Canadian subsidiary invests in genocidal Sudan

Despite Sudanese state sponsorship of terrorism and its campaign of massacres by Arab Muslims against black Muslims and Christians, a Vancouver-based firm, Statesman Resources, has an African subsidiary that maintains an oil exploration concession in the Sudan.

This information comes from Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  Schanzer points out that although he believes such investment is legal, it is totally out-of-step with Western expectations about refraining doing business with the Sudanese:

Why is the West Doing Business with Sudan?

Jonathan Schanzer
5th April 2013 – National Post

What does Canada have in common with the regime in Sudan, which perpetrated genocide in Darfur, while allying with Iran and providing weapons to the Palestinian terror group Hamas?

In practical terms, they share very little. Ottawa withholds commercial support services and government-to-government development co-operation from Sudan. Canada’s parliament also has enforced sanctions mandated by the United Nations Security Council, including an arms embargo, as well as an asset freeze and travel ban on certain individuals.

Yet, somehow, it is legal for Canadian firms to invest in Sudan’s oil sector.

Just consider Vancouver-based Statesman Resources. The company owns 50.1% of an African subsidiary, Statesman Africa. In July 2012, Statesman Africa was awarded 75% of an oil exploration area known as “Block 14” in northwest Sudan, along Egypt’s southern border.

Preliminary estimates by Statesman Africa indicated that the block might have a “mean potential resource of 600 million barrels.” By November 2012, Block 14’s prospects looked even brighter. One estimate suggested that it held “1.5 billion barrels of gross un-risked prospective resources.”

According to the Associated Press, as of December 2012, Statesman Africa was “in the process of being formally registered in Sudan and opening an operational office in Khartoum.” According to the company’s CEO, Sudan’s state oil company, Sudapet, is “essentially … a joint venture partner.” Statesman must also work with Sudan’s Ministry of Petroleum, which is the regulatory authority.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal about Statesman’s investment in Sudan. Canadian companies are apparently free to do business with Khartoum. But in doing so, they are out of step with Canada’s otherwise sensible foreign policies in the Middle East.

Sudan, as noted above, is a patron of Hamas. It allows the group’s leaders to fundraise and train on Sudanese soil. It also was the origin point for Iranian-made Fajr 5 long-range rockets that were smuggled into Gaza and subsequently fired into Israel during the conflict in November 2012. This was not the first time Sudan helped Iran smuggle weapons into Gaza, either.

Canada has properly listed Hamas under its criminal code. There are severe penalties for “persons and organizations that deal in the property or finances of a listed entity. In addition, it is a crime to knowingly participate in, or contribute to, any activity of a listed entity for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the entity to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.”

Yet, somehow, it is legal to engage in business with Hamas’ patron, Sudan.

Sudan serves as an important hub for Iran’s terrorist training, financial investments, and the distribution of Iranian weapons to jihadi groups across the African continent. Canada has placed strong sanctions on Iran for its global terrorist activity and its pursuit of an illicit nuclear program. Yet, somehow, it is legal to engage in business with Iran’s close ally, Sudan.

This dissonance appears to be rooted in Canada’s focus on Sudan’s civil conflict, rather than its foreign policies. As one official government website notes, “Improved bilateral relations between Canada and Sudan are contingent on the Government of Sudan’s willingness to take steps toward maintaining a peaceful relationship with the Republic of South Sudan and its other neighbors, ending the current violence in Darfur and the transitional areas, and improving the overall human rights situation across the country.”

The United States, by contrast, lists Sudan as a State Sponsor of Terror. Khartoum earned this distinction in 1993 by allowing al-Qaeda to create its headquarters in the country during the 1990s. However, it remains on the list now for its close and continuing ties to both Iran and Hamas…

Read it all here.

By the way, Ken Rijock also advises entities doing business with Sudanese companies to obtain written assurances from them that their goods and services aren’t benefiting end users in Iran.  Statesman Resources wouldn’t want to run afoul of Canada’s sanctions on Iran by engaging in slipshod business practices in Sudan, would they?

