Money Laundering In The U.K.

As the Anti Money Laundering Blog mentioned on April 1, 2008, the U.S. State Department has listed the United Kingdom as a Major Money Laundering Country in 2008.  The State Department however, had also previously listed the United Kingdom as a Major Money Laundering Country in 2007.


The State Department releases its list of Major Money Laundering Countries as part of its annual International Control Narcotics Strategy Report.  At its Country Reports, the 2008 International Control Narcotics Strategy Report mentions that, among other things: 

"The UK should develop legislation and clearly enforceable implementing regulations to ensure that beneficial owners are identified and verified and that customer due diligence is required and ongoing, regardless of an already established relationship with the client."

In my October 8, 2007 post, "Fighting Financial Fraud At U.K. Banks", I too raised the issue of the effectiveness of some of the anti-money laundering regulation in the United Kingdom.  That particular post was partly based on a discussion I had with "Mr. London", who had investigated money laundering in the United Kingdom as a former vice president of a global bank.  Mr. London had suggested during our discussion, that money laundering would likely increase in the United Kingdom because of the "complicity  or misfeasance" of banks and the use of nominees to open bank accounts.   

Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Hidden Assets In A Wisconsin Divorce

At "An Asset Search, Tax Fraud & Divorce ", I described a conversation I had with Brian-- a former IRS Special Agent who had also once been a high-ranking official at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  In that conversation, Brian suggested that a broad range of criminal statutes were sometimes relevant to a tax fraud investigation.


Such was the case in the IRS tax fraud investigation of Wisconsin businessman Ronald Miserendino, which ended in Mr. Miserendino's indictment on a variety of charges in U.S.A. v. Miserendino .  As the superseding indictment returned against him indicated, Mr. Miserendino was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud); 26 U.S.C. 7201 (tax evasion); and 18 U.S.C. 1956 (h) (conspiracy to commit money laundering).


According to his plea agreement, Mr. Miserendino had illegally concealed assets and was guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  Mr. Miserendino had started concealing assets in 2001 because his wife had filed for a Wisconsin divorce and sought the division of their marital property.  He had therefore used safe deposit boxes and nominees to hide and / or launder assets in multiple jurisdictions, like Australia, Oregon and Hawaii.  Mr. Miserendino had also dissipated his ownership of a Wisconsin real estate development and rental company, by transferring 49 percent of its stock to his son from a prior marriage.  As the Court's April 21,2008 sentencing minutes and criminal judgment reflect, Mr. Miserendino finally received a sentence of 48 months in prison.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

A Tax Fraud & Identifty Theft From Miami

The following occurred over a four month period during 2002, and has been supplied by an investigator I have worked with.  Some of it has been changed / sanitized for privacy reasons: 
 
The Tax Fraud

As part of his tax fraud, Mr. Wallace contacted a Cayman Island bank by mail in order to open a personal account with it.  He mailed account opening documents to it which included a copy of his U.S. passport and also supplied the names of references. According to these documents, Mr. Wallace lived in Miami and was a real estate developer.  Based upon all of the foregoing, the Cayman Island bank opened Mr. Wallace's personal account with a "O" balance.  Just six days later however, bank "X" in Panama wired $6.3 million to Mr. Wallace's Cayman account without any mention of the remitter. 


Mr. Wallace then went on a business trip to Central America for several months; so he rented his Miami home to "Chuck".  Although Mr. Wallace hadn't known at the time, Chuck was a small-time crook.  In fact, soon after Chuck took possession of Mr. Wallace's home, Chuck started stealing Mr. Wallace's mail.  One of the letters Chuck had stolen was written by "Bob", a personal banker from the Cayman Island Bank where Mr. Wallace maintained his account.  Bob had written to Mr. Wallace about a lucrative investment opportunity.


The Identity Theft
Surmising from Bob's letter that Mr. Wallace had a sizable bank account, Chuck wrote to Bob pretending to be Mr. Wallace.  As the sanitized copy of Chuck's First Letter can only partly demonstrate, Chuck had assumed Mr. Wallace's identity in that particular letter by forging Mr. Wallace's signature.  To comfort Bob, Chuck's First Letter had also asked Bob for the minimum balance required to keep Mr. Wallace's account open. Chuck's "softening up" letter further suggested to Bob that Mr. Wallace's funds might soon be needed "at very short notice" for an alleged real estate deal in Mexico.  In the sanitized copy of Chuck's Second Letter, Chuck again pretended to be Mr. Wallace as he wrote to Bob at the Cayman Island Bank.  In his Second Letter, Chuck directed the wire transfer of Mr. Wallace's funds from the Cayman Island Bank to Chuck's own bank account in Mexico.


When Mr. Wallace next unexpectedly arrived at the Cayman Island Bank to make a cash withdrawal, he was shocked to learn that his account had been drained.  The Bank then showed Mr. Wallace "his" letters and explained that it had remitted his funds to Mexico just two days earlier because of "his" instructions.  Concluding that his identity had been taken over by Chuck, Mr. Wallace apologized for his error and immediately booked a flight bound for Miami.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wallace was arrested while fleeing from his Miami home after having killed Chuck there.


The Investigation
Investigators from the U.S. next paid a visit to the Cayman Island Bank.  Although they had first thought that Chuck had been the true beneficial owner of the Cayman Island account, they discovered that Mr. Wallace was.  Investigators also learned that Mr. Wallace was not just simply a real estate developer involved in a tax fraud / abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme.  Instead, Mr. Wallace was actually a major illegal narcotics trafficker hiding the proceeds of his drug crimes through money laundering.  Investigators finally concluded that much of the foregoing had happened because the Cayman Island Bank had among many other things:

  1. Inadequate customer identification procedures / know your customer rules;
  2. Permitted Mr. Wallace's account to be opened by mail & also with a  "0" balance;
  3. Neglected to contact a single reference mentioned in Mr. Wallace's account opening documents;
  4. Failed to recognize suspicious activities like the wire transfer of the $6.3 million from Panama or Chuck's "softening up" letter.

