Category Archives: Department of Homeland Security

Corruption at the Doorstep, London

Posted on by

Given the investigation and model defined, perhaps we should look inward here at home as the United States, especially a handful of cities are precisely the same.

Corruption On Your Doorstep: How Corrupt Capital Is Used to Buy Property in the UK

Corruption on your Doorstep looks at how corrupt money is used to buy property in the UK by analysing data from the Land Registry and Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit.  Findings in the report include the fact that 36342 London properties totalling 2.25 sq miles are held by offshore haven companies.

The research – analysing data from the Land Registry and Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit – found that 75%of properties whose owners are under investigation for corruption made use of offshore corporate secrecy to hide their identities.

Key statistics

  • £180m+ worth of property in UK have been brought under criminal investigation as the suspected proceeds of corruption since 2004. This is believed to be only the tip of the iceberg of the scale of proceeds of corruption invested in UK property. Over 75% of the properties under criminal investigation use offshore corporate secrecy
  • The average price of a property under criminal investigation in the UK is £1.5m. The minimum is £130,000, the maximum is £9m and the median is £910,000. 48% of properties investigated were valued at over £1m
  • 36,342 London properties totalling 2.25 sq miles are held by offshore haven companies. Of these, 38% in the British Virgin Islands, 16% in Jersey, 9.5% in Isle of Man, and 9% in Guernsey
  • Almost one in ten properties in the City of Westminster (9.3 per cent), 7.3 per cent of properties in Kensington & Chelsea, and 4.5 per cent in the City of London are owned by companies registered in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction. TI-UK has launched an interactive map of London which reveals the statistics for each borough – ukunmaskthecorrupt.org
  • In 2011 alone £3.8bn worth of UK property was bought by British Virgin Islands–registered companies
  • According to the latest figures, which cover October 2013 to September 2014, estate agents contributed to only 0.05% of all Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) submitted. This figure does not match the risks posed by money launderers to the UK property market

Transparency International makes 10 recommendations for reform, calling for buy in from the UK Government, lawyers, and estate agents to ensure that the UK property market is no longer a safe haven for corrupt funds. Action from the British Overseas Territories is also necessary to end this crisis.

The key recommendation is thattransparency should be established over who owns the companies that own so much property in the UK through making such transparency a Land Registry requirement. Sign our petition to UK political party leaders here.

A visual story of this journey and interactive map detailing the number of offshore-owned homes per London borough can be viewed at ukunmaskthecorrupt.org

 

I took a “Kleptocracy tour” around London and discovered the corruption capital

A sightseeing trip around central London properties revealed just how much dirty money there is swimming around the city.

In part, NewStatesmen: London is a globally leading city, bustling with culture and educational capital, a booming economy, and abiding by the rule of law. But, combined with regulations allowing for the anonymous purchase of real estate, it’s for these reasons that the UK’s capital is one of the world’s largest laundromats, a city where money from corruption is being poured into property.

The scale of money laundering

The amount of money laundered through the UK is estimated to be at £48bn, or two per cent of GDP, while it estimated £120bn worth of UK property is owned by offshore entities and up to 36,000 properties in London exist where offshore havens were used to hide the true buyers’ identities.

How they get away with it

“This is a real problem,” Simon Farrell QC, an expert in money laundering and corruption, says. “The only reason for corporate ownership is to disguise the true ownership and for those with dubious funds and who have avoided tax to shelter profits in London, a safe haven where the rule of law prevails. It’s a disgrace.”

So now, “London is now the premier location worldwide for corruption-based money laundering,” says Ben Judah, author of a book about Russia called Fragile Empire (2013).

 

Flaws, Ooops, Bad Address, Green Cards?

Posted on by

How US green cards ended up being sent to the wrong people…..

A system implemented by US Customs and Immigration Services in 2012 failed on several levels, a report has concluded.

WaPo: Green cards sent to wrong places, even after change-of-address requests

A green card is like a green light for foreigners living in the United States.

Officially called “permanent resident” cards, they authorize holders to live and work here. Given the millions of people who reside here illegally, the documents are a valuable commodity among those who can’t get them through proper channels.

So when the government sends cards to the wrong address, it’s a big problem for those who should have them but don’t and for government officials who wince at the thought of the cards in the wrong hands.

Now comes word that since U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) installed its Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) in 2012, the number of cards going to the wrong places has only increased.

By how much, no one seems to know.

In this age of terror, this can be more serious than an employee working without proper papers.

A new report from the office of John Roth, the inspector general in the Department of Homeland Security, which includes CIS, says officials acknowledge there is “no accurate means of identifying the exact number of potentially hundreds of cards sent to incorrect addresses for cases processed in ELIS.”

As seems to be the case repeatedly in government lately, the blame goes to the computer systems, as if they are beyond the control of chief information officers. But that’s apparently the case at CIS.

