Category Archives: IRS White House Collusion

Update on Hillary’s Donations, Tax Returns, Emails, on My

Posted on by

Guccifer 2.0 has been busy toward the end of the week with a new release found below:

As you see the U.S. presidential elections are becoming a farce, a big political performance where the voters are far from playing the leading role. Everything is being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.

I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda  hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.

To make a long story short, here are some DCCC docs from their server. Make use of them.

Publication Passwords

2016 Cycle Passwords

Coordinated Shared Passwords

Special thanks to Nirali Amin for the list of passwords.

2016-08-08_174450

By the way, the complexity of the passwords leaves much to be desired.

Here are more docs from the DCCC server.

Copy of 114th Congressional Contacts

2016-08-08_175149

FL-18 Campaign Overview

FL-18 Campaign Overview Appendix

2016-08-08_1753032016-08-08_175623

These docs are from Nancy Pelosi’s PC

Pelosi_Carroll Event Memo

pe1

*****

Clinton Releases 2015 Tax Returns — Here’s Where 96 Percent of Their Charitable Donations Went

TheBlaze and Mediaite: Of the $10.6 million Hillary and Bill Clinton earned last year, they gave more than $1 million to charity, according to a tax filing released by the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign Friday.

As it turns out, 96 percent of the Clintons’ 2015 charitable donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, a tax-exempt charity owned by the Clintons but separate from the well-known Clinton Foundation. According to the tax release, the Clintons donated $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation.

Interestingly, as the Daily Caller pointed out, the money donated to Desert Classic soon funneled back to the Clintons as the charity donated $700,000 to the Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The money was donated for work on obesity programs.

In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney became the subject of much scrutiny for his charitable donations. The former Massachusetts governor earned $14 million and gave $4 million to charity. Many progressive pundits hit Romney because a majority of his charitable giving went to the Mormon church and part of it was gifted to a foundation controlled by his family.

The Clintons’ charity work has been criticized ever since the release of Peter Schweitzer’s 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The author asserts that many of the embattled Clinton Foundation’s donations from foreign and domestic people occurred alongside favorable treatment from Clinton’s State Department.

This comes amid a new release of Clinton emails seemingly showing a tangled relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

The FBI pushed the Department of Justice to launch an integrity probe into the Clinton Foundation, but the agency denied, claiming there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing to justify such an investigation.

**** Oh Bill, what have you been doing lately?

Bill Clinton netted $1.6 million from for-profit colleges

WashingtonExaminer: Bill Clinton netted $1.6 million last year from a pair of for-profit education companies that caused controversy for the future president during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton nearly $1.1 million in 2015, according to tax returns released by his wife’s campaign Friday. GEMS Education, a Dubai-based firm, paid him more than $560,000.

Both companies are major donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Bill Clinton’s lucrative consulting contracts with the corporations have raised questions about how closely his personal fortune is linked to his philanthropic activities.

What’s more, the State Department handed Laureate’s chairman taxpayer-funded grants under Hillary Clinton’s watch.

** Be sure to click the link below for the income graphic.
Bill and Hillary Clinton Total Income | Graphiq

Douglas Becker, CEO of Laureate, also heads a nonprofit group called the International Youth Foundation, which netted millions from the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2010. USAID is an arm of the State Department.

The Clintons have weathered criticism in the past for promoting affordable or free higher education while accepting a paycheck from one of the largest for-profit college education firms in the world.

Bill Clinton said he ended his time as the honorary chancellor of Laureate in April of last year, the same month Hillary Clinton launched her presidential bid.

Contracts with GEMS and Laureate have earned Bill Clinton more than $15 million. That sum padded the additional millions he pocketed from speaking fees thanks to engagements he booked around the world while Hillary Clinton served as the nation’s chief diplomat.

 

What you Need to Know About IDI and Why

Posted on by

This Company Has Built a Profile on Every American Adult

Every move you make. Every click you take. Every game you play. Every place you stay. They’ll be watching you.