Copyright 2008 Fred  L. Abrams

Hiding / Smuggling Cash

Nathan Vardi's Forbes.com article "Cash Is King", describes some of the ways funds can be transferred during money laundering:

  • Wire Transfers
  • Credit Cards
  • Prepaid Cards
  • Digital Currency (i.e. E-Gold)
  • Cash
"Cash Is King", also mentions that cash is hard to trace.  In some cases illicit cash can of course still be detected.  This is particularly true at border crossings, where the cash smuggler may pretend to be just an ordinary airline passenger or motorist.  Law enforcement use a variety of methods to detect cash smugglers, as set forth by the Financial Action Task Force in its February 12, 2005 report, "Detecting And Preventing The Cross-Border Transportation Of Cash By Terrorists And Other Criminals (Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved)". 


As the Financial Action Task Force report mentions, law enforcement can detect smuggling through: canine units, personal interviews, declaration forms, x-ray and other screening methods.  The Financial Action Task Force also has its IX Recommendation, which describes the countermeasures effective against cash smugglers. Perhaps most surprising however, is the extraordinary amount of illicit cash which is sometimes hidden and subject to detection. 


For example, in my November 1, 2007 post "Forfeiture  &  The DEA's Asset Search", I described a conversation I had with a DEA retiree about the Zhenli Ye Gon case.  "Forfeiture & The DEA's Asset Search" explained how Ye Gon had been suspected of concealing over $207 million dollars of drug proceeds in his Mexico City home.  Based on paragraph 20 of the attached Special Agent's affidavit, that November post mentioned that Ye Gon had been accused of hiding over $200 million in compartments, false walls, closets and suitcases.


Copyright 2008  Fred L. Abrams

Money Laundering Typologies

A licensed private investigator from Arizona advised that he had a good track record in finding  hidden assets and / or locating bank accounts.  He however, contacted me wanting to know the best way to learn more about money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§1956 & 1957) and structuring / smurfing (31 U.S.C. § 5324).  One good way to learn about money laundering and other white-collar crimes, is to read money laundering typologies.  


As explained at the end of my post Terrorist Financing, Money Laundering & Financial Intelligence Units, money laundering typologies are sometimes used by law enforcement and regulators to develop countermeasures against emerging criminal trends.  Although"100 Cases from the Egmont Group" arises from data collected by the Egmont Group from the 1990's, it is still relevant today.  In "100 Cases from the Egmont Group" there are for example, descriptions of the following laundering methods:

  • Concealment within existing business structures
  • Misuse of legitimate businesses
  • Use of false identities, documents or straw men
  • Exploiting international jurisdictional issues
  • Use of anonymous asset types
The Financial Action Task Force also publishes money laundering typologies.  Its February 29, 2008 Terrorist Financing Typologies Report, (Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved), explains some of the methods terrorists use to raise and then transfer illicit funds. In addition to the foregoing, the Egmont Group and the Financial Action Task Force publish many money laundering typologies at their websites.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Divorce, RICO & An Asset Search

When an asset search uncovers that a divorcing spouse or ex-husband may be fraudulently hiding assets, it can lead to a civil RICO case.  Plaintiff Christa Ritter's asset search of her ex-husband for example, ended in the filing of such a RICO case in Ritter v. Klisivitch et. al., Index # 2:06 CV 05511, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Although Plaintiff Ritter's RICO case is currently the subject of Defendants' pending dismissal motions, the Court may ultimately permit her to proceed via the following Proposed Complaint:

Plaintiff Ritter's Proposed Complaint alleges that Defendant Klisivitch had violated RICO laws (18 U.S.C. §1961 et. seq.), through mail, wire and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344); obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §1503); money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956);  tax fraud (26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7202, 7206); and bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 152).  Also according to the Plaintiff, the foregoing had occurred because Defendant had tried to protect his assets from judgments against him arising from the Plaintiff's and Defendant's divorce.


Via the Proposed Complaint, Plaintiff alleges some of the common money laundering indicia.  Plaintiff for example, essentially claims that Defendant had transferred money through nominee bank accounts and / or holding companies.  Among other things, the Proposed Complaint further alleges that Defendant had purchased real property through a nominee.


As Klisivitch partly suggests, a civil RICO complaint can sometimes be used as a countermeasure against those suspected of hiding assets related to a divorce.  Another N.Y. litigant for example, (in Ostashko v. Ostashko, No. 00 CV 7162; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27015 at *50-*82 {E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002}), used a RICO complaint to set aside her divorcing husband's fraudulent confession of judgment.  This happened because the Ostashko Court found that the divorcing husband had used his confession of judgment to fraudulently conceal marital assets offshore, in Russia.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Money Laundering In Philadelphia

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on January 18, 2008, ex-Philadelphia lawmaker German Quiles, his wife and daughter, were recently convicted of money laundering in U.S. District Court.   According to a July 13, 2007 Department of Justice press release, the Quiles' family had earlier been indicted for laundering about $175,900 dollars between Philadelphia and Aruba.  While under investigation by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Quiles had laundered what they believed were drug proceeds.  They had used their Money Service Businesses (which cashed checks, wire transferred money and sold traveler's checks), as a laundering link to wash money.  


According to the Quiles' indictment, ICE had heavily relied on a confidential informant during its investigation.  Other facts mentioned by the Quiles' indictment support the conclusion that ICE had also likely recognized a number of money laundering indicia.  In the Quiles' case, these inidica may have included the use of:

  • a high-risk geographical location to transfer funds (i.e. Aruba).
  • multiple jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia and Aruba.
  • offshore wire transfers.
  • traveler's checks to convert cash.
  • structured transactions to avoid Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements.
  • false identification.

