion in cash has been openly flown out of Kabul International Airport in the previous three years. It was a sum so large that “U.S. investigators believe top Afghan officials and their associates are sending billions of diverted U.S. aid and logistics dollars and drug money to financial safe havens abroad.”

“It’s not like they grow money on trees here,” said a U.S. official investigating corruption and Taliban financing. “A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen. And opium, of course.”

In February this year, after Afghanistan’s central-bank governor said he will issue new currency restrictions to stem an exodus of billions of dollars in cash, the Wall Street Journal did a follow up report:

“Some $4.6 billion in cash, more than the entire government budget, was taken abroad through Kabul airport alone last year, according to Afghan central-bank data, double the $2.3 billion recorded in 2010. But even those figures “grossly” underestimate the real extent of overall money flight, central-bank governor Noorullah Delawari said in an interview.”

While Afghan officials promised to clean up the country’s financial system in 2010 in the aftermath of the WSJ report and after Congress temporarily froze U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, the Wall Street Journal reported that the money flow to Dubai and other financial havens has not abated.  Instead it has only gathered speed as U.S. forces begin to pull out ahead of the 2014 deadline for transferring security responsibilities to the Afghan government.

These are mostly contractors’ money, of course. Nothing that taxpayers need to worry their already severely taxed brains.

But just in case, these are not “honest” money, should we not just ask these “contractors” for their Dubai offshore bank account? If we wire them the money directly, the money would not make it to the local economy either and would lessen the impact.  And it would save our government paperwork and our investigators can dig out real corruption elsewhere.

And actually Dubai offshore bank accounts really rock.  They offer a safe, legal and tax-free account structure providing complete anonymity and full legal tax exemption. Not only that, while “opening a foreign account under a private name would not cease one’s obligation to list it in one’s tax declaration,” that’s a small issue. “You could simply “forget” to declare it and hope nobody finds out.”

And just the place to “invest” one’s well-gotten wealth from the war zone…

Domani Spero



Nixon’s 1975 Grand Jury Testimony: No selling of ambassadorships, but gave a price tag of $250K in 1971

Last year, Public Citizen asked the District Court on behalf of historian Stanley Kutler and four associations of historians and archivists to unseal the transcript of President Nixon’s grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975, and certain associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

The Court granted the petition in July this year.  On November 10, the National Archives released the Nixon testimony.

Below is from Folder 9/16 – Part 1: Transcripts of President Nixon’s grand jury testimony taken on June 23, 1975. One of the subjects the grand jury was looking into, in addition to the 18 1/2 minute gap is the relationship between campaign contributions and the consideration of ambassadorships for five persons: Ruth Farkas, J. Fife Symington, Jr., Vincent deRoulet, Cornelius V. Whitney and Kingdon Gould, Jr.,

Some Nixon quotable quotes:

It was not because “she had big bosoms:”

I would say, looking at the smaller countries like Luxembourg, that Pearl Mesta wasn’t sent to Luxembourg because she had big bosoms. Pearl Mesta went to Luxembourg because she made a good contribution. But may I say she was a very good ambassador in Luxembourg. And when you talk about selling ambassadorships, I don’t want the record of this Grand Jury 11 even to indicate that people of wealth, because they do make contributions, therefore should be barred from being ambassadors. The record should clearly indicate that certainly no commitment, no sale of ambassadorships should be made, but, on the other hand, the fact that an individual has proved himself on the American scene, has proved himself by legitimately building a great fortune, rather than being a disqualifier is a factor that can be considered and should be considered in determining whether he should get a position.

Croissants are expensive in Paris, Tricky Dick says “some posts require wealthy people…”

My recollection is not refreshed by looking at this piece of paper. I did, however , make the appointment and the fact that Hr . Stans’ name appeared on there meant to me that Mr . deRoulet had been, obviously, a contributor to the campaign and, as has been the case in every presidency from the time this Republic was founded two hundred years ago, contributors to campaigns are not barred from being ambassadors. They aren’t guaranteed, and it should never be, that they will be ambassadors, but in many instances some posts require wealthy people and in every presidency that I know of contributors have been appointed to non-career posts in considerable numbers.