Bloomberg: Forget telephoto lenses and fake mustaches: The most important tools for America’s 35,000 private investigators are database subscription services. For more than a decade, professional snoops have been able to search troves of public and nonpublic records—known addresses, DMV records, photographs of a person’s car—and condense them into comprehensive reports costing as little as $10. Now they can combine that information with the kinds of things marketers know about you, such as which politicians you donate to, what you spend on groceries, and whether it’s weird that you ate in last night, to create a portrait of your life and predict your behavior.

IDI, a year-old company in the so-called data-fusion business, is the first to centralize and weaponize all that information for its customers. The Boca Raton, Fla., company’s database service, idiCORE, combines public records with purchasing, demographic, and behavioral data. Chief Executive Officer Derek Dubner says the system isn’t waiting for requests from clients—it’s already built a profile on every American adult, including young people who wouldn’t be swept up in conventional databases, which only index transactions. “We have data on that 21-year-old who’s living at home with mom and dad,” he says.

Dubner declined to provide a demo of idiCORE or furnish the company’s report on me. But he says these personal profiles include all known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses; every piece of property ever bought or sold, plus related mortgages; past and present vehicles owned; criminal citations, from speeding tickets on up; voter registration; hunting permits; and names and phone numbers of neighbors. The reports also include photos of cars taken by private companies using automated license plate readers—billions of snapshots tagged with GPS coordinates and time stamps to help PIs surveil people or bust alibis.

IDI also runs two coupon websites, allamericansavings.com and samplesandsavings.com, that collect purchasing and behavioral data. When I signed up for the latter, I was asked for my e-mail address, birthday, and home address, information that could easily link me with my idiCORE profile. The site also asked if I suffered from arthritis, asthma, diabetes, or depression, ostensibly to help tailor its discounts.

Users and industry analysts say the addition of purchasing and behavioral data to conventional data fusion outmatches rival systems in terms of capabilities—and creepiness. “The cloud never forgets, and imperfect pictures of you composed from your data profile are carefully filled in over time,” says Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, a consulting firm. “We’re like bugs in amber, completely trapped in the web of our own data.”

When logging in to IDI and similar databases, a PI must select a permissible use for a search under U.S. privacy laws. The Federal Trade Commission oversees the industry, but PI companies are largely expected to police themselves, because a midsize outfit may run thousands of searches a month.

Dubner says most Americans have little to fear. As examples, he cites idiCORE uses such as locating a missing person and nabbing a fraud or terrorism suspect.

IDI, like much of the data-fusion industry, traces its lineage to Hank Asher, a former cocaine smuggler and self-taught programmer who began fusing sets of public data from state and federal governments in the early 1990s. After Sept. 11, law enforcement’s interest in commercial databases grew, and more money and data began raining down, says Julia Angwin, a reporter who wrote about the industry in her 2014 book, Dragnet Nation.

Asher died suddenly in 2013, leaving behind his company, the Last One (TLO), which credit bureau TransUnion bought in bankruptcy for $154 million. Asher’s disciples, including Dubner, left TLO and eventually teamed up with Michael Brauser, a former business partner of Asher’s, and billionaire health-care investor Phillip Frost. In May 2015, after a flurry of purchases and mergers, the group rebranded its database venture as IDI.

Besides pitching its databases to big-name PIs (Kroll, Control Risks), law firms, debt collectors, and government agencies, IDI says it’s also targeting consumer marketers. The 200-employee company had revenue of about $40 million in its most recent quarter and says 2,800 users signed up for idiCORE in the first month after its May release. It declined to provide more recent figures. The company’s data sets are growing, too. In December, Frost helped underwrite IDI’s $100 million acquisition of marketing profiler Fluent, which says it has 120 million profiles of U.S. consumers. In June, IDI bought ad platform Q Interactive for a reported $21 million in stock.

IDI may need Frost’s deep pockets for a while. The PI industry’s three favorite databases are owned by TransUnion and media giants Reed Elsevier and Thomson Reuters. “There’s no shortage,” says Chuck McLaughlin, chairman of the board of the World Association of Detectives, which has about 1,000 members. “The longer you’re in business, the more data you have, the better results.” He uses TLO and Tracers Information Specialists.

Steve Rambam, a PI who hosts Nowhere to Hide on the Investigation Discovery channel, says marketing data remains a niche monitoring tool compared with social media, but its power can be unparalleled. “You may not know what you do on a regular basis, but I know,” Rambam says. “I know it’s Thursday, you haven’t eaten Chinese food in two weeks, and I know you’re due.”

Wait…there is another problem you don’t know about.

Comcast Lobbies To Charge Customers More To Protect Their Online Privacy
Internet providers are still hashing out issues with the FCC. In particular, Comcast is currently defend its “pay-for-privacy” model to the FCC [PDF]. Comcast has even contended that  “the FCC has no authority to prohibit or limit these types of programs.”

So what exactly is the “pay-for-privacy” system? Essentially, companies like Comcast offers discounts to customers in exchange for allowing ISP’s to use their data. Comcast then floods these customers with various behaviorally-targeted ads. Customers who prefer privacy over pricing are charged a premium.

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/38236/content/small_comcast_office.jpg

comcast office

Several weeks ago a number of lawmakers urged the FCC to ban the “pay-for-privacy” system. They argued that this pricing pyramid is particularly harmful to elderly customers who do not necessarily understand how ISP’s work and low-income customers who cannot afford to pay the privacy premium. Members of Congress noted that Comcast’s policies are “counter to our nation’s core principle that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy.”

Comcast argued that the “pay-for-privacy” model actually benefits elderly and low-income customers. They insisted that its “prohibition would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings.” They noted that this system is commonly used throughout the United States economy.

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/38236/content/small_fcc.jpg

fcc

Comcast also argued that its ensures “through contractual provisions that vendors who handle customer-related data have strong measures in place to protect that customer-related data, and that the vendors are prohibited from using that data for any purposes other than as directed by Comcast.”

The company concurs that opt-in agreements should be required when dealing with sensitive information. This kind of information would include financial, health, and children’s information, Social Security numbers, and precise geo-location information. All other information, however, would be subject to opt-out or, in most instances, “implied” consent.  The FCC is currently considering privacy rules that would require broadband providers to obtain consumers’ opt-in consent regardless of whether the information was sensitive or not. Hat tip to HotHardware

IRS Targeting Case Advances, Court Reverses Lower Decision

Posted on by

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district

court’s dismissal of appellants’ Bivens actions and statutory

claims, but reverse the district court’s dismissal of the actions

for injunctive and declaratory relief and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

****

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 14, 2016 Decided August 5, 2016

No. 14-5316

TRUE THE VOTE, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

*****

Appellants appeal from judgments of the district court

dismissing some of their claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure

to state a claim for relief, and others under Rule 12(b)(1) for

lack of jurisdiction, by reason of mootness. See True the Vote,

Inc. v. IRS, 71 F. Supp. 3d 219 (D.D.C. 2014); Linchpins of

Liberty v. United States, 71 F. Supp. 3d 236 (D.D.C. 2014).

Each of the above-named appellants together with numerous coplaintiffs

in the Linchpins of Liberty litigation, filed applications

with the Internal Revenue Service for recognition of tax

exemption as charitable or educational organizations pursuant to

26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), (4). As to what happened thereafter, we

construe the complaints in the light most favorable to the

plaintiffs, see Missel v. DHSS, 760 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2014),

although there is very little factual dispute between the parties

as to the conduct committed by the IRS.

Instead of processing these applications in the normal

course of IRS business, as would have been the case with other

taxpayers, the IRS selected out these applicants for more

rigorous review on the basis of their names, which were in each

instance indicative of a conservative or anti-Administration

orientation, as we will set out in more detail below, and as was

admitted by the Department of Treasury in the 2013 report of

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

(TIGTA).

The appellants before us, plaintiffs below, are applicants

who were afforded this unequal treatment. They brought the

present actions against the IRS and several of its individual

employees, seeking money damages by way of relief under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and equitable relief by way of

injunction and declaratory judgment. Additionally, the

complaints alleged that the IRS invaded the plaintiffs’ statutory

rights by violating 26 U.S.C. § 6103, by conducting

unauthorized inspection and/or disclosure of tax return

information from their applications and the other information

improperly obtained from them. Read the full decision here.

