offshore banking

Subscribe to offshore banking
Asset Recovery Workshop October 8-11, 2018
Photo from the asset recovery workshop held October 8-11, 2018 in Abuja, Nigeria.

Fifteen West African countries sent judges; &/or prosecutors; &/or law enforcement agents to attend the asset recovery workshop I recently lectured at in Abuja, Nigeria. I was one of four resource persons at the workshop which was a joint project of the European Union and the Inter Governmental Action Group Against Money Laundering In West Africa. At the work shop, I talked about government officials, (i.e “politically exposed persons“), who launder large bribe payments offshore. I explained that others hiding vast sums of money also usually launder their money offshore. Therefore, if you are going to conduct asset searches to detect hidden money, you should learn to spot the money laundering indicators.

I) MONEY LAUNDERING INDICATORS

The indicators include: employing strawpersons to act as bank signatories; abusing trusts; hoarding cash/engaging in bulk cash smuggling; etc. I made a list of the indicators at my post “Red Flags For An Asset Search.” The money laundering case involving  Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov has some of these indicators. As I mentioned in a lecture I gave during the asset recovery workshop, Mr. Kuznetsov was a Russian diplomat working at the United Nations in New York City. Prosecutors in the United States accused Mr. Kuznetsov of washing bribe payments through Nikal, Ltd. which was a suspected offshore shell company Mr. Kuznetsov had formed. Mr. Kuznetsov used Nikal, Ltd. to open an offshore bank account in Antigua & Mr. Kuznetsov titled the offshore bank account in the name of Nikal, Ltd.

Mr. Kuznetsov’s associate, (who took bribe payments from companies seeking contracts at the United Nations), transferred bribe payments to Mr. Kuznetsov’s offshore bank account. Mr. Kuznetsov then reportedly wire transferred the bribe payments in his offshore account to financial accounts in New York City at Chase Manhattan Bank &/or the United Nations Federal Credit Union. On March 2, 2007, Mr. Kuznetsov was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  On October 12, 2007, Mr. Kuznetsov was  sentenced to fifty one months’ imprisonment. Money laundering indicators or red flags that Mr. Kuznetsov had hidden money were Mr. Kuznetsov’s use of a  suspected shell company, Nikal, Ltd. &  Mr. Kuznetsov’s use of the offshore bank account.

II) ASSET SEARCHES & THE MONEY LAUNDERING STAGES

Besides recognizing money laundering indicators, understanding the way money laundering works can help you succeed at your asset searches. Money laundering occurs in three stages: placement, layering & integration. These stages are thought to have been present in Mr. Kuznetsov’s case. Mr. Kuznetsov’s associate placed bribe payments into Mr. Kuznetsov’s money laundering circuit. This placement occurred when the associate wire transferred bribe payments to Mr. Kuznetsov’s offshore bank account. Mr. Kuznetsov layered by washing the bribe payments through his offshore bank account titled in the name of Nikal, Ltd. This layering disguised Mr. Kuznetsov’s beneficial ownership of the offshore account & the bribe payments. Integration would have happened if Mr. Kuznetsov introduced the washed bribe payments into the economy.  Mr. Kuznetsov could have integrated the bribe payments reportedly at the New York financial accounts, by using the bribe payments to buy things. Placement, layering & integration are described at this Egmont Group Money Laundering Video:¹

¹Video Courtesy of The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units.

Copyright 2018 Fred L. Abrams

Following a money trail as part of your asset searchI. DURING YOUR ASSET SEARCH LOOK FOR A MONEY TRAIL

There is always a money trail you can follow during your asset search. This is true no matter how your adversary hides assets.  Even if your adversary maintains a secret offshore bank account there is a money trail. The money trail at the offshore bank would consist of: account opening documents; monthly account statements; and bank signature cards.  Therefore, as part of your asset search you would seek these documents from the offshore bank.  You might do this by employing a letter rogatory or a compelled consent form.