Backstabbed: How Iraq helps Iran skirt sanctions

Nobody has been as good at tracking the painful truth of Iraqi-facilitated evasion of international sanctions on Iran as financial crime consultant Kenneth Rijock.  Consider:

• The Kurds in northern Iraq have “allowed both rampant money laundering, and widespread facilitation of global Iran sanctions evasion” though their banks. In central Iraq, U.S. dollars are flowing in bulk from Baghdad to Iran… more>>
• Lebanese banks and Bank Melli, a sanctioned Iranian bank, are operating in northern Iraq.  EU and North American businesses that use Lebanese banks may not be taking sufficient steps to prevent their transactions from benefiting Iranian end-users… more>>
• “Iraq blatantly disregards UN sanctions on Iran” in accepting an Iranian-flagged vessel‘s shipment at its Um Qasr port, for example… more>>
• Five Turkish banks in Iraq may be facilitating Iran’s sanction dodging behavior… more>>
• Iran will reap $16 billion annually from a new natural gas deal with Iraq… more>>

Reading about the dangerous anti-money laundering (AML) and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) policies of Iraq may be upsetting to those who have made personal sacrifices fighting for Iraqi freedom, but we have to face the current facts.  How does Rijock describe the Iraq invasion?  “Military success, yes; but AML/CFT utter failure.”

UN lifts sanctions on Muhammad Atta associate

Abdelghani Mzoudi now free to roam about the cabin

Abdelghani Mzoudi, a pal of 9/11 hijacking leader Muhammad Atta, is free to access his accounts, travel internationally, and buy or sells arms if he so chooses.  The United Nations removed Mzoudi from their blacklist of Al Qaeda operatives on March 18.

A tip of the hat goes to Mr. Watchlist, one of the only websites to have reported the Mzoudi de-listing.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, Mzoudi was an associate of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, and personally witnessed Muhammad Atta sign his last will and testament in 1996.  Mzoudi was previously acquitted of terrorism charges, “not because the court was convinced of his innocence,” but because of missing evidence.

The United Nations has been on a sanctions list removal spree lately, freeing Al Qaeda sympathizers and financiers such as Yasin al-Qadi and Soliman al-Buthe from blacklists with almost no explanation, transparency, or opportunity for public comment.

Health care fraudsters sent $1.1 million to Iran

Hossein Lahiji, Co-defendant

Hossein and Najmeh Lahiji, a naturalized U.S. citizen and his wife, have been indicted for medical billing fraud in Texas, and for sending the illicit proceeds to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.  Dr. Lahiji even accepted payments for medical treatment he claimed to perform in Texas while he was actually in Tehran.

The Lahijis funneled the dirty money through Espadana Exchange, an “unlicensed money remitting business”—ie, hawala business.  Iran sanctions expert and D.C. attorney Erich Ferrari has previously advised Iranian-Americans to “Just Say No” to engaging in hawala, also called havaleh, transactions destined for Iran.  Evidently, the Lahijis didn’t take his advice.

The couple’s trial was scheduled to begin yesterday.  The U.S. attorney’s office has these details:

McAllen Urologist and Wife Charged in Heath Care Fraud Scheme and Conspiracy to Violate Iranian Sanctions

HOUSTON – A federal grand jury has returned a four-count, superseding indictment against urologist Hossein Lahiji M.D. and his wife, attorney Najmeh Vahid Lahiji, both of McAllen and San Antonio, United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson announced today. The second superseding Indictment, returned late yesterday, charges the couple with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud and for conspiring to violate Iranian sanctions.

The Lahijis are set to appear in Houston tomorrow morning at 9:45 before U.S. District Judge Mary Milloy.

This indictment alleges the Lahijis conspired to violate Iranian Sanctions by transferring approximately $1.1 million to Iran. The Lahijis allegedly utilized an unlicensed money remitting business called the Espadana Exchange to avoid the United States banking regulations and to allegedly make it appear they were not violating the United States embargo with Iran. The indictment alleges the defendants sent some of the monies representing profits of their alleged illegal health care fraud scheme to Iran for the purpose of making an investment on behalf of Hossein Lahiji and Najmeh Vahid Lahiji in real estate rental property in Iran, all in violation of the Iranian sanctions.

“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will tenaciously pursue individuals who violate international emergency economic powers statutes,” said IRS-Criminal Investigation (CI) Special Agent in Charge Lucy Cruz. “IRS-CI’s unique skill set is to unravel the often concealed complex networks used to disguise international financial crimes.”

The health care fraud scheme alleged in this indictment accuses Hossein and Najmeh Lahiji of conspiring to defraud multiple health care benefit programs by submitting false and fraudulent claims in connection with the use of unlicensed and unqualified medical personal and for billing for medical services not rendered.

Money trail news: recommended reading

• Of course, old chap, Bank Saderat has financed Iran’s nuclear program. But that doesn’t give you the right to impose economic sanctions, says an EU court… more>>
• The web, smartcards, and cell phones were sold as glittering innovations that would empower the world’s poor. Now Bangladesh is desperately wading through massive rivers of fast-moving data in time to catch the next terrorist transaction… more>>
• Nine men have been convicted of fundraising for the jihadist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. An overdue update to this story from Paris… more>>
• Iranian state-run newspaper claims it has proof that Saudi Arabia is funding Al Qaeda fighters of Syria’s al-Nusra Front.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day… more>>
• A Muslim Brotherhood group is helping coordinate events in Tunisia thanks to some money from an unexpected source.  The British taxpayer… more>>

Black money news: recommended reading

• Jiminy cricket! Our friend El Grillo says a “Stockholm suicide bomber falsely claimed student loans to fund his terrorist activity.”  The latest case of debt financing the jihad… more>>

• The good news is that Indian financial institutions are getting better about filing suspicious transaction reports. The bad news is that it makes it look like India has experienced a 300 percent increase in terrorist financing activity since last year.  Maybe they have… more>>

• Which way is the wind blowing?  Towards Iran.  Just ask Europe about its renewable energy sanctions waiver for Iranian wind power.  Thanks to Willauer Prosky for sending this in… more>>

• International financial watchdog FATF is supposed to counter the financing of terrorism. But lately it seems more focused on getting countries to pass meaningless laws and high-fiving itself… more from Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld>>

• Money Jihad has covered the illicit wildlife trade, particularly in cheetahs by rich Arab buyers. But even we didn’t know how extensive the cheetah market has become in Dubai.  No reporting yet on how the smugglers use the revenues… more>>

Export violation: business evades sanctions by creating a Turkish shell company to sell machines to Iran for nuclear program

Spanish tax authorities raid Basque company, seize documents

A Durango manufacturer, Ona Electroerosión, has violated Spanish customs laws by smuggling dual-use technology to Iran, according to official reports.

Ona has denied the charges, saying that it sought two permits for sales of machinery to Iran in 2009.  One permit was approved; one, denied.  Ona says it cancelled the sale to Iran for the permit that was denied, and maintains that the machinery it sold to another client in Turkey was among the simplest pieces of equipment in their catalog.

This version of events described by Ona not seem plausible.  Why continue trying to sell the same equipment that Spanish officials prohibited for Iran to to a firm in Turkey—-Iran’s next door neighbor and one of Iran’s closest trade partners?

European companies have long been active in Iran, but we’re not talking about selling a Peugeot.  This is machinery used to make fans that Spanish authorities believe will be used in Iran’s nuclear operations.

The results of the raid have not been made public yet.  Presumably, the company will face a multi-million dollar fine at a minimum.  If the allegation is true that Ona Electroerosión was determined to deliver the goods to Iran to the point of using a front company to facilitate the sale, then it is not just guilty of gross negligence in its export compliance program.  Under that circumstance, arrests and criminal prosecution of Ona’s senior management is justified.

Here’s one of the more precise news reports on the scandal.  From Reuters via CNBC on Nov. 26:

Spanish company embroiled in nuclear smuggling scheme with Iran

BILBAO (Reuters) – A company from Spain’s Basque country smuggled machinery to Iran for likely use in the country’s nuclear program through an elaborate scheme involving a shell company in Turkey, Spanish tax authorities said on Monday.

Spain’s tax agency said the company had managed to send over seven machines designed to make parts for turbines used in energy plants, in a scheme that violated United Nations security council sanctions against Iran.

A source close to the operation named the company involved as ONA Electroerosion.

The machines, sold for nearly 1 million euros ($1.30 million), were destined for use in Iran’s nuclear development program, according to the agency’s investigations to date.

The U.N., the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt nuclear enrichment, which Western powers fear is part of a plan to amass the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran argues its atomic work is for use in medicine and generating electricity.

The company, based in the Basque municipality of Durango, had been denied a license to export seven fan-manufacturing machines to Iran in September 2009, precisely because of fears they could be used in the nuclear program.

But it later duped Spanish customs by using an intermediary company set up in Turkey by its Iranian business partner, and shipped the machinery to Istanbul before dispatching it to Tehran.

Spain’s tax agency said it had raided the company’s premises on November 13, removing documents and other information it was still analyzing.

Its operation, dubbed “Kakum”, began earlier this year, when it became suspicious of the company’s activities.

No one has yet been arrested or charged in relation to the scheme, the agency said, though added those responsible could face prison sentences and a fine of close to 6 million euros.

How the Arab League roped 7 U.S. companies into their Israel boycott in 2012

The Arab League has imposed a formal economic boycott against Israel since 1948 to the present.  In 1977, Congress passed legislation prohibiting U.S. businesses from becoming instruments of foreign-led, non-U.S. boycotts such as the Arab League boycott of Israel.

Under the law, if an entity asks an American firm for assurance that it does no business with Israel, the U.S. company is supposed to report that request to the federal government.  The business is not supposed to comply with the request or furnish information to the requestor that would help the Arab League enforce its boycott.

The Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance has settled with seven U.S. companies in 2012 for 44 alleged violations of antiboycott regulations this year:

• Parfums de Ceour, a Connecticut-based discount perfume seller, furnished information three times to the United Arab Emirates, and failed to report six requests it received from the UAE, to assist with the boycott.
• The Miami branch of Banco Sabadell provided boycott-related information twice to Syria.
• Samuel Shapiro & Co., a trade logistics company in Maryland, made five failures to report requests from the UAE for boycott guarantees.
• SteelSummit International, a New York steel producers, gave information four times to Saudi Arabia about whether it had business relationships with Israel.
• Polk Audio, a speaker manufacturer in Maryland, failed to report a request from Oman and provided information to Oman.
• Dover Energy’s Texas valve and switch maker, Norriseal, failed six times to report requests from Pakistan and four instances of cooperating with Pakistan’s requests for boycott assurances.
• Grainger, the Illinois-based industrial supplier, failed to report 12 requests it received from Kuwait for boycott information.

The companies were required to pay over $100,000 total in civil penalties for the above violations this year.

A possible defense of the businesses is that requests from importers or banks from the Arab League states are deceptively designed to elicit the information they want without directly inquiring about business dealings with Israel.  Instead, they’ll request a signed statement confirming that a company’s ship can enter an Arab port, which is designed to weed out companies and shippers that have done business with Israel.

Nevertheless, U.S. antiboycott regulations have been on the books for over 40 years, and companies—particularly those doing business in the Middle East—should know that by now.

Hat tip and thanks to Twitter pal RushetteNY for suggesting coverage of antiboycott compliance.

Sudan earns another year of sanctions

U.S. sanctions on Sudan began when the country defaulted on its debts, underwent a military coup, and began hosting terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.  The sanctions have expanded over the years, and have just been renewed for at least one more year, but Sudan’s support for terrorism has played a decreasing role in America’s policy.

With less visible Sudanese sponsorship of terrorism, why do the sanctions persist?

In its announcement of the sanctions renewal, the U.S. State Department blandly refers to an “ongoing conflict,” in Sudan, while Reuters cites unspecified “clashes” between the government and rebels.

Neither mentions the ethnic and religious origins of the predominantly Arab Sudanese government’s genocide against black Sudanese.  The generic sounding “clashes” are attacks by ethnic Arab government-backed militia forces against predominantly black Muslim, but also Christians, residents of Darfur.

As Hugh Fitzgerald once wrote in reference to Sudan, “Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the ‘best of peoples’ to whom the Qur’an was given, and — so Muslims believe — in Arabic;” and criticized news reporters for failing to “to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur.”

While economic sanctions rarely succeed in achieving the desired results, Sudan has only itself to blame for the sanctions regime.  One of the conditions for lifting sanctions—allowing independence for South Sudan—has been met, but Sudan itself has failed to live up to the other conditions by continuing to arm, fund, and support the Arab supremacist genocide against its own citizens.

Obama’s 10 biggest terror finance blunders

1. Promising to make it easier for Muslims to give zakat.  Pres. Obama has tried to remove the so-called “chilling effect” that George W. Bush, the Patriot Act, the Treasury Department, and law enforcement “created” by closing down Islamic charities that funded terrorism.  Rather than building on the Bush administration’s successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for sponsoring Hamas, Obama won’t prosecute Islamic Relief, he won’t prosecute CAIR, he won’t investigate ISNA or NAIT, and the IRS has been derelict in stripping suspicious Islamic organizations of their tax-exempt status.
2. Funding the Arab Spring that has led to the rise of Muslim Brotherhood dominated governments in the Middle East who behave against U.S. national security interests.
3. Minimizing our energy independence from Middle East oil by reducing oil production on federal lands and waters, rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, impeding hydraulic fracturing permitting, etc.
4. Making little to no progress on bankrupting the Taliban.
5. Dragging his feet in adopting sanctions against Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliates such as the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network.

UN removes Saudi businessman from Al Qaeda list

From the Associated Press:

UN removes suspected al-Qaeda financer from blacklist

Saudi businessman Yasin al-Qadi de-listed by sanctions monitoring committee, following recommendation by ombudsman

October 6, 2012

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The UN Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against al-Qaeda removed a Saudi businessman from its blacklist Friday.

The committee chairman, Germany’s UN Ambassador Peter Wittig, said that Yasin al-Qadi had been de-listed, following a recommendation by the blacklist’s ombudsman to remove him.

Al-Qadi filed a lawsuit in 2009 in Washington, DC to be removed from a US list of people accused of financing al-Qaeda.

Al-Qadi’s charitable Muwafaq foundation was identified by the US Treasury department as an al-Qaeda front and placed on a terror list in October 2001. Al-Qadi, 57, has denied the accusations and has said that the foundation was closed even before the hijackings.

The US, European Union, Switzerland and Turkey all took action against al-Qadi. Over the past several years, a team of lawyers has worked successfully to overturn the decisions against al-Qadi in Turkey and Europe.

In 2009, the Security Council established an independent ombudsman to deal with requests to get off the UN blacklist.

Last year, the council strengthened the role of the ombudsman, presently Canadian lawyer Kimberly Prost. If the ombudsman recommends delisting, the person or entity will be taken off the sanctions list in 60 days unless the sanctions committee agrees by consensus to maintain sanctions.

No clear reasons are provided for this de-listing—just a statement that the removal was based on the recommendation of an independent ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s recommendation is especially jarring because, just three years ago, the U.N. defended its listing of Yasin al-Qadi for the following reasons:

• “Al-Qadi’s acknowledgement of his role as founding trustee and director of the actions of the Muwafaq Foundation, a foundation which historically operated under the umbrella of the Makhtab al-Khidamat, an organization which was the predecessor of Al-Qaida and which was founded by Usama bin Ladin.
• “Al-Qadi’s decision in 1992 to hire Shafiq ben Mohamed ben Mohamed al-Ayadi as head the European offices of the Muwafaq Foundation.
• “The 1995 testimony of Talad Fuad Kassem, who said that the Muwafaq Foundation had provided logistical and financial support for a fighters’ battalion in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that the Muwafaq Foundation was involved in providing financial support for terrorist activities of the fighters, as well as arms trafficking from Albania to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• “Al-Qadi’s role as a major shareholder in the now closed Sarajevo-based Depositna Banka, where planning sessions for an attack against a United States facility in Saudi Arabia may have taken place.
• “Al-Qadi’s ownership of several firms in Albania which funneled money to extremists or employed extremists in positions where they controlled the firm’s funds.
• “Evidence that Bin Laden provided the working capital for up to five of al-Qadi’s companies in Albania.

“Based on these reasons, the U.N. Security Council resolved to continue listing Yasin al-Qadi as a suspected supporter of al-Qaeda terrorists…”

But no more.  Yasin’s expensive lobbying effort to convince authorities to white-list him seems to have paid off.  One supposes he is now free to travel around, do business with Europeans and Americans, and raise funds for whatever “charitable” foundation he decides to establish next.