In addition to using a confidential informant and recognizing money laundering indicia, ICE also would have scrutinized phone records belonging  to the Quiles.  Any relevant government filings about the Quiles, (like Suspicious Activity Reports filed by U.S. financial institutions), would too most likely have been examined by ICE.  As the website of  Visual Analytics Inc. suggests, law enforcement  agencies like ICE may also sometimes detect money laundering / other crimes by using "data mining" to analyze phone calls or Suspicious Activity Reports.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

An Asset Search In Israel

Given news reports like the September 27, 2007 Reuters' article about money laundering in Israel, I am never surprised when an asset search reveals that a bankruptcy debtor, a divorcing spouse or other person has washed money through Israel.  In one case for example, (the facts of which have been sanitized / changed herein), the defendant in a civil case had laundered millions via an offshore bank account concealed in Israel.  The defendant had used an Israeli bank account as a laundering link to wash money after it had been transferred through several Major Money Laundering Countries.  The defendant had also hidden assets by purchasing real property in Israel in the name of a shell company which had been secretly formed.


Despite the fact of the real property hidden in Israel, (and the millions the defendant had laundered), the defendant repeatedly told the plaintiff in the civil case, things like: "I don't have the money you think I have".  The defendant then threatened during settlement discussions that: "If we don't settle now and we have to go to trial, you might never see a dime". 

   
In the above case, the plaintiff might have considered filing a Request For Legal Assistance / Letter Rogatory to elicit financial evidence from bank and other witnesses in Israel.  Prosecuting a Request For Legal Assistance, (like the attached sanitized / changed copy), can sometimes be critically important to the successful outcome of a civil litigation.  As my local counsel in Tel Aviv also has advised, a Request For Legal Assistance may also uncover violations of the Prohibition on Money Laundering Law 5760-2000 or other Israeli laws.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Nathan Vardi's News Beat, Money Laundering

Mr. Nathan Vardi is an associate editor at Forbes Magazine and his news beat is money laundering.  His articles describe how drug dealers have sometimes used American Express, BankAtlantic, Union Bank of California / UnionBanCal and other U.S. financial institutions to launder money:

To help prevent the very kind of money laundering Mr. Vardi's articles discuss, U.S. financial institutions are required to report suspicious financial activity.  As discussed by my post "Terrorist Financing, Money Laundering & Financial Intelligence Units ", Suspicious Activity Reports must be filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network pursuant to 31 C.F.R. Part 103.18 and 31 U.S.C. §5318 {g}.  U.S. financial institutions must additionally have an effective anti-money laundering program under 31 U.S.C. §5318 (h) (1) and 31 C.F.R. Part 103.120.


As Mr. Vardi's articles also explain, American Express, BankAtlantic, Union Bank of California and others were investigated  or fined because of shortcomings in their anti-money laundering programs.  American Express for example, was fined $25 million on August 3, 2007 by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for inadequately reporting suspicious activity and lacking an anti-money laundering program.  American Express however, ultimately ended up forfeiting or paying a total of $65 million as a government fine in a deferred prosecution agreement announced August 6, 2007.  Meanwhile, BankAtlantic paid a total of $10 million in fines pursuant to its own deferred prosecution agreement announced April 26, 2006.  As a related Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Decision also explained, the $10 million was assessed because BankAtlantic had failed to properly report suspicious activity and maintain its anti-money laundering program.
 

Pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement mentioned by a September 17, 2007 press release, Union Bank of California similarly forfeited / paid a total of  $31.6 million to settle claims that it too had violated anti-money laundering laws.  Included in said settlement was a $10 million fine imposed by a September 14, 2007 Decision from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  According to the September 14 Decision, Union Bank of California had failed to maintain internal controls regarding its Suspicious Activity Reports. As the Summary at page 2 of that Decision also explains, Union Bank of California had ignored critically important money laundering indicia: 

"Union Bank failed to implement an adequate anti-money laundering program reasonably designed to identify and report transactions that exhibited indicia of money laundering, or other suspicious activity, considering the types of  products and services offered by the Bank, the volume of its business, and the nature of its customers."

As more fully set forth by my post "Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy", the money laundering indicia are described at pages 19-23 and Appendix "F" of the Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual, and by several other authorities.

Bearer Shares & An Asset Search

As the attached sanitized bearer share certificate suggests, bearer shares allow for anonymous share ownership.  A corporation that issues bearer shares has no central registry of their ownership.  As the Financial Action Task Force further explains, bearer shares are: "negotiable instruments that accord ownership in a corporation to the person who possesses the bearer share certificate".  Via its 33rd Recommendation and Chapter 4, pages 15-16 of its Report on Money Laundering Typologies 2001-2002, Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved, the Financial Action Task Force also warns that bearer shares can be used to launder money.

I too have seen how bearer shares had likely been used to launder marital assets and evade U.S. taxes.  In that particular case, (the facts of which have been changed below for privacy reasons), the divorcing husband and his business partners had accumulated $18 Million in undeclared revenue while residing in the U.S.  The husband and his partners then secretly formed a shell corporation in Curacao, the Dutch Antilles, which they jointly owned through bearer shares. 


To prevent the interdiction of their bearer shares by domestic authorities, the husband and his partners retained a Dutch lawyer to hold the bearer shares in a trust.  As their trustee, the Dutch lawyer deposited the bearer shares into a stock custody account at a Rotterdam bank.  As the following diagram demonstrates, the husband and his partners finally deposited their $18 million in undeclared revenue in a Cayman Island bank account in the name of their Curacao shell company:

As described above, the husband and his partners hid their $18 million from the United States by using multiple jurisdictions which included Curacao, Rotterdam and the Cayman Islands.  The husband and his partners also concealed their beneficial ownership of the $18 million by using protective layers consisting of: bearer shares; a nominee shell company from Curacao; and an offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.  Such layering is characteristic of money laundering and sometimes ends in the kind of tax fraud case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Mr. Walter Anderson.  As my post  "A $365 Million Dollar Tax Fraud" mentioned, Mr. Anderson used bearer share certificates and shell companies to conceal the undeclared revenue he had parked offshore.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

A Debt Collection In N.Y.

During forced collection / attachment proceedings, the Debtor alleged that he could not pay the Creditor because of an arm's-length business loan from Offshore Lender in the millions.  The Debtor further claimed that he had collateralized his business loan with mortgages, promissory notes and U.C.C. liens, on nearly all of his property. 

 
Through subpoenas and depositions during the enforcement / attachment proceedings, the Creditor learned that the Debtor's Lawyer had:

  • Introduced the Debtor to Offshore Lender.
  • Jointly represented both the Debtor and Offshore Lender in the making of the loan.
  • Prepared all the loan documents, such as the mortgages, promissory notes, etc.
  • Not perfected a U.C.C. lien required by the loan, (although it would have secured millions / was a material condition of the loan).
The Creditor additionally discovered that Offshore Lender had never verified or evaluated the Debtor's collateral for the loan, or even sought the Debtor's financial statements as the loan required.  Nor were there any negative consequences, although the Debtor made no interest payments for a number of years. 


When faced with the above kind of facts, alleging the "badges of fraud" may be critically important to the overall success of a Creditor's forced collection proceeding.  As mentioned at "Badges Of Fraud In Debt Collection, Divorce & Bankruptcy", the badges include: a close relationship between the parties; a transfer outside the ordinary scope of business; inadequate consideration; knowledge of a creditor's claim; and retention of control of property.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

A Diplomat & His Offshore Bank Account

Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov 's October 19, 2007 criminal judgment mentions his $73,671 fine and prison sentence of 51 months for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (h), conspiracy to commit money laundering.  According to a press release, Mr. Kuznetsov had conspired with Mr. Alexander Yakovlev-- a United Nations' procurement officer who was taking bribes.  The press release further explains that Mr. Kuznetsov had laundered money while he was the highest ranking Russian diplomat at the United Nations.  According to his superseding indictment, Mr. Kuznetsov had been a member of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, which advises the United Nations' General Assembly. 


As part of Mr. Kuznetsov's laundering scheme, he had received $32,000 from Antigua via two New York financial accounts.  Most significant however, was his use of an offshore bank account at Antigua Overseas Bank Ltd. as the repository of hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribery proceeds.  Mr. Kuznetsov had opened this account in the name of his offshore company Nikal Ltd.,  which he had formed in or about 2000.  Although Mr. Kuznetsov was not finally convicted of it, his indictment had also alleged that he had structured bank deposits in violation of  31 U.S.C. § 5324.


Structuring bank deposits, (a.k.a "smurfing"), indicates an attempt  to avoid bank reporting requirements and can be a red flag of money laundering.  Other red flags of money laundering in Mr. Kuznetsov's case included his use of the offshore corporation Nikal Ltd. to open his Antigua Overseas Bank Ltd. account.  The transfer of the $32,000 from Antigua to Mr. Kuznetsov in New York was also a red flag, especially because Antigua is a tax haven / high-risk location vulnerable to money laundering.  Structuring bank deposits, forming offshore corporations, and using offshore bank accounts, are however just some of the methods used to hide assets / hinder an asset search.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Following The Money Trail In Zürich

While "Roger" and I were walking near Bahnhofstrasse Street, Zürich, Roger suddenly stopped and had us duck into a corner shop. Once inside the shop Roger appeared to be looking for a particular item displayed in the shop's front window, although he was really scrutinizing the outside street.  He explained afterwards how it was necessary to check if we were being followed: "But first you must choose a side street or a main street where there are not many pedestrians or traffic, not a busy thoroughfare. You take mental pictures of everyone you think could be potential followers or surveillance cars as you continue along, before entering a store with windows which will permit you to survey the street".


Roger had a knack for locating offshore financial information because of his former work as an intelligence officer. He and I were in Zürich on our way to meet my local Swiss counsel.  We were following the money trail of a husband who pretended in his divorce case to have a negative net worth. Roger had brought details of the husband's offshore finances with him, which demonstrated that the husband had hidden millions by money laundering through Switzerland.  Roger was about to share this information with me for the first time, at our meeting with the Swiss counsel.


In some cases, offshore financial information discovered during an asset search suggests that a foreign criminal law has been violated.  Sometimes in Switzerland for example, one can be criminally prosecuted for lying about the beneficial ownership of a bank account as mentioned in the attached  Swiss law memo and in "An Asset Search In Switzerland".  The concealment  of a bank account's beneficial ownership however, more often indicates a violation of U.S. criminal law through a tax fraud or money laundering.


The very existence of an offshore bank account may also persuade a domestic court to issue Letters Rogatory / Legal Assistance Requests.  As more fully described by my posts "An Asset Search In Switzerland" and "Asset Search Tips for Divorce & Child Support Cases", Letters Rogatory are sometimes necessary in order to elicit evidence about hidden assets from foreign bank or other witnesses.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Using Multiple Jurisdictions To Launder Money

Parking assets offshore in one jurisdiction and then exercising control over them through another, sometimes indicates money laundering.  One example of how multiple jurisdictions were used to facilitate money laundering, is the case of  U.S.A. v. Proceeds of Crime Transferred to Certain Domestic Financial Accounts, Index # 07-CV-21791, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  As mentioned by a July 16, 2007 press release, the Government commenced  the U.S.A. case in order to forfeit $110 million which had been part of a tainted $400 million court award in Italy.  According to both the foregoing press release and Reuters, the $400 million was tainted because the Italian Court awarded it after an interested party, (Mr. Angelo "Nino" Rovelli), had bribed its judges.