The report says the cards were sent erroneously “due to a system limitation” that prevented humans from changing the addresses. Even when green-card holders requested a change of address, employees could not update the system.

“Further,” the report continued, “the system did not always accurately display address information, often eliminating or cutting off critical elements such as apartment numbers.”

The report said CIS officials told investigators the “only option for addressing the problem of incorrect addresses was to manually send out notices with instructions on how to mail the cards back.”

Not surprisingly, that strategy didn’t work.

When the Federal Insider asked the CIS public affairs office about the report’s green-card findings, it did not take long for the agency to respond with a lengthy statement from CIS Director León Rodríguez.

Unfortunately, his statement said nothing about green cards.

Rodríguez was critical of the report, however, saying it “does not fully recognize the extent of USCIS’ efforts to implement new technology and the extraordinary impact that these changes have had on the effectiveness of the system.” Several of the findings “do not reflect the drastically improved approaches put into place as we rebuilt our Electronic Immigration System,” he said, adding that the report did not “fully acknowledge” improvements made after an inspector general’s audit period, which ended in July.

Roth’s office sought comment on the report from CIS management before publication. The document said Rodríguez “did not understand our ‘report’s assertion that national security was impacted based on address changes by applicants.’ ”

Roth’s office did not understand that misunderstanding.

“It is intuitive,” the report said, “that sending official USCIS credentials to unauthorized individuals poses potential national security risks.”

It certainly is intuitive for Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Not only is ELIS “years behind schedule and billions over budget, its continued shortcomings put our nation at risk,” he said. “With ISIS and other terrorist groups active around the world and committed to attacks on our country, our national security depends on our systems for screening visa and immigration applications working effectively.”

At a minimum, that means fixing a system that sends green cards to the wrong place even after a change of address was requested.

ICE Director Insensitive to Death, Enforcing Law

Posted on by

Is there an agency director, secretary or anyone within the Obama administration that is sensitive to their failures of law and policy which results in death? How about Barack Obama himself or his national security council or even the Department of Homeland Security that is without dispute complicit in the death of innocents? This administration cant even determine what genocide means, they have lawyers looking at cases, law and evidence. Scary right? No worries, these matters are all ‘learning experiences’.

The Obama administration is remarkably slow to list organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization if at all. Further, drug cartels which have created war zones in Mexico and at our southern border are NOT listed as terror organizations even with Congress calling on this to be done.

ICE Director Gives Shocking Excuse For Failure To Detain Killer Illegal Alien [VIDEO]

Ross/DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director Sarah Saldana gave a baffling — and seemingly inaccurate — explanation during a Senate hearing on Tuesday for why federal immigration agents failed to detain an illegal alien who killed a 21-year-old Iowa woman in a drunken street race in Omaha in January.

ICE ignored a detainer request made by the Omaha police department last month for 19-year-old Eswin Mejia, Saldana said, because his victim, Sarah Root, had “not passed away” at the time the illegal alien drunk driver bailed out of jail.

That comment appears to be inaccurate since Root died hours after the Jan. 31 crash, in which Mejia was street racing with a .241 blood-alcohol level — three times the legal limit.

Mejia, a Honduran national, left jail on Feb. 5 after posting $5,000 bail. He is now on the run.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse asked Saldana why ICE did not respond to the Omaha police department’s request to detain Mejia after he posted his bail.

According to the Omaha World-Herald, Root’s father contacted an Omaha police accident investigator expressing his concern with a county judge’s Feb. 4 decision to set a $50,000 bond for Mejia. The illegal alien’s flight risk was also of concern for Root’s father. Mejia had a record for various traffic infractions and for failure to appear in court. ICE never detained him after those run-ins with the law.

The police investigator contacted ICE requesting an immigration hold for Mejia based on Root’s father’s concerns.

But ICE denied the initial request, and so the investigator and her lieutenant placed a call to an ICE supervisor. Their call was never returned, however, deputy Omaha police chief Dave Baker told the World-Herald.

Saldana gave conflicting excuses for why ICE failed to detain Mejia. During one part of her testimony she claimed that the agency did not have enough time to respond to the Omaha police department’s request. In another part, she said that ICE field officers should have used better judgement in exercising prosecutorial discretion.

“We tried to act,” Saldana told Sasse at one point. “But I believe there was a matter of hours between the time that we were contacted and the actual release.”

“It is very hard for us to get to every inquiry that is made by law enforcement,” she added.

Saldana said later in her testimony that ICE field officers can use prosecutorial discretion to detain illegal aliens if they believe that the person “presents a public safety threat.”

“In this case Sarah Root is dead,” Sasse pointed out. “What if someone kills a U.S. citizen? That doesn’t meet the threshold?”

Saldana responded with a confusing if not inaccurate answer.

“That was after the fact, sir,” she said.

“I understand that that person was injured and had not, when that four hour period of time, seriously injured, but had not passed away until later.”

It is unclear what Saldana meant by that statement. Root died on Jan. 31. Mejia bonded out of jail a week later.

ICE did not respond to a request for comment seeking clarification.

According to Sasse and various news reports, ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer said last month that the case “did not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities” under President Obama’s Nov. 2014 enforcement priority policy because Mejia “had no prior significant misdemeanor or felony conviction record.”

ICE does not necessarily detain illegal aliens who have pending felony charges, apparently even in cases of felony vehicular homicide.

Obama’s enforcement priority executive action, which has come under intense criticism, places a priority on deporting illegal aliens with felony records, significant misdemeanor convictions, gang ties and those who pose terrorist threats.

He de-prioritized illegal aliens with convictions for drunk driving and lesser assault charges, including even domestic assault.

“It is a judgement that is being exercised by the person based on what they see at the time,” Saldana said of prosecutorial discretion, adding that in the Root case it “could have been exercised a different way.”

“That’s us looking back,” she continued. “I want to look forward so that we don’t have that situation arise again.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fast and Furious Weapons, Continue to Surface

Posted on by

‘Fast and Furious’ weapon linked to shootout in Mexico

USAToday: A new accounting of guns that were allowed to be trafficked to Mexico as part of a botched U.S. firearms investigation shows that one of the weapons was used last year in a deadly shootout that left three Mexican police officers dead.

A Justice Department summary provided to two Republican congressional committee chairmen Tuesday found that a WASR-10 rifle, purchased six years before in the U.S., was one of three rifles fired in the July 27 assault in the town of Valle de Zaragoza. It was not immediately known which weapon caused the officers’ fatal wounds.

Nevertheless, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives officials traced the WASR rifle to a Nov. 12, 2009, transaction that was part of the flawed federal gun trafficking operation, known as “Operation Fast and Furious.”

“ATF and the (Justice) Department deeply regret that firearms associated with Operation Fast and Furious have been used by criminals in the commission of violent crimes, particularly crimes resulting the death of civilians and law enforcement officers,’’ Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

“ATF accepts full responsibility for the flawed execution of Fast and Furious, and will continue to support Mexican law enforcement in efforts to recover and identify associated firearms.’’

As of January, according to the Justice Department letter, 885 firearms purchased by targets of the ATF operation have been recovered.  Of that number, 415 were found in the U.S. and 470 “appear to have been recovered in Mexico.’’

The same letter confirmed prior reports that one of 19 weapons —a .50-caliber rifle —recovered in the January raid in Mexico that resulted in the re-capture of drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman also was traced to the ATF operation.

**** Is there an end it sight? Not so much
For years, the United States has pushed countries battling powerful drug cartels, like Mexico, to decapitate the groups by killing or arresting their leaders. The pinnacle of that strategy was the capture of Mexico’s most powerful trafficker, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, better known as El Chapo, who escaped in spectacular fashion last month from a maximum-security prison.

And while the arrests of kingpins make for splashy headlines, the result has been a fragmenting of the cartels and spikes in violence in places like Chilapa, a city of about 31,000, as smaller groups fight for control. Like a hydra, it seems that each time the government cuts down a cartel, multiple other groups, sometimes even more vicious, spring up to take its place.

“In Mexico, this has been a copy of the American anti-terrorism strategy of high-value targets,” said Raúl Benítez Manaut, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico who specializes in security issues. “What we have seen with the strategy of high-value targets is that al-Qaida has been diminished, but a monster appeared called the Islamic State. With the cartels, it has been similar.”

While the large cartels are like monopolies involved in the production, transportation, distribution and sale of drugs, experts say, the smaller groups often lack international reach and only control a portion of the drug supply chain.

They also frequently resort to other criminal activities to boost their income, like kidnapping, car theft, protection rackets and human trafficking. And while the big cartels have the resources to buy off government officials at the national level, the smaller gangs generally focus on the local and state levels, often with disastrous consequences for communities.

That was abundantly clear in a case that stunned the nation last year, when 43 students disappeared in Iguala, a city a short distance from Chilapa.

Ruh Roh, Hillary Worked to Change Policy for her Blackberry

Posted on by

Clinton tried to change rules to use BlackBerry in secure facility for classified information

FNC: Less than a month after becoming secretary of state, and registering the personal email domain that she would use exclusively for government business, Hillary Clinton’s team aggressively pursued changes to existing State Department security protocols so she could use her BlackBerry in secure facilities for classified information, according to new documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

“Anyone who has any appreciation at all of security, you don’t ask a question like that,”cybersecurity analyst Morgan Wright told Fox News.  “It is contempt for the system, contempt for the rules that are designed to protect the exact kind of information that was exposed through this email set up. “

Current and former intelligence officials grimaced when asked by Fox News about the use of wireless communications devices, such as a BlackBerry, in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) emphasizing its use would defeat the purpose of the secure facility, and it is standard practice to leave all electronics outside.

A former State Department employee familiar with the Clinton request emphasized security personnel at the time thought the BlackBerry was only for unclassified material, adding their concerns would have been magnified if they had known Clinton’s email account also held classified material.

“When you allow devices like this into a SCIF, you can allow the bad guys to listen in,” Wright added.

A February 17, 2009 email marked SECRET and cleared through the NSA says, “Ms. Mills described the requirement as chiefly driven by Secretary Clinton, who does not use standard computer equipment but relies exclusively on her Blackberry for emailing and remaining in contact on her schedule etc. Ideally all members of her suite would be allowed to use Blackberries for communication in the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility)”

Cheryl Mills was Clinton’s chief of staff from 2009-13.

The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also show that a specialized NSA team was brought in to assess the vulnerabilities and feasibility of using wireless communications, including within a secure facility.

The NSA State Department liaison, whose name was withheld, told Mills in a now highly redacted email:  “Sometimes the distinction between what can be done and what is, or is not, recommended to be done differ; this is one of those instances.  (State Department Diplomatic Security) DS’s response illustrates their level of concern based on their extensive professional expertise. “

Clinton never used a State Department issued BlackBerry. It is not clear from the documents whether Clinton and her team went ahead and used their BlackBerrys in SCIFs despite the concerns, including those of the NSA.

A February 18 2009 email from the State Department’s Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Donald R. Reid, states “…once she (Clinton) got the hang of it, she was hooked, now every day, she feels hamstrung because she has to lock up her BB up.  She does go out several times a day to an office they have crafted for her outside the SCIF and plays email catch-up.  Cheryl Mills and others who are dedicated BB addicts are frustrated because they too are not near their desktop very often during the working day…”

The reference to a secondary office for Clinton appears to conflict with a February statement from the State Department that no stand-alone computer was set up outside Clinton’s main office on the executive floor, known as Mahogany Row, to check her personal account.

On February 25, Fox News pressed the State Department spokesman about a January 2009 email, also obtained by Judicial Watch, between Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and then Clinton chief of staff Mills where Kennedy said it was a “great idea” to setup a stand-alone PC for Clinton to check her email.

Asked by Fox News, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “There was no stand-alone computer ever set up.”Fox News has asked Kirby to further clarify his statement.

In January 2009, Clinton signed at least two non-disclosure agreements in which she promised to protect classified information. Since then, more than 2,100 emails containing classified information have been identified, as well as 22 Top Secret that are too damaging to national security to release.

Earlier this week, Judicial Watch presented the federal court in Washington with a list of 7 Clinton aides it wants to question under oath about Clinton’s use of a private email sever when she was secretary of state.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch is aggressively working on additional subpoenas for interrogatories of those within Hillary’s circle. One issue, in my humble opinion, they omitted Jake Sullivan.

Judicial Watch Submits Proposed Witness List, Discovery Plan to Federal Court in Clinton Email Matter

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today filed a plan for “narrowly tailored discovery” into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter with a federal court.  Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department:  Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.

During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.  The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Judicial Watch seeks testimony from:

Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);

Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Smith about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account);

Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);

Donald R. Reid (Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003 and was involved in early discussions about Mrs. Clinton using her BlackBerry and other devices to conduct official State Department business);

30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant [designated witness(es) for the State Department] regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;

Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);

Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com); and

Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State four years as secretary).

With respect to testimony of Clinton, the Judicial Watch court filing states:

Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.  If [Judicial Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.

Judicial Watch also seeks court approval of written questions requiring answers under oath by the State Department:

Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;

Who was responsible for the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails, records, and information;

Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and

Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

Judicial Watch also seeks testimony from a 30 (b)(6) witness or witnesses who can provide testimony on behalf of the State Department on the following issues:

the creation or establishment of the clintonemail.com system as well as any maintenance, service, or support provided by the State Department of that system;

the knowledge or awareness of State Department officials and employees about the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system;

any instructions or directions given to State Department officials and employees about communicating with Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin via email;

any inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s use of the clintonemail.com system as well as any discussions about responding to such inquiries or publicly revealing the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system to the public; and

the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s email upon their departure from the State Department.

The Judicial Watch plan requests only eight weeks to conduct the requested depositions.  Judge Sullivan will rule on Judicial Watch’s proposed discovery plan after April 15.

“This discovery will help Judicial Watch get all of the facts behind Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama State Department’s thwarting of FOIA so that the public can be sure that all of the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.