At first glance, there was nothing unusual about the lawsuit filed in New Jersey involving Former Premier Michael Misick of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The complaint in the lawsuit executed by the Former Premier, claimed that Hip Hop Weekly Magazine founders David Mays and Raymond Scott had misappropriated the magazine’s cash.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Scott separately alleged in their answer, counterclaim and third-party complaint, that the Former Premier had been an investor in the magazine and was basically one of its owners. On March 23, 2010, there was a status and settlement conference scheduled in the lawsuit, as mentioned by the Court’s docket entry:
(Click On The Above Image To View The Docket Report)
“Target Of Corruption Probe Sues Hip-Hoppers For Supposed Fraud” meanwhile, explained that the Former Premier had been the subject of a public corruption probe by the Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry. The Inquiry issued its Redacted Final Report, which had once been available here. This Final Report asserted that the Former Premier was known to have enjoyed a “Hollywood lifestyle” beyond his salary and allowances as a politician. It also raised the critical questions: Had the Former Premier been a party to public corruption and could he have taken illicit monies?
If a politically exposed person like the Former Premier, actually has engaged in a public corruption scheme, then the scheme’s illicit proceeds could become the target of forced collection proceedings. This result might especially occur if a foreign politically exposed person laundered the illicit proceeds by making investments in the U.S. or otherwise parked assets there.
Foreign governmental authorities might then use a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. §1782 (Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals), to gather evidence from U.S. witnesses about the illicit proceeds. Governmental authorities could also try to interdict these illicit proceeds in the U.S., through the following federal statutes:
- 18 U.S.C. §981 (a) (1) (A), (B) & (C)— Asset forfeiture because of money laundering;
- 18 U.S.C. §984— Asset forfeiture of identical property within one year of a laundering offense, etc;
- 18 U.S.C. §1956— Money Laundering;
- 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;
- 28 U.S.C. §1355 (a)— U.S. District Court jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings.
Note: On March 3, 2010 Forbes.com mentioned The Asset Search Blog and some of the foregoing at “The Premier And The Hip-Hop Magazine“.
(Last Edited May 6, 2010)
Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams