Category Archives: Treasury

Visa Waiver Program to be Suspended or Terminated?

Posted on by

EU may require visas from Americans and Canadians: EU source

Reuters: The European Union executive is considering whether to make U.S. and Canadian citizens apply for visas before traveling to the bloc in a move that could raise tensions as Brussels negotiates a free trade pact with Washington.

The European Commission will debate the issue, prompted by U.S. and Canadian refusals to waive their visa requirements for holders of some EU member states’ passports, at a meeting next Tuesday. That is just over a week before U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in Europe on a visit that will include discussions on trade.

“A political debate and decision is obviously needed on such an important issue. But there is a real risk that the EU would move towards visas for the two,” an EU source said.

Washington and Ottawa both demand visas before traveling for Romanians and Bulgarians, whose states joined the EU in 2007. The United States also excludes Croatians, Cypriots and Poles from a visa waiver scheme offered to other EU citizens.

Europe’s Schengen area, comprising 26 states, most of which are in the 28-member EU, has a common visa system. Poland is a member of Schengen, and the other four states are due to join.

Trade negotiations between Brussels and Washington are at a crucial point since both sides believe their transatlantic agreement, known as TTIP, stands a better chance of passing before President Barack Obama leaves the White House in January.

Obama is due to visit Britain before meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a trade fair in Hanover on April 24.

Blah blah blah —>>>

U.S. Visa Waiver Program

DHS: The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the State Department, permits citizens of 38 countries[1] to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa.  In return, those 38 countries must permit U.S. citizens and nationals to travel to their countries for a similar length of time without a visa for business or tourism purposes.  Since its inception in 1986, the VWP has evolved into a comprehensive security partnership with many of America’s closest allies.  The VWP utilizes a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and other mala fide actors from traveling to the United States. This approach incorporates regular, national-level risk assessments concerning the impact of each program country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests.  It also includes comprehensive vetting of individual VWP travelers prior to their departure for the United States, upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry, and during any subsequent air travel within the United States.

Economic Benefits

A strong and vibrant economy is essential to our national security. The United States welcomed approximately 20 million VWP travelers in FY 2014 who, according to the Department of Commerce, spent approximately $84 billion on goods and services.  VWP travelers injected nearly $231 million a day into local economies across the country.

Initial and Continuing Designation Requirements

The eligibility requirements for a country’s designation in the VWP are defined in Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007.  Pursuant to existing statute, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate into the VWP a country that:

  1. Has an annual nonimmigrant visitor visa (i.e., B visa) refusal rate of less than three percent, or a lower average percentage over the previous two fiscal years;
  2. Accepts the repatriation of its citizens, former citizens, and nationals ordered removed from the United States within three weeks of the final order of removal;
  3. Enters into an agreement to report lost and stolen passport information to the United States via INTERPOL or other means designated by the Secretary;
  4. Enters into an agreement with the United States to share terrorism and serious criminal information;
  5. Issues electronic, machine-readable passports with biometric identifiers;
  6. Undergoes a DHS-led evaluation of the effects of the country’s VWP designation on the security, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement interests of the United States; and
  7. Undergoes, in conjunction with the DHS-led evaluation, an independent intelligence assessment produced by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (on behalf of the Director of National Intelligence).

 

Obama Claims a New Power, Illegals Benefit

Posted on by

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

Jeffrey/CNS: Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?

Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”

He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.

“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”

“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.

The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation’s immigration laws.

 

Fleecing Taxpayers, $137 Billion

Posted on by

GAO Report: Federal Government Paid $136.7 Billion in Improper Payments

IndependentJournal: The United States federal government spent $136.7 billion in improper payments last year, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

In the report released Wednesday, the GAO outlines how 121 different government programs doled out a record amount of improper payments, according to 22 different agencies.

The report further notes that only three programs accounted for three-fourths of the improper payments:

“While these 121 programs span various agencies across the federal government, improper payment estimates for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit accounted for more than 76 percent of the governmentwide estimate…”

According to the GAO, $32.3 billion, or 23.6 percent, of the improper payments were from other government programs.

Source: GAO

Source: GAO

This is just the latest report of improper payments, which remains an increasing problem. Since 2003, the GAO has reported the cumulative increases, which have risen more than $100 billion in the past 13 years.

The GAO wants to curb the massive streak of improper payments. Their report included specific suggestions:

“[The GAO has] identified various strategies and recommendations that could help to reduce improper payments in these key programs, including requiring states to conduct audits of payments to and by Medicaid managed care organizations.”

The report also claims that efforts are under way to address the various problems, but there is still a long way to go.

“Until the federal government has implemented effective processes to determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and has taken appropriate actions across entities and programs to effectively reduce improper payments, it will not have reasonable assurance that the use of federal funds is adequately safeguarded,” the report noted.

A report was produced in 2014 where millions were paid to federal employees to stay home and not work.

Examiner: The federal government has shelled out more than $700 million in paid leave to more than 57,000 employees who were home from work for time periods stretching from one month to three years, a Government Accountability Office report has found.