II. MONEY TRAILS WITH MANY ELEMENTS

Perhaps most important to remember is that a money trail can involve many elements. The suspected money trail in the criminal case of USA v. Tully Lovisa et. al., is thought to include: nominees (i.e. intermediaries/straw persons); shell companies; and post office boxes in New York and the Netherlands. Prosecutors may claim Mr. Tully Lovisa &/or his co-conspirators used these elements to launder the illicit profits of an advance fee scheme.  The July 10, 2018 indictment in the case alleges Mr. Lovisa &/or his co-conspirators mailed phony prize notices to hundreds of thousands of victims.

The notices supposedly indicated the victims won cash prizes ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars.  The notices allegedly said the victims could collect the prizes by mailing a $20 or $25 processing fee to the post office boxes in New York or the Netherlands.  According to the indictment, Mr. Lovisa &/or his co-conspirators never paid valuable prizes to the victims and the supposed scheme generated  more than $30 million in illicit profits from the processing fees paid by the victims.

III. THE 2010 LAWSUIT AGAINST MR. LOVISA

In 2010 the Federal Trade Commission sued Mr. Lovisa for an alleged advance fee scam similar to the alleged advance fee scam described at Mr. Lovisa’s July 10, 2018 indictment. The 2010 lawsuit was settled via a stipulation filed with the Court on 4/19/12.  A review of the 2010 lawsuit reveals the suspected money trail in that case could have consisted of shell companies and post office boxes. The 2010 lawsuit claimed Mr. Lovisa had sent personalized mailers in violation of 15 U.S.C. §45 (a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts. One of these alleged mailers mentioned by the 2010 lawsuit, is reproduced below.

First image: pickbiz/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2018 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Searches in the U.S.
This post says you can sometimes pursue asset searches in the U.S. because of your foreign lawsuit.

You may be able to use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to perform asset searches connected to your foreign: divorce; dispute over a will; financial fraud claim; etc. This is true because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the U.S. District Court can allow you to serve subpoenas in the U.S. in furtherance of lawsuits in a foreign land.  You would serve these subpoenas on U.S.-based witnesses with knowledge of the assets. One subpoena based on 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is supplied at my October 18, 2017 post “Asset Searches In the U.S. Because of Lawsuits Outside The U.S.”  Based on 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the U.S. District Court also allowed service of a subpoena upon J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in New York City.  On January 3, 2018 the U.S. District Court issued its Order authorizing issuance of this subpoena in the case known as In Re Application of Shanghai Xiaosheng Industrial Investment Co. LTD.

According to court filings, Shanghai Xiaosheng Industrial Investment Co. LTD., (“Shanghai”), needs evidence from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to frame a lawsuit it will file in China against 9th Base Investment Limited (“9th Base”).  Shanghai was reportedly defrauded out of more than $31 million US dollars by 9th Base.  On or about October 12, 2015 Shanghai allegedly transferred yen valued at $31 million US dollars out of China into 9th Base’s New York bank account at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.  Shanghai apparently transferred the $31 million as part of a deal in which Shanghai was suppose to eventually acquire 28.57% of Kailai Oil & Gas Holdings, Ltd., which develops oil & gas in Papua, Indonesia. Shanghai alleged that 9th Base fraudulently induced Shanghai to transfer the $31 million &/or that 9th Base was unjustly enriched by the $31 million dollars. To learn more about Shanghai’s allegations against 9th Base, read the December 20, 2017 Declaration of Shen Jinrong available below.

First Image: Mattz90/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2018 Fred L. Abrams

Searching for an adversary’s hidden assets can be like tracking a shell-game-operator.  In USA v. Khalili for instance, Mr. Dan Farhad Khalili was accused of hiding assets & undeclared revenue from the IRS for 15 years at 5 offshore banks. The offshore banks were located in Switzerland & Israel. Although on 4/27/11 Mr. Khalili applied for the IRS’ Voluntary Disclosure Program, the IRS found him ineligible for it. Mr. Khalili ultimately pleaded guilty to failing to file U.S. Department of Treasury Reports of Foreign Bank & Financial Accounts. On 4/25/17 Mr. Khalili was sentenced to 1 year & 1 day of prison. When you search for assets hidden through sophisticated schemes similar to the one Mr. Khalili was accused of, it may help to keep 3 goals in mind. These goals are to detect the paper trails, look for compartmentalization & seek transparency.