Below Nixon disses career ambassadors, which should not come as a surprise to you if you already know that in 1972, President Nixon had asserted that his “one legacy is to ruin the foreign service. I
mean ruin it—the old foreign service—and to build a new one.”

As far as career ambassadors, most of them are a bunch of eunuchs, and I don’t mean that in a physical sense, but I meant it in an emotional sense, in a mental sense. They aren’t for the American free enterprise system. I point out that, and this is in defense not only of my presidency, but of President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Eisenhower, President Truman, all of the others who are my predecessors, that some of the best ambassadors we have have been non-career ambassadors who have made sub-stantial contributions. Bill Bullitt, for example, was probably the best ambassador to Russia and the best ambassador to France we have had in a generation. Now he didn’t get his job because he happened to shave the top of his head. He got his job because he contributed a half million dollars to the Roosevelt’s campaign.

Remember this grandy jury testimony was done in 1975.  Nixon says he has “no recollection of ever authorizing the selling of ambassadorships…”

I respond to that question by saying that I have no recollection of ever authorizing the selling of ambassadorships, the making of an absolute commitment for ambassadorships. As I have indicated earlier, my recollection of the entire ambassadorial decision process , which is already in the record, is that those who made contributions would receive consideration, but as far as the specific commitment, etcetera – quote – end quote – is concerned, or the sale of ambassadorships, I have no recollection of using that term or intending that term.

In 1997, after newly transcribed Nixon tapes were released, WaPo reported that while presidents have long bestowed U.S. ambassadorships on big campaign contributors, Richard M. Nixon put a specific price tag on the practice in 1971.

“My point is, my point is that anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000,” the president told White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman on June 23, 1971, according to a newly transcribed tape.

“Yeah,” Haldeman agreed, and then proposed a minimal donation threshold. “I think any contributor under $100,000 we shouldn’t consider for any kind of thing.”

Nixon pointed out that “we helped” Fred J. Russell, a millionaire California real estate baron and Republican donor who would soon be named ambassador to Denmark. “But from now on,” the president continued, “the contributors have got to be, I mean, a big thing and I’m not gonna do it for political friends and all that crap.”

Read in full here.  Also read, Checkbook Diplomacy, the Buying of Ambassadorships by the Center for Public Integrity.

And if you still have the stomach for this, read the whole thing below:

GPO Nara Part 1: Nixon’s grand jury testimony taken on June 23, 1975.http://www.scribd.com/embeds/72357126/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-21rdd08dk8ti9gpbav3u

Before #Occupy Wall Street, There’s #Occupy Congress, and It’s Still On

Crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains in 60 Minutes how he “owned” Congress for years, and how such corruption continues today despite ethics reform. Must be said that even before #Occupy Wall Street, we actually had #Occupy Congress. Except unlike #OWS where everybody’s welcome, Occupy Congress was a nice get together for the deep pockets and their lobbyists, for the buyers and the bought, for the owners and the ownee– who could not admit they were owned and paid for (just listen to Mr. Nye).  

At the end of the interview, Abramoff says: “If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you’re done, go home. Washington’s a dangerous place. Don’t hang around.”

You think our elected public servants in Congress would listen to that advice given their 9% approval rating?


You want to keep tabs of our reps and their staffers, check out LegiStorm.  Launched five years ago, the site provides a variety of important information about the US Congress including a database of congressional staff salaries as well as a comprehensive
database of all privately financed trips taken by members of Congress
and congressional staffers. 

Now, if only they can start a database of dangling job offers, we’ll know who’s been shopping and who’s been bought before they go through the revolving door.

Iraq Reconstruction – Rogues’ Hall of Shame from 2005-2011

 SIGIR | Convictions from Iraq Reconstruction http://www.scribd.com/embeds/70957878/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-1ik1p5rew3ja9rzl39i


US Files Complaint Against Obiang Jr., Alleged Kleptocrat and Son of Equatorial Guinea Dictator

Via DOJ:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has filed civil forfeiture complaints against approximately $70.8 million in real and personal property, which the government alleges is the proceeds of foreign corruption offenses and was laundered in the United States, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton.

An amended civil forfeiture complaint has been unsealed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and a separate civil forfeiture complaint was filed today in the District of Columbia.   According to the complaints, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (Nguema) used his position and influence as a government minister for Equatorial Guinea to acquire criminal proceeds through corruption and money laundering, in violation of both Equatoguinean and U.S. law.    According to the complaints, Nguema is the son of Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mbasogo (Obiang), the president of Equatorial Guinea.

“The complaints announced today allege that, on a modest government salary, Minister Nguema amassed wealth of over $100 million,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.   “While his people struggled, he lived the high life – purchasing a Gulfstream jet, a Malibu mansion and nearly $2 million in Michael Jackson memorabilia.   Alleging that these extravagant items are the proceeds of foreign official corruption, the Department of Justice is seeking to seize them through coordinated forfeiture actions.   Through our Kleptocracy Initiative, we are sending the message loud and clear: the United States will not be a hiding place for the ill-gotten riches of the world’s corrupt leaders.”

“This investigation was initiated by ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in an effort to identify Teodoro Nguema Obiang’s assets in the United States after he was suspected of obtaining his wealth from alleged illicit activities such as the misappropriation of public funds, theft, extortion and embezzlement of the nation’s natural resources,” said ICE Director Morton. “ICE HSI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners both here and abroad to hold these individuals accountable by denying them the enjoyment of their ill-gotten gains.”

According to the complaints, despite an official government salary of less than $100,000 per year, Nguema amassed more than $100 million during a period in which he and an inner circle of individuals who hold critical positions of political and economic power in Equatorial Guinea were the near-exclusive beneficiaries of the extraction and sale of that country’s natural resources .   Under Equatoguinean law, the natural resources belong to the people of Equatorial Guinea.   The complaints allege that Nguema used intermediaries and corporate entities to acquire numerous assets in the United States, including more than $1.8 million worth of Michael Jackson memorabilia, a $38.5 million Gulfstream G-V jet, a $30 million house in Malibu, Calif., and a 2011 Ferrari automobile valued at more than $530,000.

Read in full here.

Related posts:

Friday, March 26, 2010 | The Problem with Alleged Kleptocrats and Visas …

Sunday, February 27, 2011 | Global Witness: Son of Equatorial Guinea’s dictator plans $380M superyacht

PRT Farah – Nine Count Indictment For Former Army Contracting Officials and DOD Contractor

Via DOJ:

WASHINGTON—A former member of the U.S. Army employed by a private security firm was arrested at Miami International Airport today on charges of bribery, fraud and theft of government funds, in connection with the award of a contract to provide services to a U.S. government provincial reconstruction team in Farah, Afghanistan.
Raul Borcuta was arrested in Miami today when he tried to enter the United States from Europe. Upon Borcuta’s arrest, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois unsealed a nine-count indictment charging Borcuta and his co-conspirators, Zachery Taylor and Jared Close, with mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, bribery, and theft of government funds.

According to the indictment, Borcuta, 32, defrauded the U.S. government in connection with a contract to provide two up-armored sport utility vehicles to be used by an official in the government of Farah Province, Afghanistan, who had received death threats from insurgent groups. The indictment alleges that Borcuta bribed U.S. Army contracting officials Taylor, 40, and Close, 40, with $10,000 each to award him the contract and to make full payment to Borcuta before the vehicles were delivered. Taylor and Close, formerly U.S. Army staff sergeants assigned to the provincial reconstruction team in Farah, allegedly authorized a payment of approximately $200,000 in U.S. government funds to Borcuta. According to the indictment, Borcuta received the payment and never delivered the vehicles required by the contract.

The defendants face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each mail fraud count, 20 years in prison for each wire fraud count, 30 years in prison for each conspiracy count, 15 years in prison for each bribery count and 10 years in prison for each theft of government funds count.

An indictment is merely a charge and defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Read in full here.