In a 62-page report published Monday, the GAO analyzed why so many federal employees were home and getting paid for such long periods of time and they discovered a variety of reasons.

In many cases, employees were home awaiting the outcome of investigations into alleged misconduct and criminal actions. Some racked up paid leave for “physical fitness activities,” and others were away from work seeking professional development. Employees also took paid leave for “recuperation” from overseas work.

Hundreds of federal employees remained at home, collecting a paycheck, for years.

If you are so inclined to go deeper, how about this well researched summary noting the collusion and blurred lines of federal employees working on official time versus union time. Thanks to Capital Research for this one.

Summary: Few Americans are aware that, through their tax dollars, they finance labor unions through a practice known as “official time” or “release time.” The cost to taxpayers is skyrocketing, while—thanks to Obama administration stonewalling—accountability is declining. Fortunately, reformers are working to rein in this costly, corrupt practice.

Any Americans in the Panama Papers?

Posted on by
Headlines coming soon courtesy of media as noted by McClatchy
Mossack Fonseca worked with oil firms owned by Iranian state despite sanctions

Documents show law firm at centre of Panama Papers leak carried on doing business with companies after learning of their real owners

Guardian: The law firm at the centre of the Panama Papers leak acted for an Iranian oil company that had been blacklisted by the US, the documents reveal.

Mossack Fonseca realised it was working for Petropars Ltd in 2010 only when another client accidentally fell foul of the US sanctions that had been imposed on the energy firm.

Petropars and the other client had been assigned the same PO box in the British Virgin Islands by Mossack Fonseca, and the address had been flagged by banks as linked to a blacklisted company.

The episode highlights the perils of giving the same address to thousands of shelf-companies – and the lack of rigour in Mossack Fonseca’s due diligence procedures.

This was acknowledged by the firm’s managing partner, Jürgen Mossack, who sent an angry email complaining about the lack of background checks, the documents show. “Everybody knows that there are United Nations sanctions against Iran, and we certainly want no business with regimes and individuals from such places! Not because of OFAC [the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the US Treasury department that deals with sanctions] but out of principle.”

Mossack Fonseca discovered it had been acting for the Iranian firm when the head of its Geneva office requested that a client be given a new mailing address in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

PO box 3136 in Road Town, Tortola, was shared by a multitude of other shelf companies on the law firm’s books, including Petropars.

Petropars had been designated by the US Treasury in June that year as an oil company ultimately owned by the Iranian state. With offices in Dubai and London, it played a key role in securing foreign investment for the South Pars natural gas field. The largest in the world, the field lies in the Persian gulf and is shared with Qatar.

Putting Petropars on the official OFAC sanctions list was intended to sap financial support for Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.

After a flurry of checks, Mossack Fonseca discovered it was acting for Petropars and two other companies in which it held stakes: Drilling Company International Limited and Venirogc Limited, a joint venture with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, which would itself be blacklisted by the US the following year.

Three months after the blacklisting, Mossack Fonseca’s compliance team recommended resigning from Petropars and “all its associated companies”. By then, not only OFAC but the United Nations had issued sanctions against the Middle Eastern state.

Mossack Fonseca duly stood down and Petropars was recorded as inactive from May 2011, as were its two subsidiaries. But another Iranian company remained on the books.

Despite resolving to cut ties with Iran, Mossack Fonseca continued servicing an outfit called Petrocom. It shared the same London accountant as Petropars, and gave its address as Sepahbod Gharani Avenue in Tehran.

The relationship was managed through London, where a separately owned business holds the exclusive UK rights to market Mossack Fonseca’s services.

Mossack Fonseca in the BVI produced a certificate of good standing (often requested by banks or trading partners), stamped by the office of the Virgin Islands deputy governor on 14 September 2010; papers approving the appointment of a new chairman and managing director; and others for the creation of a joint venture.

Mossack Fonseca’s BVI office did carry out checks on the company. A request for the name of the ultimate beneficial owner of Petrocom elicited the following reply from Mossack Fonseca’s UK franchise: “I think we could assume that would be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unless I’m mistaken.”

While Iran’s then-president was unlikely to have actually held shares in these offshore entities, the comment makes it clear Mossack Fonseca’s UK office knew it was continuing to act for state-owned companies.

In June 2013, the US imposed sanctions on Petrocom’s parent OIIC, describing it as part of a network of 37 front companies set up to manage the Iranian leadership’s commercial holdings. OIIC was allegedly controlled by a holding company called Eiko, which stands for The Execution of Imam Khomeini’s Order.

“The purpose of this network is to generate and control massive, off-the-books investments, shielded from the view of the Iranian people and international regulators,” a US Treasury press release stated.

The most recent data, from December 2015, shows Petrocom remains on the firm’s books. A certificate of good standing was issued as recently as April 2015.

Mossack Fonseca said: “We have never knowingly allowed the use of our companies by individuals having any relationship with North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and other countries or individuals sanctioned by the United States or European Union. We routinely resign from client engagements when ongoing due diligence and/or updates to sanctions lists reveals that a party to a company for which we provide services has been either convicted or listed by a sanctioning body.”

Emmanuel Cohen, who runs Mossack Fonseca’s UK franchise, said in a letter from his lawyer that he had been “in the forefront of undertaking due diligence checks over the years”, and that “he takes the obligations of reporting extremely seriously and files any suspicious activity” with the National Crime Agency. Regarding Petropars, Mossack Fonseca UK “was working through a professional client in the UK and was not responsible for any due diligence”. He added that the UK business was under no obligation to follow US sanctions.

Petrocom and Petropars did not respond to requests for comment.

In January 2016, the US removed Petropars and OIIC from its blacklist, following the nuclear deal with Iran.

Panama Papers reporting team: Juliette Garside, Luke Harding, Holly Watt, David Pegg, Helena Bengtsson, Simon Bowers, Owen Gibson and Nick Hopkins

1 Person a Year Ago, Lead to Panama Papers, Ripple Effect

Posted on by
What banks aided in the accounts of the global elites to hide their wealth? Did our own governmental financial gurus know about this? Well yes. Encryption was also used. Ahem….
Ah yeah sure —>>  WSJ: The U.S. Justice Department said Monday it is reviewing documents published by international media outlets to see if the papers constitute evidence of corruption that could be prosecuted in the U.S. Also Monday, French prosecutors opened an investigation into whether French nationals or financial institutions have used Panama to evade taxes.
****
IndiaExpress: Two global companies were under mounting pressure, and threats were flying. For years, the Swiss banking giant UBS and a Panama law firm named Mossack Fonseca embraced each other in a mutually profitable relationship. UBS had customers who wanted offshore shell companies to keep their finances hidden. And Mossack Fonseca, one of the largest creators of offshore companies in the world, was happy to sell them.
Oh, ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s son is on the investigation list.
AhramOnline: Mubarak’s eldest son Alaa was revealed to be involved in dealing with Mossack Fonseca through his British Virgin Islands firm Pan World Investments Inc., which is managed by Credit Suisse. Alaa and Gamal were released from prison in January 2015 after serving the maximum pre-trial detention period of 18 months.Their release decision overturned a lower court conviction that saw the pair given four-year jail sentences and a three-year sentence for the elder Mubarak. They were charged with embezzling public funds earmarked for the renovation of presidential palaces and using the money to spruce up private properties. A Cairo court dropped other graft charges against the two sons in late 2014. More here.

OneIndia: New Delhi, April 5:The Panama Papers leak, claimed by many as the “world’s biggest”, has created ripples across the world, upsetting the rich and mighty with accounts in tax havens. But there is confusion about who actually leaked the papers.The leak turned out to be a Monday mayhem for around 214,000 hidden offshore companies after a group of global journalists, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), got hold of the papers of the practically unknown law firm Mossack Fonseca based in Panama.
So who leaked the ‘Panama Papers’ — a collection of over 2,600 GB of data comprising more than 11 million documents?According to reports, over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from Mossack Fonseca, detailing how the firm set up and sold anonymous offshore companies around the world.In the months that followed, the number of documents continued to grow far beyond the original leak.Ultimately, Süddeutsche Zeitung acquired about 2.6 terabytes, or 2,600 GB, of data –making the leak the biggest that journalists had ever worked with.The source, who contacted the German newspaper’s reporter, Bastian Oberway, via encrypted chat wanted neither financial compensation nor anything else in return, apart from a few security measures, the daily said on its website.
After getting their hands on the data, the Süddeutsche Zeitung decided to analyse the data in cooperation with the ICIJ as the consortium had already coordinated the research for past projects that the daily was also involved in.In the past 12 months, around 400 journalists from more than 100 media organisations in over 80 countries have taken part in researching the documents. The team included journalists from the Guardian and the BBC in England, Le Monde in France, La Nación in Argentina and The Indian Express in India.In Germany, Suddeutsche Zeitung journalists cooperated with their colleagues from two public broadcasters, NDR and WDR. Journalists from the Swiss Sonntagszeitung and the Austrian weekly Falter have also worked on the project, as have their colleagues at ORF, Austria’s national public broadcaster.The international team initially met in Washington, Munich, Lillehammer and London to map out the research process.

China would rather its citizens didn’t talk too much about the Panama Papers.

CNN: A coalition of news organizations has seized global attention with a barrage of reports based on a massive document leak from a law firm in Panama. The reports, which CNN hasn’t been able to independently verify, allege top officials and people connected to them around the world hid wealth through secret offshore companies.

China’s online censors are restricting many search results and discussions on social media involving the terms “Panama Papers” and “Panama.” They’re also censoring use of the names of relatives of current and former Chinese leaders — including President Xi Jinping — that are mentioned in the reports.

At a news briefing Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei declined to comment in response to repeated questions about the reports, which he described as “pulled out of nowhere.”

It’s not against the law to have offshore financial holdings, and the leaked documents don’t necessarily indicate illegal activity. But the personal finances of Chinese leaders and their family members is a hugely sensitive issue for the ruling Communist Party, which is in the midst of a sweeping anti-corruption campaign led by Xi. More here.