DOJ Lawyer/Donor Spent 1500+ Hours Investigation IRS Targeting

Posted on by

Judicial Watch: Obama Donor/DOJ Prosecutor Spent 1529.25 Hours Investigating the IRS’ Targeting of Conservative Groups

Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a letter from the Justice Department admitting that Democratic Party/Obama campaign donor and Justice Department attorney Barbara Bosserman spent 1,529.25 hours investigating the IRS’ targeting of conservative organizations in 2010 and 2012.  According to Federal Election Commission records, Bosserman contributed $6,750 to Obama campaigns and the DNC from 2004 to 2012, including 12 separate contributions to Obama for America between 2008 and 2012.  The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

The letter results from a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on February 16, 2016, which sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling allowing the Department of Justice to withhold these records (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 15-5271)).  After over two years, the Justice Department agreed to identify the number of hours just prior to the scheduling of oral arguments during which the agency would have had to justify the withholding of the information.

In February 2014 Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, for:

All Justice Department records from the Interactive Case Management System [a web-based system for storing and accessing information about contacts, calendars, cases, documents, time tracking, and billing, etc.] detailing the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman expended on the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status in the 2010 and 2012 elections cycles.

Subsequently, Judicial Watch sued the agency for failing to respond to the FOIA request.  (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01024)).

In what House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA) called “a startling conflict of interest,” Bosserman was appointed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder to oversee the FBI investigation despite her being a substantial contributor to the political campaigns of Barack Obama and to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This lawsuit forced the Obama Justice Department to confirm the existence of a criminal investigation into the IRS’ abuses and that Bosserman, a major donor to Obama’s political campaigns and the Democratic National Committee, was part of the team of lawyers criminally investigating the issue.

In a joint letter to Holder on January 8, 2014, Issa and House Subcommittee on Economic Growth Chairman Jim Jordon (R- OH) asked that Bosserman be removed from the investigation, charging that her “conflict of interest has tainted any information she has gathered.” Holder refused to remove Bosserman, and she failed to appear at a February 6 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing titled: “The IRS Targeting Investigation: What is the Administration Doing?”

“These numbers, extracted from the Obama administration after two years of hard fought litigation, show the central role that a conflicted Obama donor played in the Justice Department investigation of the Obama IRS scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Is it any surprise that this compromised investigation found no reason to prosecute anyone in the Obama IRS scandal?”

Through a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch released FBI investigation records that document interviews with key IRS officials about the Obama IRS targeting scandal.

Remember the Cincinnati excuse?

‘DC is like a black hole.’ – Cincinnati Group Manager

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 105 pages of newly obtained Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “302” documents revealing that, beginning in 2010 and lasting through the Obama reelection campaign in 2012, the Obama IRS orchestrated a deliberate policy of burying conservative groups’ tax exemption applications in bureaucratic delays. Interviews with numerous Cincinnati IRS employees in mid-2013 reveal that “Tea Party” group applications were automatically denied approval and assigned to a special “Group 7822” for an extended “inventory” process while waiting for decisions from IRS headquarters in Washington, DC.  One IRS manager “asked why progressive cases were not segregated similar to the Tea Party cases, but she did not get any satisfactory answers.”  FBI “302” documents are detailed narratives of FBI investigation interviews. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

According to a Cincinnati “Group Manager” interview in July of 2013:

Group 7822 was composed of 12 to 15 people and was simply a place for the Tea Party cases to be held in inventory while the agent waited to receive guidance from the Washington office. There had been no precedence previously on these issues. If the case said it supports politics and political activity, it would be put into Group 7822. [Redacted] and then [Redacted] held the cases in inventory.

A second Cincinnati Group Manager interviewed in July 2013 told the FBI 302 interviewers a similar story, pinning the blame directly on the IRS Washington headquarters:

In the 14-month period when [Redacted] had the cases, he would ask for updates on guidance and was told they were still waiting on DC. He recalls receiving emails with contradictory guidance on whether the 501-c-3 or 501-c-4 cases should be denied. It was his understanding that a team would come and work the Tea Party cases when the guidance was provided … Nobody told him directly where the delay was in resolving the Tea Party issue. DC is like a black hole.