I. Detect The Paper Trails

One way your adversary may hide the paper trail of an offshore bank account is to open an offshore post office box. Your adversary could then have the offshore bank send monthly bank account statements & other documents to the offshore post office box. By maintaining these banking documents offshore, your adversary reduces the risk that you; domestic tax authorities; or anyone else; will detect the secret offshore bank account.

II. Look For Compartmentalization

A former intelligence officer I knew kept 1 cellular phone for incoming calls & another for outgoing calls. By compartmentalizing incoming & outgoing calls, the former intelligence officer was trying to hamper any investigation of his telephone toll records. Your adversary may compartmentalize his/her financial activities in a scheme to hide assets from you. For more information read my post “Compartmentalization & An Asset Search.”

III. Seek Transparency

By eliminating paper trails & compartmentalizing, your adversary can make his/her financial activities nontransparent. Your adversary can also make financial activities nontransparent via: fraudulent asset transfers; bulk-cash smuggling; art assets & cultural heritage property; diamonds or other portable valuable commodities; etc. These common concealment methods are outlined at “Red Flags For An Asset Search.”

Image: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

In the criminal case against Robert Bandfield, the IRS & SEC searched for assets laundered offshore. These assets were the proceeds of stock pump & dump schemes.  The illicit proceeds of the pump & dump schemes were more than $250 million. The $250 million was believed to be hidden by money laundering carried out by Mr. Robert Bandfield & his co-conspirators.

According to a 2/6/17 press release, Mr. Bandfield was the “architect of [an] offshore fraud haven.” Mr. Bandfield seems to have owned 2 nominee incorporation services, which established & sold shell companies. The 2 nominee incorporation services formed offshore shell companies believed to have helped launder the $250 million.

Red flags Mr. Bandfield & his co-conspirators allegedly hid the $250 million included their suspected misuse of:

After Mr. Bandfield’s 9/5/14 indictment by a grand jury sitting in Brooklyn, N.Y., Mr. Bandfiled was arrested on 9/9/14 at the airport in Miami, Florida. The indictment charged Mr. Bandfield & others with conspiracy to commit securities fraud; conspiracy to defraud the U.S. via tax fraud; & money laundering conspiracy. On 2/6/17 Mr. Bandfield was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment.  The sentence was based on Mr. Bandfield’s guilty plea to the money laundering conspiracy charged by his second superseding indictment available here.

Image: Olga Sabarova/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017-2018 Fred L. Abrams

A person hiding assets from you could park their money in an offshore bank account & hire an intermediary to be the account’s bank signatory. One website offers this “Bank Nominee Signatories Service” for a cost of about $1000 per year.  This person could additionally title their real estate in the name of shell companies. A person can also hide assets by converting cash into portable valuable commodities like diamonds and smuggle the diamonds offshore.

This kind of scheme is outlined by “Detecting Hidden Assets By Following A Money Trail.”  “Searching For Assets Hidden By Lawyers” examines another way to hide assets.  It explains a person might hide their cash by laundering it through a lawyer. In these kinds of schemes the person hides his/her true beneficial ownership of assets. You may be able to detect  true beneficial ownership & search for assets 3 ways:

I. Collecting human intelligence/informants’ tips is sometimes the only practical way to detect a sophisticated scheme to hide assets.  If there is an informant with knowledge of the hidden assets, the informant might be willing to tip you about the assets.  This informant may be a disgruntled: employee; family member; paramour; etc.

II. Private investigators may help you identify informants & gather leads about hidden assets through surveillance or other surreptitious means. Some investigators however, search for assets illegally or provide spurious information. Ex-Toronto private investigator Elaine White & ex-police detective Cullen Johnson for example, ran an “asset locator” business. They supplied their clients with bogus bank account information.