As an amended complaint in U.S.A alleged, Mr. Rovelli's wife Primarosa Battistella, had used Swiss bank accounts and three prominent lawyers, (Attilio Pacifico, Giovanni Acampora and Cesare Previti), to pay the bribes.  After Mr. Rovelli died in 1990, Ms. Battistella finally inherited the tainted $400 million in January 1994.  According to the amended complaint, she then had her accountant Mr. Pierfrancesco Munari, launder a substantial amount of it.  Mr. Munari had allegedly placed the tainted money in financial institutions and /or business entities which acted as laundering links in: the United States; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; Guernsey; Jersey; Switzerland; Luxembourg; Liechtenstein; Singapore; the Cook Islands and Costa Rica. 


Some of the money laundered by Mr. Munari had allegedly been hidden in Florida via nineteen financial accounts. The government therefore asserted in U.S.A., that forfeiture was appropriate pursuant to the following:

  • 18 U.S.C. §984-- Asset forfeiture of identical property within one year of a laundering offense, etc;
  • 18 U.S.C. §1957-- Money Laundering of property from specified unlawful activity;
  • 18 U.S.C. §2314-- Interstate or foreign transfer of property obtained by fraud;
  • 28 U.S.C. §1345-- U.S. District Court jurisdiction where the Government is plaintiff;

After the judge in U.S.A. froze / restrained numerous financial accounts in July 2007, Ms. Battistella and other Rovelli family members eventually executed a settlement agreement consenting to the forfeiture of thirteen accounts.  As Mr. Munari's own settlement agreement further demonstrates, he too consented to forfeit an additional four accounts.  Although on November 21, 2007 the Court issued a Final Judgment of Forfeiture regarding the total of seventeen financial accounts, there may still be some unresolved issues.  According to Forbes.Com, a grand jury has been convened in Florida to examine whether Mr. Munari's money laundering scheme criminally involved: Wachovia; Citigroup; Merrill Lynch; Morgan Stanley; Lazard and others. 


Copyright 2007-2008 Fred L. Abrams

High-Risk Locations & An Asset Search

An investigation of a high-risk geographical location can sometimes uncover assets which have been hidden through: nominees; shell companies; cash couriers; wire transfers; credit cards; underground bank or remittance systems like hawala, etc.  For example, one way the IRS focuses on high-risk locations like tax havens, is to compare the banking information it receives from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network with the foreign bank disclosure taxpayers make pursuant to their Form 90-22.1, the Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report.  The IRS also makes U.S. residents with offshore credit / debit cards an audit priority pursuant to its Offshore Credit Card Program.


The State Department is similarly concerned with high-risk offshore locations as demonstrated by part of its 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Major Money Laundering Countries.  U.S. banks too make geographic location a risk factor in their anti-money laundering programs.  As explained at page 21 of the Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual: "U.S. banks should understand and evaluate the specific risks associated with doing business in, opening accounts for customers from, or facilitating transactions involving certain geographic locations."


The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also deems seven U.S. regions to be High Intensity Financial Crimes Areas because of their extraordinary vulnerability to money laundering.  Law enforcement may even commit additional resources to scrutinize financial transactions in such regions or in a High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.  As my post "Domestic Shell Companies & An Asset Search" further suggests, jurisdictions like Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, and Oregon are additionally considered to be high-risk because assets are so easily concealed through shell companies formed there.


The isolated fact that a financial transaction has a nexus to a high-risk location does not however necessarily support the conclusion that assets have been concealed.  A judgment debtor, divorcing spouse, etc. should still be thoroughly investigated to ensure that an offshore or domestic high-risk location has not been used to hide assets.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

A Divorce & Trade-Based Tax Fraud / Money Laundering

Although the divorcing husband was wealthy, he offered his wife only a meager settlement. The husband also threatened that he was "judgment proof" and that his wife might collect nothing after the divorce despite their longtime marriage.  The husband however, had ample marital assets and he and several of his business associates had likely hidden them in a trade-based tax fraud / laundering scheme similar to the one Mr. Gene Haas was arrested for on  June 19, 2006


Given his fraudulent tax scheme, Mr. Haas was sentenced on November 5, 2007 to two years in prison for violating 18 U.S.C § 371, as mentioned by his August 24, 2007 plea agreement.  He also ended up paying a $5 million dollar fine and over $70 million dollars in back taxes owed for 2000 and 2001.  According to "Attachment A" of Mr. Haas' plea agreement, the Enmark Aerospace and Supermill companies had provided Mr. Haas with invoices for fictitious purchases.  Pursuant to these phony invoices, Mr. Haas paid Enmark  & Supermill about $35 million and then took business deductions for "cost of goods sold".  Enmark and Supermill next returned the $35 million (less a 2% kick back fee) to Mr. Haas through his nominee, CNC Associates, Inc. 


As demonstrated by the twelve case studies found at pp. 9-20 of the Financial Action Task Force's June 23, 2006 report "Trade-Based Money Laundering, Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved.", there are a wide variety of ways to conceal assets in a trade-based fraud.  According to p. 4 of "Trade-Based Money Laundering", such schemes may involve: the over or under-invoicing of goods or services; the over or under-shipping of goods; falsely describing goods or services; or multiple invoicing.  There are however several indicia which can sometimes help one recognize that assets have been concealed in a trade-based tax fraud or laundering scheme.  As more fully set forth at page 24 of "Trade-Based Money Laundering", these asset search indicia may include:

  • a disparity between a shipped commodity's bill of lading and its invoice.
  • a disparity between a commodity's value as recorded on its invoice and fair market value.
  • the shipping of goods although there is no profit / economic benefit.
  • a shipment with a nexus to shell companies.
  • letters of credit related to a shipment that have been amended or extended repeatedly.
  • the type of shipped commodity is inconsistent with the importer's / exporter's ordinary business activities.
  • shipping to or from a high-risk geographical location (i.e. a jurisdiction especially vulnerable to money laundering).