The FBI 302 interviews with Cincinnati IRS employees reveal that the agency adopted a series of policies assuring that Tea Party and other conservative group tax exempt applications would not be approved before the November 2012 presidential election. The strategy relied upon the IRS’ multi-tier “bucketing” system that determined from the time an application was received whether it would be quickly approved or indefinitely delayed.

The first bucket – the “incomplete bucket” – automatically kicked the application back to the applicant because of missing documents. The second bucket – the “merit close” – meant the application met all the criteria and was quickly approved. The third and fourth buckets meant that other issues needed to be addressed by the applicant.  According to FBI interviews with Cincinnati agency employees, top Washington IRS officials issued directives making certain that no BOLO (Be on the Look Out) Tea Party applications could be put in the “merit closed” bucket.

The strategy began in 2010, when the IRS Washington headquarters created its “BOLO” list and applied the term “Tea Party” to all political advocacy tax exemption applications. According to a Cincinnati Quality Assurance Specialist interviewed by the FBI, “The Tea Party was added to the emerging issues tab of the BOLO list in July or August 2010.”

Another Cincinnati agency official explained to the FBI what this designation meant to Tea Party and other conservative organizations: “If an item was on the BOLO list, that case could not be merit closed by the screeners/classifiers. [Emphasis added] A Cincinnati Grade 13 Revenue Agent explained to the FBI how this ended a Tea Party group’s hopes for early, or perhaps even eventual, IRS approval:

[Redacted] saw a few applications that were Tea Party cases and he sent them to a special group to work. [Redacted] identified cases by seeing if they had the Tea Party name or had verbiage that lined up with the Tea Party beliefs. If he saw this, he sent it for development because he knew he could not approve the case.

The “special group” the Revenue Agent sent the Tea Party applications to was known inside the IRS as Group 7822. As reported to the FBI by a Cincinnati Group Manager, “Group 7822 was composed of 12 to 15 people and was simply a place for the Tea Party cases to be held in inventory while the agent waited to receive guidance from the Washington office.”  He added, “In his experience, getting guidance from Washington takes a while; but this seemed to take longer. It was typical for cases to sit and wait until they got guidance on how to apply the tax law.”

Another Cincinnati Revenue Agent explained to FBI 302 interviewers that for those Tea Party groups consigned to Group 7822 to await Washington approval, the wait could be almost interminable:

The cases were old. He did not think that was right because the applicants were waiting so long….  He believes the problem was getting a response from Washington. People developing cases would not receive feedback from Washington for a long time.

A Cincinnati Quality Assurance Specialist told the FBI interviewers in detail of her frustrations with trying to get feedback in order to process Tea Party cases:

They called them “Tea Party cases.” She knew they were conservative groups from the stuff in the news in April 2010. Initially, she was assigned 20 cases. She received instructions from either [Redacted] or [Redacted] to contact EO Technical …

***

It then started to take longer and longer for [Redacted] to respond … By September 2010, he did not get back to her at all.… The Tea Party cases started to backlog since [Redacted] was no longer responding… She knew the Tea Party was vocal in the news, and could see the perception that big government, the IRS, was hold cases. She expressed her frustration about the delay. She felt that every taxpayer deserves as determination, approval or denial.

And an Exempt Organizations Determinations Manager in the Cincinnati IRS office told the FBI 302 interviewers that while she did not think Tea Party organizations were targeted, “The Tea Party designation [in the BOLOs] looks bad, especially since progressive cases were not included in these categories … [Redacted] asked why progressive cases were not segregated similar to the Tea Party cases, but she did not get any satisfactory answers.”

“IRS officials described for the FBI unlawful and purposeful bureaucratic delays orchestrated by top IRS officials in Washington, DC ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “One IRS official details how concerns about the Obama IRS targeting of conservatives were ignored.  We hope a future Justice Department follows up on this information in a renewed criminal investigation.”

Judicial Watch previously released 294 pages of FBI 302 documents revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner, who was interviewed in June 2013 and again in October 2013, knew that the agency was specifically targeting Tea Party and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.  The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

UK Report: Charities Funding Terror

Posted on by

At least the police in the UK noticed something and asked officials for an inquiry. An investigation was performed and you gotta hand it to the Brits, they are so proper and careful, but did the right thing. Question is, was it enough. Further, we must look inward and ask if our own State laws and the IRS are doing the same thing when it comes to charities and foundations? Two come to mind immediately, the Clinton Foundation(s) and those that are advocates of Islamic organizations when the Holy-land Foundation case left many un-indicted co-conspirators.