III. Legal tools can be critically important in searching for assets.  “How Does A Divorcing Spouse Recover Assets Concealed In A Swiss Bank Account?” gives a glimpse of the kinds of tools generally available in many countries across the globe. Among other things, the tools can include serving letters rogatory upon foreign bank witnesses & tipping prosecutors or other governmental authorities.

Image: Farizum Amrod Saad/Shutterstock.com

 Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

Like the IRS & SEC you can sometimes search for assets by using whistleblower tips, my October 3rd program explains.

A) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

At the New York County Lawyers’ Association on October 3, 2017 from 5:30 PM to 9:00 PM, I will be the program chair of “Whistleblowers, Secret Swiss Bank Accounts & Recovering Hidden Assets.” Attendee registration is available at the website available here or by calling the New York County Lawyers’ Association at (212) 267-6646. During the October 3rd program, I highlight the use of whistleblower tips to recover hidden assets.  I show how to search for assets which can be hidden by high net worth divorcing spouses; corporations; Ponzi schemers; tax fraudsters; etc.  I talk about tools you can use to recover assets hidden in Switzerland and other places across the globe. The October 3rd program also focuses on the Internal Revenue Service & Securities Exchange Commission whistleblower programs which can provide qualifying tipsters with the largest payouts compared to any other reward programs in the world.

Jack BlumWashington, D.C. attorney Jack Blum is well-known internationally for his representation of whistleblowers. In addition to others he has represented,  Mr. Blum will talk about Mr. Hervé Falciani, the whistleblower the media dubbed “the [Edward] Snowden of Swiss banking.”  Mr. Falciani allegedly stole Swiss bank account information from HSBC in Geneva and as a whistleblower turned the information over to French authorities. This alleged HSBC bank account information eventually fell into the hands of the International Consortium Of Investigative Journalists, which published part of it at their webpages known as the Swiss Leaks project.  Furthermore, Mr. Blum appeared on the CBS/60 Minutes television show to discuss the foregoing.  He will similarly discuss these matters at the October 3rd program and analyze: the IRS whistleblower program; problems whistleblowers face in the real world; and the difficulty lawyers may encounter in dealing with whistleblowers either as clients or tipsters.

ThomasLabaton & Sucharow partner Jordan A. Thomas will also speak at the October 3rd program.  Mr. Thomas will discuss the Securities Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program, as he is one of the world’s leading experts on it. He will review the advantages and disadvantages of the different whistleblower programs; and the ethical concerns gatekeepers like attorneys, accountants, officers and directors have, in reporting illegal behavior in both the civil and criminal contexts.  As more fully set forth below, Mr. Thomas: is a former assistant director in the Commission’s Enforcement Division; had a leadership role in developing the Commission’s whistleblower program; and was assigned to many of the Commission’s highest-profile matters such as those involving Enron, Fannie Mae, UBS & Citigroup.

Photo Charles Bott

Charles Bott QC, Head of Carmelite Chambers in the United Kingdom, is a recognized authority on financial crime and its regulation.  Subject to his availability, Mr. Bott may travel to New York to speak at the October 3rd program. He has appeared in more than 80 serious fraud trials including some of the leading cases of recent years and advised many other clients under investigation.  Mr. Bott specializes in cases of serious fraud, money laundering and revenue evasion; and in the United Kingdom, he is regularly instructed in serious criminal cases and regulatory cases of all kinds.

Continue Reading Whistleblowers, Secret Swiss Bank Accounts & Recovering Hidden Assets

Money Laundering Typology Post

One way to learn how to search for hidden assets is to read “A Laundry List For An Asset Search.” Another way is to study money laundering typologies. Money laundering typologies are used by law enforcement and regulators to develop countermeasures against emerging criminal trends. “100 Cases from the Egmont Group” contains a wide variety of money laundering typologies.¹ Although “100 Cases from the Egmont Group” arises from data collected during the 1990s, it is still relevant today. “100 Cases from the Egmont Group” describes these methods for concealing assets:

  • 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

Below is the money laundering typology “Example B: Limited edition jewellery.”² It is about an agent who participated in an auction for a diamond necklace. The agent tried to conceal monies from suspected frauds by using multiple jurisdictions; offshore bank accounts & a portable valuable commodity—a diamond necklace.

