Al-Nusra jihadists in Syria sanctioned by U.S.

The U.S. State Department listed al-Nusra Front as a foreign terrorist organization yesterday (h/t Twitter user Sal Imburgia ‏@salimb94).  A parallel designation by the Treasury Department will include a prohibition against business deals between Americans and al-Nusra and a freeze of al-Nusra assets in U.S. banks.

A BBC profile of the al-Nusra Front calls the group’s ideology “clearly jihadist,” and says that al-Nusra has claimed responsibility for “many of the bombings that have rocked Syria since the uprising began in March 2011.”

Additional reports have indicated a warm relationship between al-Nusra and Al Qaeda.

Given U.S. support for many groups fighting in the Syrian rebellion, the designation may present a schizophrenic approach to American foreign policy in Syria wherein certain Syrian rebels receive financial support and rebels that they work alongside with receive financial penalties.  McClatchy lays out several other complicating factors in the al-Nusra designation in a good report here.

Kenneth Rijock also weighed in prior to the the designation on what it would mean for U.S. banks with commercial relationships in Syria and the Palestinian territories:

Multiple reports of the imminent OFAC  designation of the Al-Nusra Front, a radical Sunni organisation fighting the Assad regime in Syria, should alert compliance officers whose clients are sending relief funds, and supplies, to Syrian Opposition groups. Its Arabic name is Jabhat Al-Nusra, and the approximate English translation is Front for the Protection of the People of the Levant.

One important detail: Al-Nusra, which has spewed forth anti-American and Anti-Israeli hatred, reportedly contains a fair number of Palestinians. Don’t get caught in an OFAC violation if your clients are in the midst of what you thought were contributions to Palestinian causes, but go straight to Al-Nusra. It has been reported that the OFAC action will take place around 12 December.

I would piggyback on Rijock by making the following suggestion to non-profits, NGOs, charities and their donors:  if you are involved with relief work in either Syria or the Palestinian territories, you should factor the risk of funding this Al Qaeda offshoot into your aid distribution plans.  Are making such donations so important to you that you would risk supporting an Al Qaeda takeover of Syria?

U.S. names multi-million dollar Taliban hawaladar

In RadicalIslam.org’s interview with Money Jihad, we discussed how poorly the U.S. has handled the scourge of hawala, the traditional Islamic method of transferring money.

The Bush administration talked about hawala, but wasn’t able to accomplish much to stop the opaque money swapping method that is often used to fund terrorism.  The Obama administration has been worse, passing up a golden opportunity to seek a maximum penalty against the hawala dealer who funded the failed Times Square bomber.

The latest news that the Treasury Department has sanctioned a hawala business with branches in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran that has transferred millions of dollars for the Taliban is somewhat encouraging.  We’ve always known that these cases exist, but normally we don’t even hear about them because of diplomatic sensitivities with Pakistan.  The fact that the feds would go public with this information is a step in the right direction.

But in practical terms, the sanctions are largely symbolic.  As Treasury’s press release said, “As a result of today’s action, all property in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons in which Rahat Ltd, Mohammed Qasim, and Musa Kalim have an interest is blocked, and U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.”

That is, unless Rahat maintains an account a U.S. bank, it is unlikely that any funds will be frozen as a result of this action.

As long as we have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, it would be somewhat more effective to treat the Afghan branch of Rahat Ltd as a military target:  raid the branch, detain and interrogate its employees, and confiscate its records.  There’s more intelligence to be gathered about the Taliban’s financials.

Here are the basics we know from Treasury:

Treasury Imposes Sanctions on a Hawala and Two Individuals Linked to the Taliban

11/20/2012
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced the designation of Rahat Ltd, a hawala, and two individuals pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224. Rahat Ltd has branches in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran which have been used by the Taliban to facilitate their illicit financial activities. The Treasury Department is also designating the owner of Rahat Ltd, Mohammed Qasim, and the owner and manager of its Quetta, Pakistan branch, Musa Kalim.

Rahat Ltd has been used extensively by senior Taliban leadership to finance their violent activities. This includes facilitating millions of dollars of transactions to support the Taliban shadow governor for Helmand Province, United Nations Security Council 1988-Listed Naim Barich, who was also designated November 15, 2012 pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act for his extensive narcotics production and distribution activities.

“Today’s action demonstrates our continued efforts to target and disrupt financial activity linked to the Taliban’s use of hawalas,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. “We will continue exposing these illicit networks and deprive the Taliban of their sources of funding no matter where they turn.”

As a result of today’s action, all property in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons in which Rahat Ltd, Mohammed Qasim, and Musa Kalim have an interest is blocked, and U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

Rahat Ltd

Rahat Ltd is a hawala that facilitates financial activities for the Taliban.  Taliban shadow governor for Helmand Province Barich provides funds through Rahat Ltd to subordinate Taliban commanders to plan and conduct operations in southern Afghanistan.  As of mid-2012, Barich had transferred money using the Quetta branch of Rahat Ltd.  As of early 2012, Barich had received millions of dollars through the Quetta branch of Rahat Ltd and had provided a senior Taliban commander with over $250,000 via Rahat Ltd.

Other senior Taliban figures regularly used Rahat Ltd to store and transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars.  As of early 2012, approximately $500,000 of Taliban funds had been placed in the Quetta branch of Rahat Ltd and, as of late 2011, a senior Taliban member arranged the transfer of over $100,000 through the same Rahat Ltd hawala.

Mohammed Qasim

Mohammed Qasim owns Rahat Ltd and, as of mid-2012, was a hawaladar for Taliban senior leadership.  As of mid-2011, Qasim used his hawalas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran to facilitate Taliban financial transfers.  As of early 2011, Qasim was a financial assistant to Taliban shadow governor for Helmand Province Barich.  Additionally, in early 2012, Qasim helped to transport weapons and ammunition for the Taliban and, as of mid-2011, frequently smuggled weapons into Helmand Province for the Taliban.

Musa Kalim

Musa Kalim owns and runs the Quetta, Pakistan branch of Rahat Ltd, also known as the New Chagai Trading Company and the Musa Kalim Hawala.

As of late 2012, Taliban shadow governor for Helmand Province Barich had used Kalim to move and hold his finances.  As of late 2011, the bulk of Kalim’s hawala business consisted of transferring Taliban and smugglers’ funds.  Kalim also managed the transfer of funds from donors in the Gulf to support Taliban fighters in 2011…

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.

Expert: Obama’s Syria license “dangerous”

What good are sanctions against funding Al Qaeda if the Treasury Department issues a blanket license to the Islamist-dominated Syrian Support Group to sponsor whatever causes it deems fit in Syria?  It is worse than simply letting the SSG operate in Syria—it is giving them the express legal authority to do so.  If the money ends up in the wrong hands, the SSG can always say, “We got a license from the U.S. government.  Don’t blame us.”

By Patrick Poole on Oct. 25:

Anti-Terror Authorities Question Where Money Goes From Group With Special License From Obama Administration

In July, the Obama State Department approved an extraordinary license for a newly formed U.S.-based organization, the Syrian Support Group, to raise money for Syrian rebels – overriding the administration’s own sanctions and Obama’s Executive Order against such activity.

To some counterterrorism and terror finance authorities in Washington D.C., this extremely rare privilege raises considerable concerns.

This is especially true because two related figures with the organization, Louay Safi and Mazen Asbahi, have previously been tied to terror fundraising efforts by Islamic organizations identified by the U.S. government in federal court as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

One U.S. Treasury official specializing in terror finance said:

This license sets a dangerous precedent because it gives complete and perfect cover to virtually all of their activities. They can honestly say, “I can’t be fundraising for terror because I have a license from the State Department.” But we have absolutely no idea where that money is going once it leaves the United States. And as the Supreme Court recognized in a court case a few years ago, money raised for terrorist groups is fungible.

The situation in Syria is so fluid, we don’t have the slightest idea who is actually benefiting from this money being raised here, and anybody from the administration who says that they do is bald-faced lying.

The Syrian Support Group was incorporated in April 2012, according to records obtained from the District of Columbia Corporations Division.

On May 24, the group sent a letter to the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and on July 23 that same office issued the license – a copy of which was obtained by The Blaze – allowing them to “export, reexport, sell, or supply to the Free Syrian Army (‘FSA’) financial, communications, logistical, and other services otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13582 in order to support the FSA.”

The Free Syrian Army is affiliated with the Syrian National Council governed by that group’s military bureau, which is overwhelming dominated by Islamist groups, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood…

Details of the Muslim Brotherhood connections are laid out in The Blaze.

IMU money man tapped Europe, Turkey

The U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned Qari Ayyub Bashir for his role as a financier for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), and probably Al Qaeda, too.  The designation prohibits Americans from doing business with Bashir, and freezes any assets Bashir has in U.S. banks.

The designation also gives us more insight into where the IMU is accessing funds.  Rather than the typical Gulf sources of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., Qari Bashir is said to have collected money from Europe and Turkey prior to transferring it to a man described as “a financial facilitator for Al Qaeda.”

From The Long War Journal on Oct. 18:

…Treasury described Bashir as being the “head of finance” for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as well as a member of the group’s shura, or executive council. In this role, he provides financial and “logistical” support for IMU operations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and fundraises from outside the region.

“Bashir received funds from sources in Turkey and elsewhere in Europe and delivered these funds” to Fazal Rahim, an IMU facilitator who was designated by the US as a terrorist in September 2011 and is thought to be in Pakistani custody. Rahim was also described as a “financial facilitator for al Qaeda” [see LWJ report, US adds 5 al Qaeda, Taliban, Haqqani Network, and IMU facilitators to terrorist list].

Prior to taking on the role of chief financier for the IMU in 2010, Bashir “led attacks against Afghan police in Kunduz Province, Afghanistan, and recruited IMU fighters at his madrassa in Pakistan.” Additionally he helped IMU recruits reach their units and commanded “an anti-Coalition militia” in the Afghan provinces of Kunduz and Takhar.

Bashir is an Uzbek national and is based out of Mir Ali, in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan. Mir Ali is known to host the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and several other local and foreign terror groups.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is a key ally of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and supports operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as plots attacks in Europe. The IMU is known to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan and has integrated into the Taliban’s shadow government in the north. [For more information on the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, see LWJ reports, IMU cleric urges Pakistanis to continue sheltering jihadis in Waziristan, and IMU announces death of emir, names new leader.]…

Lebanese Islamic charities fund Hamas

The stench of laundered money has wafted from Lebanon throughout the international financial system for years.  Usually that’s because of Lebanese banks being used to fund Hezbollah.

But the latest announcement by the U.S. Treasury Department indicates that Lebanon is being used as a funding base for Hamas as well.

Treasury has designated two Islamic charities in Lebanon, Al-Waqfiya and Al-Quds, as being “controlled” by Hamas.  Treasury’s press release explains that the charities exist, “to support the families of Hamas fighters and prisoners and to raise money for programs and projects in the Palestinian territories intended to spread Hamas’s influence and control.”

It’s important to note that the sanctions won’t have much of a practical effect unless Al-Waqfiya or Al-Quds normally keeps money in a U.S. bank, does business with American companies, or receives zakat donations from American Muslims.

Treasury’s announcement also revealed that Al-Waqfiya and Al-Quds charities are members of Yusuf Qaradawi’s Hamas-funding network, the Union of Good (UoG).  Treasury should go farther than these two designations by publishing an exact list of all charities that fall under the UoG umbrella.

While Israel has published a members list before, the U.S. only maintains a blanket designation against UoG, and has only specified a few of the charities that belong to it.

The Haqqani network’s bottom line

NPR’s Scott Simon recently interviewed Jackie Northam about the U.S. designation of the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization and the financial sanctions against it.  The jihadist group is funded by Pakistan’s spy agency, the ISI.

Northam correctly dismissed the financial impact of the designation, which prohibits U.S. business deals with the Haqqani network and freezes any assets they have in American banks, as “largely symbolic.”  It does little to alter their domestic and Gulf revenue sources.  An excerpt from their conversation:

SIMON: The State Department says that among other things this designation as a terrorist organization is going to ban any Americans from doing business with the Haqqanis and it’ll block any assets they hold in the U.S. What kind of potential impact could it have on the Haqqani Network?

NORTHAM: You know, Scott, the Haqqani network has shown a lot of determination to create trouble in Afghanistan and so the analysts I’ve talked with here in Pakistan say this decision really probably won’t have much of an impact and it’s really largely symbolic. They say that the Haqqani network itself doesn’t have financial interests in the U.S. and instead it has a very much a profitable business network in this area and the Persian Gulf region and a good part of it is thought to be criminal activities.

But the U.S. is hoping that this designation will just strangle any efforts by the Haqqani Network to raise funds in places like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, where there are sympathizers to their cause. But, frankly, this is really an informal network of raising money, and it could be hard to track, you know, who’s getting the money and how it’s coming into this area.

And this is part of the debate in Washington, just trying to weigh what impact blacklisting the Haqqani Network would have, versus how this decision would affect U.S./Pakistan relations going forward.

SIMON: NPR’s Jackie Northam in Islamabad, thank you.

It’s a classic too little, too late scenario:  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Carl Leven (D-MI), and Gen. David Petraeus asked Sec. Hillary Clinton to make this designation two years ago.

Top cleric ran front group, found Gulf donors

The U.S. has sanctioned eight senior members of the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).  One of the men, Qari Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh, ran a front group to raise money for the terrorist for four years.  He also participated in at least two missions to the Gulf to obtain zakat and sadaqa donations from rich Arabs.  Sheikh’s biography is further evidence of the extent to which militant jihad relies on big money from the oil and banking powerhouses of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors.

From the Treasury Department’s press release:

Qari Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh, a member of LET’s central advisory committee, has held several different leadership positions in the group since approximately 2006. Sheikh has served as a leader in LET’s foreign affairs department since 2006, including acting as the department’s deputy director of political and foreign affairs between 2008 and 2009. As of mid-2008, Sheikh was also in charge of LET’s Islamabad office, including managing LET’s general operations in and around Pakistan’s capital.

Between 2008 and 2011, Sheikh ran LET front organizations that were used to raise funds and recruit on behalf of the group. Sheikh ran Falah-e Insaniat Foundation (FIF), a front used by LET for fundraising purposes, from early 2009 until mid-2010, when he was replaced as the FIF head by Hafiz Abdur Rauf. FIF and Rauf were designated by the U.S. pursuant to Executive Order 13224 on November 24, 2010. Falah-e Insaniat Foundation was added to the UN 1267 Consolidated List on March 14, 2012.

As of early 2010, Sheikh was the head of LET’s ulema (clerics) wing. Sheikh has also worked with LET’s international donors. In late 2006 and late 2007, Sheikh was part of an LET delegation that traveled to the Gulf on behalf of LET seeking support.

Head of the clerics?  Since Islamic law calls upon Muslims to wage jihad with their wealth, should we be surprised that a group of clerics would support the financing of jihad?

Ex-money launderer says ING should lose license

OFAC, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department, settled with ING last month for violations of economic sanctions against Cuba and Iran.  Former self-professed money launderer and financial crimes analyst Kenneth Rijock says that he is “totally disgusted” by how weak the settlement is, especially considering that trade with Iran could support its attempt to become a nuclear aggressor.  Mr. Rijock asserts that given the seriousness of the violation that ING should have lost its license outright.

Taken together with sanctions expert Eric Ferrari’s exasperation over OFAC’s settlement with Genesis Assets Managers over Iran sanctions, and our own frustration with the Department of Justice settling with Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (IICG) over Muslim Brotherhood funding, we are once again seeing the painful results of the Obama administration’s settlement strategy.  Whereas Bush sought to investigate, raid, and shut down nefarious Islamic charities and sanctions violators, Pres. Obama has opted for a softer, gentler, smoother, weaker, less risky, more politically correct path.

Surely, the feds are balancing economic and political considerations by choosing not to revoke ING’s license.  But if we were truly serious about stopping Iran dead in its tracks, would we really have let ING off with a slap of the wrist?

From Mr. Rijock’s blog:

SHOULD ING BANK LOSE ITS US LICENSE ?

I  am totally disgusted with the latest OFAC settlement; $619m fine levied against ING bank, clearly their biggest yet,  for the most egregious sanctions violations seen in a long time. Look at what the bank admitted to doing:

(1) Omitting references to Cuba in payment messages sent to US financial institutions.

(2) Creating and providing fraudulent bank endorsement stamps, for use by Cuban financial institutions.

(3) Use of corporate entities to obscure the identities of sanctioned clients.

Frankly, the fine is insufficient; why haven’t any of those bloody bank officers who committed these violations been arrested ?

Finally, the only punishment that bankers will understand is the revocation of a US bank license; anything else is not a sufficient deterrent. Helping Iran to evade sanctions, and probably facilitate its WMD and ballistic missile programmes, through purchasing of equipment and supplies; helping all the sanctioned jurisdictions make purchases ?   Let the punishment fit the crime; take away something meaningful, Mr. Regulator, please. Not another financial slap on the wrist. That is the cost of doing business.

your public servants at OFAC

Shut down their New York offices for five years.

Treasury settles for less

Trade sanctions attorney Erich Ferrari has an interesting take on a recent settlement between OFAC (an agency within the Treasury Department) and Genesis Assets Managers, a U.S. firm that invested in a company whose investment portfolio is made up entirely of Iranian securities.  Such a blatant violation of U.S. sanctions laws would normally prompt prosecution and a heavy fine, or at least a higher settlement amount than what OFAC ultimately agreed to.    Here’s what Mr. Ferrari says about the settlement:

Today, the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Genesis Assets Managers, LLP (GAM) was paying $112,500 to settle apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR). In short, GAM a U.S. based firm serving as a investment manager for Genesis Emerging Markets Fund, violated the ITR when its agent, Genesis Investment Management, LLP invested $3 million to Cayman Islands’ based First Persian Equity Fund on behalf of GAM. First Persian Equity Fund is a company which invests solely in Iranian securities.

Despite OFAC finding that GAM failed to use a minimum amount of caution, provided a substantial benefit to Iran through their actions, and had knowledge of the transactions, OFAC stated that GAM’s activities were not egregious. I must say I was surprised by OFAC’s finding that the activity was non-egregious, considering this is a financial services firm operating without any sort of OFAC compliance program. Moreover, OFAC admits GAM’s activities undermined the sanctions program by providing a substantial economic benefit to Iran. There must have been a great deal of lawyering done to convince OFAC that this activity wasn’t completely reckless.

There were a few things working in GAM’s favor when OFAC determined what settlement amount was appropriate. First, they self-disclosed the apparent violation; thereby reducing any base penalty by half. Second, they substantially cooperated with OFAC during its investigation. Third, they took steps to remediate the violations. Finally, and quite surprisingly, OFAC stated that GAM may not have known of their OFAC obligations under U.S. law. Again, I am surprised by this, as those in the financial services industry should be more on aware of OFAC and the sanctions programs it administers than anyone. Indeed, the financial services industry is the first line of defense for catching and preventing OFAC violations.

Despite my surprise at how OFAC is viewing the apparent violations, I think it goes to show what a great tool the voluntary self-disclosure program can be. Since OFAC found that the transactions were non-egregious and GAM self-disclosed the base penalty was capped at $125,000. Therefore, mitigation based on other factors found in the OFAC Enforcement Guidelines was only $12,500 or about 10% of the base penalty. However, when one considers that the base penalty could have been in the millions, it really does seem like GAM received a massive break from OFAC.

Mr. Ferrari expresses “surprise” at the leniency of the settlement.  But this event does seem consistent with the Obama administration’s tendency to enter settlements with sanctions violators and terror financiers.

By the way, aren’t we repeatedly told that the Obama administration (including Geithner and Clinton) has adopted the toughest sanctions regime against any country ever?  Yet in this instance, a clear sanctions violator is let off with a slap on the wrists.

Treasury reports no blocked Taliban funds

Although American officials have blocked millions of dollars in Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah assets, two of the wealthiest jihadist organizations in the world, the Taliban and al-Shabaab, are not listed in the U.S. Treasury Department’s 2011 report on blocked terrorist assets.  Here’s a graphic from the report showing whose funds have actually been blocked under various U.S. sanctions:

What has been frozen from the Taliban plus two dollars will buy you a cup of coffee.

But in their defense, the U.S. can only freeze or confiscate money that flows through its own financial institutions or correspondent banks.  It may be that members of the Taliban and al-Shabaab have been more circumspect about where and who they bank with, and whether they use banks at all.

But should U.S. officials continue to take victory laps about “unprecedented” sanctions and financial pressure being brought to bear against the enemies of the West when government figures don’t even show a penny being blocked from the Taliban’s clutches?