Copyright 2007-2008 Fred L. Abrams

Nominees & Hidden Assets

A beneficial owner will sometimes use a nominee (i.e. representative) to hide money with complete anonymity in a bank account.  As the website of www.offshoresimple.com explains, a beneficial owner may hire a nominee incorporation service to supply a bank signatory.   This suggests that a beneficial owner can use a nominee to circumvent the know your customer / customer identification procedures at a bank.  For example, through the bank signatory service offered by www.offshoresimple.com, a beneficial owner can use a nominee to:      

  • Open / manage an offshore bank account.
  • Act as an account's bank signatory.
  • Supply a bank with the necessary customer identification documents.
  • Execute the incorporation documents needed to form an offshore corporation.

The above-described use of nominee incorporation services is widespread.  As page 64 of the 2007 National Money Laundering Strategy mentions, nominee incorporation services that arrange U.S. bank accounts and shell companies are believed to annually launder as much as $36 billion just from the former Soviet Union.

Instead of retaining a nominee incorporation service, some beneficial owners hide assets by using friends or relatives as nominees.  According to his twenty-one count forty-four page July 26, 2005 indictment, Mr. Edwards for example, had stolen insurance premiums and then concealed them in nominee financial accounts in the names of his wife and two shell companies.  Mr. Edwards had also used his wife as the nominee purchaser of his mountain chalet and a  "palatial" home-- both of which were bought with stolen insurance premiums.


All of the foregoing had been part of Mr. Edward's insurance and tax fraud scheme which lasted from about January, 1999 through April 30, 2001.  Via his indictment, Mr. Edwards was charged with: mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341 & 18 U.S.C. § 1342); wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1343); making false statements to a  financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014);  theft from a health care benefit program (18 U.S.C. § 669); money laundering (18 U.S.C.§ 1957 [a] & [b]); and tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201)

 
Mr. Edwards was specifically accused of collecting insurance premiums from various employers while unlicensed to do so.  Instead of providing thousands of employees with workers' compensation insurance, he converted their insurance premiums for his own use.  Between January 1, 2000 and April 30, 2001 Mr. Edwards also allegedly stole $2.5 million from his company Fidelity Group, Inc., which was a health care benefit group as mentioned by 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b).  Furthermore, when Mr. Edwards actually did apply for some workers' compensation insurance coverage, he allegedly understated payroll and the type / number of employees to fraudulently secure lower insurance premiums.


When Mr. Edwards administered an employer's self-insured health insurance plan, he also had  allegedly delayed or denied medical benefits the employees were entitled to.  Mr. Edwards indictment also alleged that he had filed a false joint Income tax return for 1999, by underreporting taxable income.  In 2000, Mr. Edwards also supposedly filed a false joint tax return by underreporting taxable income and paying just $724 in taxes.  He was additionally accused of failing to file any tax return for 2001, as was required. 


As the Court's June 26, 2006 Judgment demonstrates, Mr. Edwards ultimately pleaded guilty to four of the twenty-one counts mentioned by his indictment: two counts of mail fraud; one count of theft from a health care benefit program; and one count of tax fraud.  Pursuant  to his plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was sentenced to serve 150 months in prison and ordered to pay fines, make restitution, etc.  As Mr. Edwards' motion executed on August 13, 2007 however indicates, he seeks to vacate his guilty plea / sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel among other things.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Forfeiture & The DEA's Asset Search

"I'm out of the asset forfeiture business and Title-III wiretaps too", Donnie remarked as we discussed the Drug Enforcement Administration's on-going effort to find hidden assets related to drug trafficking and other crime.  Donnie had retired from the DEA after serving twenty-one years as a Special Agent.  Now he was deployed to the Green Zone in Iraq to teach Iraqi police through the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program of the Department of Justice.


Special Agents like Donnie often develop a great deal of expertise in conducting an asset search since asset forfeiture allows them to seize the proceeds of drug trafficking, money laundering, or organized crime.  For example, while Donnie had been stationed in El Paso Texas in 1988, (and also worked in Bolivia), he, another Special Agent, and the Mexican Federal Police seized $6-8 million in drug money.  By following the money trail, Donnie and his co-agent forfeited the $6-8 million because of its relation to their earlier seizure of 21 tons of cocaine in Sylmar, California.


My discussion with Donnie quickly drifted toward Zhenli Ye Gon's arrest in Maryland on July 23, 2007 on methamphetamine drug and money laundering charges. Ye Gon was accused of supplying chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine through his pharmaceutical wholesale business based in Mexico City, Mexico.  According to a Special Agent's affidavit, the more than $207 million seized from Ye Gon's Mexico City residence was "hidden in various compartments, false walls, suitcases, and closets."  Also seized from Ye Gon's Mexico City corporate headquarters were $111,000 dollars; documents regarding domestic and offshore bank accounts; and wire transfer confirmations from Mexican money exchange houses to various banks.  As Ye Gon's criminal indictment In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia further indicated, the government sought to forfeit his money and other assets pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 853 and 970.


Given all of the above, Donnie finally said: "Because of its impact on organized crime, asset forfeiture is one of the things that can stop those who supply pseudophedrine to the meth super labs and Mexican cartelsAsset forfeiture works so well that it has even become a kind of gold rush".  I then thought about the $ 1,143,341,308 in net deposits for 2006 made into the Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund-- which is a repository for just some of the federal agencies that forfeit assets.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

An Asset Search In Switzerland

A former Criminal Intelligence Specialist at Scotland Yard confirmed that the divorcing husband was hiding millions from his wife by using nominee bank accounts in Switzerland, among other things.  The husband's true beneficial ownership of these funds had been concealed by a nominee who had used shell corporations.  The evidence suggested that the nominee had engaged in money laundering for the husband.  The nominee might have also laundered organized crime monies.
 

The above information could possibly be used during a divorce to impeach the husband at a deposition about his alleged net worth and assets.  The Swiss bank information could also be used to frame a line of questions at a subpoenaed deposition of the nominee.  As partly demonstrated by the example of a changed / sanitized letter rogatory to Obergericht des Kantons Zürich, evidence might too be elicited from bank witnesses in Switzerland.  Such letters rogatory / legal assistance requests can sometimes play an important role in an asset search, as mentioned at "Asset Search Tips For Divorce & Child Support Cases".


As my local Swiss counsel advises, making a business of parking assets in Switzerland and concealing their beneficial ownership could violate Art. 305bis Swiss Criminal Code: Money Laundering (English Translation).  The nominee might therefore also be prone to a Swiss prosecution under Art. 305bis as a security risk, assuming ties to organized crime could be shown.  In addition to 305bis, some of the Swiss laws relevant  to money laundering and / or hiding assets include:

As the foregoing suggests, a number of different legal strategies could be used in connection with the divorcing husband's assets hidden in Switzerland.  Enlisting the help of foreign investigators like the above-mentioned former Criminal Intelligence Specialist; retaining local counsel in Switzerland; and prosecuting letters rogatory / legal assistance requests; are however just some of the tools which may be part of an effective asset search in Switzerland.


Copyright 2007-2008 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy

People don't typically think of the money laundering indicia when searching for hidden assets the subject of a: divorce; bankruptcy; commercial collection or other legal proceeding.  Such indicia can however be effectively used as part of an asset search even in situations where there is no money laundering.  In the United States, the indicia or red flags of money laundering are described at pages 19-23 and Appendix "F" of the Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual.  They are also described in Money Laundering Prevention, A Money Services Business Guide, at pages 16-24. 


Money laundering indicia are sometimes used outside of the United States.  For example, India's Financial Intelligence Unit relies on grounds for suspicion; the Belgian Financial Intelligence Unit ("CTIF-CFI") uses Money Laundering Indicators; the Swiss Federal Banking Commission has the Schedule: Indicators of Money Laundering ; and the Asia / Pacific Group on Money Laundering also uses such a list.  Recognizing the following money laundering indicia however, may lead to the discovery of assets concealed in a divorce, commercial collection or bankruptcy case:


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Fighting Financial Fraud At UK Banks

In the United States, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network regulates the customer identification procedures, (a.k.a  "know your customer rules"), at banks.  In order to clarify these procedures, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance in January 2004.  These customer identification procedures codified at 31 C.F.R Part 103.121, demonstrate  that there is no discretion as to what information is needed when a new bank customer opens an account.  In the case of a customer who is a U.S. person for example, the minimum requisite information includes: a taxpayer identification number issued by the Internal Revenue Service (i.e. social security or employer identification number); date of birth; residential or business street address; etc.  After obtaining this kind of information, a U.S. bank must then verify it based on a "risk-based" approach.


The United Kingdom similarly has rules for checking the identities of its bank customers.  For example, the regulatory body for the financial services industry in the United Kingdom, (the Financial Services Authority or "FSA"), has published its know your customer rules in Discussion Paper 22, at pages 9-13.  This past July, the FSA also published a consumer leaflet mentioning these rules, "Just the facts about proving your identity".  The FSA's leaflet explains that UK law requires an identity check when a new customer opens a bank account and that checking identities helps prevent money laundering, identity theft and terrorist financing.  It further advises that: "Neither the FSA nor the law sets out how firms should check identity.  In most cases firms will follow guidance produced by an independent industry body, the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group".  According to the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, a number of different documents can be used to prove identity such as a: passport; photo-style driver's license; letter from a social worker or care home manager verifying identity; etc.  As of August 31, 2006, the FSA had also replaced its Money Laundering Sourcebook with the guidance now found in its Senior Management, Systems and Controls Sourcebook, at SYSC 3.2.6 et. seq. 


There will however soon be regulatory change with respect to how a bank identifies its customers in the United Kingdom. This is true because the United Kingdom's new Money Laundering Regulations 2007 come into effect on December 15, 2007.  These regulations obligate banks to apply a standard of due diligence, (as determined by a risk-based approach), when they check a new customer's identity.  In many cases, banks will also be required to identify the true beneficial owner of funds.  Since the United Kingdom's rules for identifying bank customers are about to change, I wanted an expert's opinion.  I then called "Mr. London", who has vast experience in the methods used to hide assets as a former vice president of a major global bank in the United Kingdom.  Mr. London knew all about how banks checked their customers' identities, especially because he had been responsible for his bank's financial fraud and money laundering investigations.


During our phone conversation Mr. London expressed his belief that, (despite the prospective change in regulation), money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial fraud would likely continue to increase throughout the United Kingdom.  He also suggested that there was little standing in the way of a determined criminal because of the "complicity or misfeasance" of many banks and the use of nominees to open bank accounts.  Since crimes like money laundering and terrorist  financing often extend beyond just one nation's borders, I was left to wonder just what this meant for all of us.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Bankruptcy Fraud, Money Laundering & Hidden Assets

According to page nine of the 2005 U.S. Trustee's Annual Report:  "Every year since 1996, more than one million individuals and businesses have filed bankruptcy, making  the bankruptcy caseload the largest in the federal court system".  Since it detects and combats bankruptcy fraud, the U.S. Trustee Program is a critical part of the bankruptcy court system.  According to its June 2007 Report to Congress, the U.S. Trustee Program referred 925 criminal cases for prosecution in 2006.  This was a 24 percent increase from the 744 criminal referrals made by the Trustee Program in 2005. 


One kind of  fraud the Trustee Program is concerned with occurred when husband and wife Terry and Susan Brunning hid assets and laundered money the subject of their 2002 Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.  As their June 3, 2003 indictment explains, the Brunnings were suppose to disclose all their assets at the time of their Chapter 7 bankruptcy so that the bankruptcy court trustee could then liquidate the same for the benefit of creditors.  The Brunnings however instead hid over $1 million dollars in accounts at: San Diego National Bank; Abbey National Treasury Limited in the Isle of Man, Great Britain; and at Lloyds Bank, PLC in London.  The Brunnings had also concealed a $155,000 promissory note; a 1981 Rolls Royce; a 1990 Jaguar; and their 57-foot sailing yacht.  According to their indictment, the Brunnings had even concocted the fictitious creditor "Donna Kerns", in an effort to falsely claim the monies from the bankruptcy trustee's sale of their $155,000 promissory note.

On October 23, 2006, Terry Bruninng was finally sentenced to thirty-three months in prison plus three years supervised release after pleading guilty to two counts of 18 U.S.C. § 152 (Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), and one count of 18 U.S.C §157 (Bankruptcy fraud).  At that same time, Susan Brunning similarly pleaded guilty to one count of 18 U.S.C § 152, and was sentenced to a prison term of six months plus three years of supervised release.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Domestic Shell Companies & An Asset Search

An asset search covering a number of countries is sometimes necessary if monies the subject of a divorce, bankruptcy, or debt collection proceeding are hidden in a money laundering circuit.  This can be true because  "Large-scale money laundering schemes invariably contain cross-border elements", as is recognized by the Financial Action Task Force-- an international organization against money laundering and terrorist  financing.  Domestic companies without active business or significant assets, ("shell companies"), however should also be considered part of the money laundering landscape.  According to the Financial Action Task Force's June 23, 2006 summary of its Mutual Evaluation Report, ownership information about these kinds of companies in Nevada and Delaware "...may not, in most instances, be adequate, accurate or available on a timely basis.  This is a vulnerability for the U.S. AML/CFT [anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing] system." 


The Internal Revenue Service also recognizes in its 2007 Dirty Dozen Tax Scams, that: " Domestic shell corporations and other entities are being formed and operated in certain states for the purpose of disguising the ownership of the business or financial activity."  Meanwhile, a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network November 9, 2006 advisory demonstrates that it too is aware of the misuse of shell companies to hide assets/launder money.  Besides its November advisory, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a November 2006 report explaining that Delaware, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming may be "...attractive to those persons seeking to hide illicit activity within the framework of shell corporations."  That same report also mentions that only Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Kansas require a limited liability company to supply ownership information while, (depending on the structure of a limited liability company), 47 other U.S. jurisdictions do not.


The misuse of shell companies is however not just confined to money laundering.  For example, in Dempster v. Overview Equities, Inc., 2004 slip op. 01149 ; 4 A.D.3d 495; 773 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2d Dept 2004) a divorcing husband fraudulently transferred the title of a residence to his newly created company in Delaware, which was most likely a shell corporation.  The husband made the property transfer to his Delaware corporation without valid consideration within weeks of the equitable distribution hearing in his divorce.  Given all of the foregoing, extra diligence should be exercised during an asset search in order to determine whether a divorcing spouse, judgment debtor, etc. has misused a shell company to hide assets.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce

Money laundering circuits sometimes operate in the U.S. through domestic bank accounts used as laundering links. Internal Revenue Service publications are full of examples of mostly domestic money laundering investigations.  It is also true that money laundering circuits washing vast sums of money will typically do so through offshore bank accounts located in tax havens like Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, etc.  Such was the case of one divorcing husband, (the depiction of whom is altered below for privacy reasons), who laundered his U.S. money between Switzerland and Germany.

Prior to the valuation / equitable distribution hearing in his divorce case, the husband alleged that he had a liability of $29 million owed to a prime bank in Germany because of an arm's-length business loan.  An investigation however revealed that his loan was back-to-back , (i.e. a fully collateralized loan in which the borrower and the lender are one and the same).  The husband had first secretly deposited $30 million into a Swiss bank account and next used that same $30 million to collateralize a Swiss bank guarantee for $29 million.  By then using that Swiss bank guarantee as full collateral, the husband persuaded a German bank to issue a personal bank loan to him for $29 million to be disbursed in Germany.


After the loan principal was disbursed to him in Germany, the husband intentionally failed to repay his $29 million debt due and owing to the German bank.  The husband's loan default meant that the German bank would collect $29 million transferred from Switzerland pursuant to the Swiss bank guarantee which had served as loan collateral.  As the diagram below suggests, the loan default in Germany was actually the very means used to wash the money the husband had earlier deposited in Switzerland:


                               

The husband's financial transfers shown above had no economic benefit, as is usually the case where a back-to-back loan is used to hide assets.  Back-to-back loans however are not only sometimes used to conceal marital assets part of a divorce. They can also regrettably be used in a tax fraud to hide assets and income; by a debtor hiding assets from a creditor; or as a means to disguise monies which are the proceeds of a white-collar or other crime.

Copyright 2007-2008 Fred L. Abrams

Terrorist Financing, Money Laundering & Financial Intelligence Units

The Financial Intelligence Units of the 106 different jurisdictions in the Egmont Group, exchange information worldwide to track terrorist financing and fight crimes like money laundering.  Their exchange of information occurs pursuant to the Egmont Group's Principles for Information Exchange (June 2001) and Best Practices for the Exchange of Information (updated June 2004).  Sometimes Financial Intelligence Units ("FIU's") share information from a suspicious activity or suspicious transaction report filed by a bank or other entity.  This can happen especially because FIU's are the repository of the suspicious activity/transaction reports filed in their respective jurisdictions.  


As the World Bank's 2004 report "