UK charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda struck off

TWO British charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda respectively have been struck of the register after separate investigations by the regulator.
The Charity Commission has released reports on two separate organisations that claimed to be raising cash to help victims of the war in Syria, and Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, but were in fact funding and promoting terrorists.

In one case, charities set up by Adeel Ul-Haq, 21, of Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, raised money through social media that was used to buy a high-powered laser pointer, night-vision goggles and a secret waterproof money pouch.

Ul-Haq was jailed for 12 months in February after a separate police investigation found he funded terrorism by sending money to an ISIS fighter in Syria.
Ul-Haq used Twitter to appeal for cash “to help people in war-torn Syria crisis, but instead sent it to the ISIS fighter.

He was jailed for a further five years for helping another person travel to Syria.

The Charity Commission report said the regulator was unable to account for much of £12,500 raised by Ul-Haq, but at least some of it went into another unnamed person’s bank account.
Some of this cash was then used to buy the specialist items oneBay, that the watchdog suspected would be used for terrorism.
The report said: “While recognising that it is not illegal to purchase such items, the inquiry was extremely concerned by the use of charitable funds to purchase a night-vision scope and its potential usage given that it can be used for hunting or surveillance.”

Ul-Haq never registered any charities with the commission, but the regulator took action as he was effectively acting as an official trustee and he had taken the donations on trust that they would help people in Syria.

The regulator found Ul-Haq breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply charitable funds for the purposes for which they were raised and that there was evidence the second trustee had committed misconduct and mismanagement by allowing the charitable funds to be mixed in the same account as her own personal funds.

The second, unnamed, female trustee was ordered to repay any other charitable money in her account to Ul-Haq’s account, which was frozen by the commission at the start of the investigation.

However, she faced no police charges.

This cash and remaining funds in Ul-Haq’s account, plus money seized in a police raid of his home, totalled about £4,500, and was donated to two genuine charities working in Syria, which the commission has not named.
Ul-Haq been disqualified from acting as a charity trustee in the future.

At least £2,000 of money had been sent to a genuine charity, it was found.

A second charity probed by the commission was the Birmingham-based Didi Nwe Organisation.

Its website featured articles by Mullah Krekar, viewed as an associate of Al-Qaeda by the United Nations.

Didi Nwe also paid £14,000 to its chair of trustees between May 2010 and February 2013 and could not explain why, according to a statutory inquiry report published by the commission.

The charity trustees were found to have committed misconduct and mismanagement, failed to keep financial records, and were unable to show how the charity was furthering its causes of providing education and relieving poverty among Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, the report said.

The commission launched an inquiry after the charity’s chair, referred to only as Trustee A, was stopped by police returning to the UK from France with around £1,800 in cash, which he claimed were charitable donations. Read more here.  The report is found here.

Conclusions

The commission concluded that the First Trustee had solicited charitable funds from the public via Twitter for a specific purpose but had breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply those funds properly for the purposes for which they were raised. The commission concluded that the items the First Trustee purchased on eBay with the charitable funds, including a laser pen, a money wallet and night vision scope, could not be used for furthering the charitable purposes for which the funds were raised and raised serious concerns about what the intended purpose of their use was.

There was evidence of misconduct and mismanagement by the Second Trustee in mixing charitable funds with her own personal funds.

Charitable funds raised by or donated to the First Trustee were not accounted for; there was a serious risk of further misapplication, in breach of duty, to any remaining funds or any funds which could be recovered if the First Trustee was to remain a trustee of the funds. The commission took regulatory action to remove the First Trustee as a trustee, the effect of which was to disqualify him from beinga trustee.

On 10 February 2016 the First Trustee was convicted under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (preparation of terrorist acts) and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (entering into or becoming concerned in a terrorist funding arrangement) and received 5 years imprisonment. The commission issued a public statement following this conviction.