Example B Limited editon jewellery

¹”100 Cases From The Egmont Group” courtesy of The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units.

²“Example B: Limited edition jewellery” courtesy of The Guernsey Financial Services Commission.

First Image: studiostoks/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

Back to Back Loan Image

Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce was my first Asset Search Blog post highlighting back-to-back loans (i.e. a fully collateralized loan in which the borrower and the lender are one and the same). That post mentioned a divorcing husband who hid millions from his wife and the IRS, by claiming he was indebted because of an arm’s length business loan. The husband’s claim about owing money to an arm’s length lender was false, as the loan was back-to-back. In other words, the husband hid millions by secretly arranging to be both the borrower and lender of the loan; and by pretending to be in debt.

Federal prosecutors similarly discussed back–to-back loans in their tax fraud case against Los Angeles, California businessman Masud Sarshar. According to prosecutors, Mr. Sarshar hid tens of millions of dollars from the IRS by using two back-to-back loans and offshore bank accounts in Israel and Hong Kong. Mr. Sarshar supposedly maintained the offshore bank accounts in the names of intermediaries (i.e. nominees). Prosecutors also said an Israeli banker delivered offshore bank account statements to Mr. Sarshar by smuggling them into the U.S. on a USB drive hidden in a necklace.

To avoid being flagged as an American by the offshore banks, Mr. Sarshar is believed to have used Israeli and Iranian passports to open his offshore accounts. When Mr. Sarshar mentioned his offshore accounts during conversations with his Israeli bankers, Mr. Sarshar also reportedly spoke in code. On 3/13/17 Mr. Sarshar was sentenced to 24 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the U.S. and for seeking to impair/impede administration of internal revenue laws. Mr. Sarshar’s 8/1/16 plea agreement can be read here.

Image: Ionut Catalin Parvu/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

3 HInts About Asset Searches

A divorcing spouse; judgment creditor; bankruptcy creditor; or a beneficiary under a trust or will; may face an adversary hiding assets through nominees (i.e. intermediaries). See cf., Fourth Inv. LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2013) (six-part test for nominee ownership applied to tax lien case). An adversary can hide real estate, automobiles, jewelry; and offshore bank accounts by titling them in the names of nominees. Nominees are easily accessed through nominee incorporation services like the one at the “Anonymous Panama Corporation” webpage.

The “Anonymous Panama Corporation” webpage can be used to form a Panamanian shell company with “nominee directors.” The initial fee for this service is $1200. The webpage suggests that one can “save taxes or protect…assets” by forming a Panamanian shell company:

[Y]our personal information will not be available in any government records, but [sic] still maintain complete control over your corporation. The Nominee Directors will not have control over your corporation and can be replaced at any time.

This type of corporation is a good choice if your objective is to save taxes or protect your assets. The actual owner of this corporation is not registered in public records.

Shell companies are not the only things that can be utilized as nominees. Lawyers; accountants; bankers; financial advisors; paramours; family members and trusts can be nominees. In the criminal prosecution called USA v. James S. Faller II, Case #: 13−cr−00029, the Court discussed how a nominee trust could be part of a scheme to hide assets from the IRS. Pages 13-14 of the Court’s 4/30/15 Memorandum Opinion and Order highlighted Mr. Faller’s alleged misuse of nominees.

Mr. Faller from Russell Springs, Kentucky, relied on “nominee names” to evade taxes, an IRS Special Agent’s affidavit claimed at ¶68. Prosecutors argued Mr. Faller evaded taxes by titling his home and bank account in the name of a trust believed to be Mr. Faller’s nominee. Mr. Faller was convicted of tax fraud and on 1/29/16 Mr. Faller was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. Although Mr. Faller appealed his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction at a 1/10/17 Opinion.

Image: Robert Kneschke/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams