Hints for Asset Hunters
The Swiss government’s decision, on February 12, to freeze Hosni Mubarak’s assets in Swiss banks will probably cause sleepless nights to other Middle Eastern rulers who liked to keep themselves in the sun and their assets in the dark. (Cynics will wonder what the Swiss government suddenly discovered that it didn’t know about them before. ) Still, old coffers may be seized, but new coffers will soon be open for business.
There were unconfirmed estimates regarding the magnitude of Mubarak’s personal wealth, ranging from $5 billion to $70 billion, and deposited in Britain, the United States and France. His family is also rumored to own property in London, Paris, Dubai and the U.S. Deposed Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was more blatant. His wife fled the country with one-and-a-half tons of gold, worth more than $55 million, probably just the latest addition to what the couple accumulated and deposited overseas during Ben Ali’s 20 years of rule.
Globally, these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. The World Bank estimates that developing countries lose $20-$40 billion each year through bribery, misappropriation of funds and other corrupt practices by government leaders.
If countries can’t fight the theft of public wealth while their leaders are engaged in it, can they at least recover it after the leaders are deposed? This has never been an easy task, because countries that host the stolen billions are not particularly enthusiastic about helping in the recovery and repatriation of funds that are fueling their own economies – dubious sources notwithstanding.
However, a significant change occurred in 2005, when the United Nations Convention against Corruption was adopted by 140 states, including, among others, Switzerland, Tunisia and Egypt. The signatory countries agreed to cooperate in fighting corruption and provide legal assistance to foreign governments in gathering and transferring evidence for use in court to extradite offenders. Under the convention, countries are also required to support the tracing, freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of corrupt practices. The signatories agreed that in cases of embezzlement of public funds, the confiscated property would be returned to the state requesting it.
With the UN convention in place, it is clear why some corrupt rulers have been shaken. The assets they stole for a rainy day may not be available when the legal clouds over their heads open up. However, although the convention makes it sound simple, the process of discovering, seizing and repatriating stolen assets is a complex, lengthy and tedious undertaking. After all, despots don’t just deposit their holdings in the bank account of “Mr. & Mrs. Corrupt Ruler.”
Financial advisers, some even within the banks, spin a complicated international web of trusts and offshore corporations with nominee shareholders and directors. Sometimes, the web is so complicated that with the passing of time and people, the rulers themselves lose contact with some of their money. Therefore, the first and most difficult stage in the battle to recover these assets is to gather combat-zone intelligence, asking how much is hidden, and where. How do you start? A country newly freed of its dictator may resort to criminal complaints, civil lawsuits or administrative orders of seizure. As a rule, the stolen assets are situated outside the deposed ruler’s country, so substantial international efforts may be necessary before the first dollar, euro or yen is recovered.
In 20 years of experience working for U.S. government agencies in gathering intelligence on criminals who absconded with hundreds of millions of dollars, I have learned a firm lesson: Relying exclusively on foreign governments for assistance in identifying and seizing stolen assets being held on their soil is an exercise in futility. The smaller the country, the more likely it is to put off responding to another country’s request for assistance. Even when it does say yes, the help is often slow in coming.
I’ve even seen cases in which foreign government officials secretly leaked to the absconding criminal (in their eyes, just a respectable investor ) that the U.S. government was on his tail. So countries that seek to retrieve assets stolen by corrupt leaders must operate on two fronts : diplomatically – country-to-country and by invoking the UN convention; and operationally – through independent investigations by outside experts conducting worldwide intelligence-gathering on the assets.
In a nutshell, the asset hunters have a gun with just one bullet. Action must be taken simultaneously in all the places where assets are located, or the money whose existence is yet to be discovered will disappear. Investigators without specific experience in that particular field could trip on land mines planted by the rulers to expose the intelligence operation.
I know from experience: Early in my career, I tripped on one of those land mines, and I still carry a scar on my forehead to remind me to be more careful next time. The mine I stepped on was a corrupt bank employee to whom my target paid a hefty sum to alert him if any suspicious activity was conducted with regard to his account. I was physically attacked; but luckily, the money was seized.
Corrupt rulers know that the world has changed, and we have to assume they’ve adapted accordingly. One of the differences between a gas station robber and a white-collar criminal is that the robber wants cash, because its source cannot be traced. White-collar criminals want everything to look legal if the paper trail is followed. But when there’s a trail, there are traces for the professional to walk through, until a broken link is found, and he can say “Gotcha!”
Posted at 10:38 am | Post a Comment
Holiday Shopping Safety Tips from the FBI
12/1/2010—Just in time for the Holidays, the FBI has published some safe shopping tips:
This holiday season, the FBI reminds shoppers that cyber criminals aggressively create new ways to steal money and personal information. Scammers use many techniques to fool potential victims, including conducting fraudulent auction sales, reshipping merchandise purchased with stolen credit cards, and selling fraudulent or stolen gift cards through auction sites at discounted prices.
Fraudulent Classified Ads and Auction Sales
Internet criminals post classified ads and auctions for products they do not have and make the scam work by using stolen credit cards. Fraudsters receive an order from a victim, charge the victim’s credit card for the amount of the order, then use a separate, stolen credit card for the actual purchase. They pocket the purchase price obtained from the victim’s credit card and have the merchant ship the item directly to the victim. Consequently, an item purchased from an online auction but received directly from the merchant is a strong indication of fraud. Victims of such a scam not only lose the money paid to the fraudster, but may be liable for receiving stolen goods.
Shoppers may help avoid these scams by using caution and not providing financial information directly to the seller, as fraudulent sellers will use this information to purchase items for their schemes. Always use a legitimate payment service to ensure a safe, legitimate purchase.
As for product delivery, fraudsters posing as legitimate delivery services offer reduced or free shipping to customers through auction sites. They perpetuate this scam by providing fake shipping labels to the victim. The fraudsters do not pay for delivery of the packages; therefore, delivery service providers intercept the packages for nonpayment and the victim loses the money paid for the purchase of the product.
Diligently check each seller’s rating and feedback along with their number of sales and the dates on which feedback was posted. Be wary of a seller with 100 percent positive feedback, with a low total number of feedback postings, or with all feedback posted around the same date and time.
Gift Card Scam
Be careful when purchasing gift cards through auction sites or classified ads. It is safest to purchase gift cards directly from the merchant or retail store. If the gift card merchant discovers that your card is fraudulent, the merchant will deactivate the gift card and refuse to honor it for purchases. Victims of this scam lose the money paid for the gift card purchase.
Phishing and Smishing Schemes
In phishing schemes, a fraudster poses as a legitimate entity and uses e-mail and scam websites to obtain victims’ personal information, such as account numbers, user names, passwords, etc. Smishing is the act of sending fraudulent text messages to bait a victim into revealing personal information.
Be leery of e-mails or text messages that indicate a problem or question regarding your financial accounts. In this scam, fraudsters direct victims to follow a link or call a number to update an account or correct a purported problem. The link directs the victim to a fraudulent website or message that appears legitimate. Instead, the site allows the fraudster to steal any personal information the victim provides.
Current smishing schemes involve fraudsters calling victims’ cell phones offering to lower the interest rates for credit cards the victims do not even possess. If a victim asserts that they do not own the credit card, the caller hangs up. These fraudsters call from TRAC cell phones that do not have voicemail, or the phone provides a constant busy signal when called, rendering these calls virtually untraceable.
Another scam involves fraudsters directing victims, via e-mail, to a spoofed website. A spoofed website is a fake site that misleads the victim into providing personal information, which is routed to the scammer’s computer.
Phishing schemes related to deliveries are also rampant. Legitimate delivery service providers neither e-mail shippers regarding scheduled deliveries nor state when a package is intercepted or being temporarily held. Consequently, e-mails informing of such delivery issues are phishing scams that can lead to personal information breaches and financial losses.
Tips
Here are some tips you can use to avoid becoming a victim of cyber fraud:
* Do not respond to unsolicited (spam) e-mail.
* Do not click on links contained within an unsolicited e-mail.
* Be cautious of e-mail claiming to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders. Scan the attachments for viruses if possible.
* Avoid filling out forms contained in e-mail messages that ask for personal information.
* Always compare the link in the e-mail with the link to which you are directed and determine if they match and will lead you to a legitimate site.
* Log directly onto the official website for the business identified in the e-mail, instead of “linking” to it from an unsolicited e-mail. If the e-mail appears to be from your bank, credit card issuer, or other company you deal with frequently, your statements or official correspondence from the business will provide the proper contact information.
* Contact the actual business that supposedly sent the e-mail to verify if the e-mail is genuine.
* If you are asked to act quickly, or there is an emergency, it may be a scam. Fraudsters create a sense of urgency to get you to act quickly.
* Verify any requests for personal information from any business or financial institution by contacting them using the main contact information.
* Remember if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Posted at 4:11 pm | 1 Comment
Fraudulent Notification Deceives Consumers Out of Thousands of Dollars
A warning from the FBI:
11/29/2010—The IC3 continues to receive reports of letters and e-mails being distributed pursuant to prize sweepstakes or lottery schemes. These schemes use counterfeit checks that bear legitimate-looking logos of various financial institutions to fool victims into sending money to the fraudsters.
Fraudsters tell victims they won a sweepstakes or lottery, but to receive a lump sum payout, they must pay the taxes and processing fees upfront. Fraudsters direct individuals to call a telephone number to initiate a letter of instructions. The letter alleges that the victim may elect to take an advance on the winnings to make the required upfront payment. The letter includes a check in the amount of the alleged taxes and fees, along with processing instructions. Ultimately, victims believe they are using the advance to make the required upfront payment, but in reality they are falling prey to the scheme.
The victim deposits the check into their own bank, which credits the account for the amount of the check before the check clears. The victim immediately withdraws the money and wires it to the fraudsters. Afterwards, the check proves to be counterfeit and the bank pulls the respective funds from the victim’s account, leaving the victim liable for the amount of the counterfeit check plus any additional fees the bank may charge.
Persons may fall victim to this scheme due to the allure of easy money and the apparent legitimacy of the check the fraudsters include in the letter of instruction. The alleged cash prizes and locations of the financial institutions vary.
Tips to avoid being scammed:
* A federal statute prohibits mailing lottery tickets, advertisements, or payments to purchase tickets in a foreign lottery.
* Be leery if you do not remember entering a lottery or sweepstakes.
* Beware of lotteries or sweepstakes that charge a fee prior to delivering your prize.
* Be wary of demands to send additional money as a requirement to be eligible for future winnings.
If you have been a victim of this type of scam or any other cyber crime, you can report it to the IC3 at www.IC3.gov. The IC3 complaint database links complaints for potential referral to law enforcement for case consideration. Complaint information is also used to identify emerging trends and patterns to alert the public to new criminal schemes.
Posted at 5:01 pm | Post a Comment
Burden of Proof Shifts in Asset Recovery Cases
October 27, 2010
In most asset recovery cases, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, meaning that they have to prove their opponent’s guilt. In a surprising shift, this may no longer be the case for some asset recovery cases. Prompted by the Swiss Restitution of Illicit Assets Act (RIAA), the burden of proof in the Swiss court now lies with the suspected crooked politicians and kleptocrats. The RIAA freezes a suspect’s assets on the assumption that they come from a public corruption scheme. The suspect then has to prove that the assets are legitimate or the money is permanently removed. This act was prompted by an attempt to discourage foreign dictators from hiding illegal and stolen funds in the country’s banks.
A similar shift in attitude has occurred in a U.S. court as well. A New York court placed the burden of proof onto investors who may have profited from a Ponzi scheme. The October 16 Decision viewed funds paid-out to investors, before a Ponzi scheme was discovered, as presumptively fraudulent transfers. The investors are facing a ‘clawback’, in which they will have return profits to injured investors if they cannot prove that the funds came from a legitimate source, and not the Ponzi scheme. Investors who profited in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme will most likely be affected by this precedent, especially because of Madoff’s guilty plea.
Posted at 12:28 pm | Post a Comment
The U.S Supreme Court: U.S. citizens investing in foreign stocks limited in lawsuits against fraud in the U.S.
October 13, 2010
By Haggai Carmon
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against shareholders in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. The suit had been filed on behalf of Australian shareholders whose investments in an Australian bank went south, allegedly because of the bank’s fraudulent activities. The judgment limits fraud claims against foreign-based multinational companies, stating that U.S. securities laws, despite increasing availability of foreign shares, should concern only domestic stock purchases in order to avoid “incompatibility with the applicable laws of other countries.” Essentially, the court’s decision eliminates fraud claims by U.S. citizens who invest in foreign stocks.
On top of the Morrison ruling, the Supreme Court has also made it harder for shareholders to prove their damages and limits their rights to sue accountants, lawyers, and others involved in allege fraud. In response, securities lawyers and some state officials have petitioned to pass legislation that would cancel out these rulings. They argue that in a marketplace in which U.S. capital flows into foreign stock exchanges, it would be unfair to deny U.S. investors the protections accorded by domestic law simply because they purchase stock overseas. On the other hand, some may agree with the ruling because it limits foreign shareholders’ use of U.S. courts in securities fraud cases.
Since the Morrison ruling, cases against Alstom SA and Canadian Superior Energy Inc. have been affected. In each case, justices banned fraud claims by overseas stock purchasers who alleged millions of dollars in losses. Currently, there are two major cases which could be affected by the Morrison decision. A Pennsylvania public pension fund has alleged that it suffered $35 million in losses because of Toyota’s alleged negligence in regards to product defects. Public pension funds in Ohio and New York have filed suit against BP, for huge losses purportedly incurred when BP allegedly mismanaged a drilling site in the Gulf of Mexico. The Morrison ruling could reduce damages recovered in both cases because the two defendants are foreign-based companies.
In addition, older cases may be affected by this decision. Vivendi SA, an international media conglomerate, is challenging a decision made against them that held the company liable for misstatements about its financial health. The company is asking for the case to be reviewed, though the plaintiff’s counsel says there will be no change in the $90 million settlement.
Posted at 3:57 pm | Post a Comment
New Law in Switzerland & U.S. DOJ to Support Recovery of Unlawfully Seized Assets
August 26, 2010
Swiss legislators are currently discussing a bill that if passed, will make it easier for developing states to pursue and recover stolen assets that are being hidden in Swiss banks typically sworn to secrecy. Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formed a special task force focused on tracing the public assets pilfered by corrupt officials the world over.
The new Swiss law would allow assets believed to have been stolen to be frozen, for as long as five years, without there being a mutual legal assistance treaty in place between the asset recovering nation and Switzerland.
The bill, which was introduced in April, complements the anti-corruption message of the Justice Department’s recently formed Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, whose purpose is to investigate powerful officials and politicians, former and current, who are believed to have generously helped themselves to public funds.
It is expected that the combination of the DOJ’s new initiative and the likely slackening of the banks’ oath of silence in Switzerland will increase investigations into embezzled funds, estimated at about $1 trillion by the World Bank.
Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the DOJ has increased its commitment to fighting global corruption, not only in its newest initiative to recover public assets seized by kleptocrats, but also by targeting the companies who bribe the type of corrupt officials who steal from their own constituencies.
One Swiss official shared that the bill, entitled the “Federal Act on the restitution of politically exposed persons’ assets” could pass in early September. Of course, the law will be of more help to private attorneys and firms looking to recover assets squirreled away by political corruption, than to the DOJ, which already has mutual assistance treaties, influence and diplomatic muscle in place.
Posted at 1:24 pm | Post a Comment
US Attorney General Announces Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative
August 2, 2010
US Attorney General Eric Holder has declared war on governments riddled with stealing and corruption, or kleptocracies, the world over. The new enforcement program, called the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, targets public corruption in foreign states, explained Holder during a speech he recently delivered to African leaders convening in Uganda.
Holder spoke of the global impact of foreign bribery, noting that according to a 2004 World Bank report, approximately $1 trillion+ in bribes are paid each year out of a $30 trillion world economy. He highlighted the importance of neither condoning nor ignoring the practice.
Although details of how the program is to work remain unclear, the focus of the asset recovery initiative will be on large-scale corruption schemes orchestrated by foreign government officials. The initiative will aim to recover the money stolen by corrupt officials that otherwise would have served the people.
The Attorney General assured his audience that combating this sort of corruption was a “top priority” for him both in the U.S. and abroad.
“As many here have learned – often in painful and devastating ways – corruption imperils development, stability, competition and economic investment. It also undermines the promise of democracy.”
The initiative seems to be a complement to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which bans bribery of foreign officials to obtain or maintain business. Since the law went into effect, the U.S. has pursued three times as many foreign bribery cases as other countries have done. The U.S. Justice Department has, over the past six years, prosecuted 80 individuals and 37 corporations for corruption, amassing over $1.5 billion in fines.
Posted at 1:01 pm | Post a Comment
Manhattan Resident & Democratic Fundraiser Charged with Mega Fraud
July 27, 2010
41-year-old Courtney Dupree, the president of GDC Acquisitions, has been charged in Brooklyn Federal Court, along with three of his senior managers, for mega bank fraud.
According to the charges brought against Dupree and his cohorts, the group misrepresented the Long Island City-based company’s books so as to secure a hefty, $21-million loan from Amalgamated Bank. Instead of reporting $9 million in annual billings, the men reported $25.2 million, reads the criminal complaint.
The group has been apprehended as part of the investigations of Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. Dupree might feel particularly wronged at the circumstances, given that he hosted a $1000-a-head fundraiser at his apartment for Obama’s presidential campaign, with Valerie Jarrett the lure for attendees.
Dupree, released on $800,000 bail, was apparently caught on tape by an informant saying that the bank audit wasn’t a big deal, nothing to worry about. Whether he was making light of the situation because he is innocent, or because he thought his mega fraud plan was foolproof, awaits to be seen.
His attorney expressed the hope that over the next few months, the charges against Dupree would be proven inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The government’s prosecuting attorney assured that “[t]hose who abuse their positions of influence and trust can expect to be investigated and prosecuted.”
Posted at 10:20 am | 2 Comments
Iranian Scientist Shahram Amiri Answers Some Questions, Raising Others: Op Ed by Haggai Carmon in The Huffington Post
July 21, 2010
The Huffington Post Op Ed 7 20 10
I don’t purport to suggest that Shahram Amiri or the Iranian intelligence services read my July 13 Op Ed (in which I posed ten questions following Amiri’s public surfacing in the U.S.) and then rushed to respond. That said, Amiri’s July 15 appearance on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting’s public television offered some answers, while simultaneously giving rise to daunting new questions.
First, a recap: On July 13 I wrote, “Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist, went missing in May 2009 during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. Other than the fact that Amiri subsequently resurfaced in the U.S., almost everything else in the espionage-thriller style case is disputed publicly. The barrage of information offered during the past 5 weeks makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine information, disinformation and spins.
“On June 8, 2010, in a video clip broadcast on Iranian state media, a man claiming to be Amiri said he had been kidnapped by CIA agents during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2009. ‘They took me to a house located somewhere that I didn’t know. They gave me an anesthetic injection,’ he said in the video. He then said that he was living in Tucson, Arizona, and had been subjected to eight months of ‘the most severe tortures and psychological pressures.’
“On the same day, a different video clip was posted on YouTube, appearing to have been recorded by the same person, completely contradicting the version offered in the previous video. In the second video, the person claimed to be in the United States voluntarily to continue his education, ‘I am free here and I assure everyone that I am safe.’
“In a third video broadcast on Iran state TV on June 29, 2010, a man appearing to be Dr. Amiri said, ‘I, Shahram Amiri, am a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a few minutes ago I succeeded in escaping U.S. security agents in Virginia. Presently, I am producing this video in a safe place. I could be re-arrested at any time.’”
Then on July 13 at 6:30pm, Amiri walked into the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, which hosts the Iran interests section, since Iran has no diplomatic ties with the U.S., and asked to return to Iran. Shortly thereafter, he flew back to Tehran unhindered.
Below are some of my original questions along with relevant statements from Amiri, as quoted by the NY Times and by Iranian Press TV, followed by new intriguing questions that Amiri’s statements raise.
2. If the person is indeed Dr. Amiri, how did he manage to escape? Wasn’t he being held in a safe, escape-proof environment guarded by U.S. intelligence community agents? Did he have outside or inside help?
Amiri said in his most recent interview that CIA and FBI agents had stormed his house in Tucson, Arizona, after he posted his first video message on the Internet. He also said that he was moved to that house, which had more comfortable residential surroundings than his military place of custody.
Amiri’s statement is a strong admission that recently, he lived freely in the U.S. This supports the U.S. position and undermines Amiri’s claim that he was in custody when he allegedly managed to escape. His new account on Iranian TV sounds more like a tale taken directly from A Thousand and One Nights, the roots of which are in ancient Arabic and Persian folklore. Why did he offer such an implausible explanation? Did he invent it or was the script written for him by the Iranian security services?
The statement is also incredible. In the first June 8 video, Amiri said he had managed to escape, and yet now he claims that he was in a house stormed by the CIA and FBI. Was it the house they provided him with? If so, why did he claim to have escaped if he was still in the house? Was it a new house traced by the CIA and FBI? If so, it’s hard to believe that, aside from forcing him to record another video in which he assures that he came to the U.S. voluntarily, the CIA and FBI just walked away. After all, they knew of Amiri’s intention to return to Iran and propagate the ‘captive’ story, per his video.
3. How did Dr. Amiri know to contact and identify his supporters? How did they know to contact and identify him? Was there a pre-arranged procedure of contact, which may support the sham defection theory?
This question remains mostly unanswered. However, in his Iranian TV interview, Amiri said, “In reality, our country’s intelligence services were able to contact me and they provided me with the necessary facilities to make my first film.”
6. In the third video he said that he had escaped a few minutes earlier. If his claim is true, then it means that Dr. Amiri was moved to an Iranian “safe house” in Virginia not far from the location where he was being held by U.S. agents. Who prepared and maintained that “safe house?”
According to the most recent version of the story, perhaps the Iranian agents he alleges helped him moved him to a safe house. Does Amiri think that the CIA and FBI agents involved would ever have let him return to Iran before they discovered and arrested any such Iranian agents? And since Amiri was allowed to board a plane back to Iran without interruption, perhaps his story about Iranian intelligence services helping him in the U.S. is yet another tale?
8. Who filmed/made the videos in which Dr. Amiri claimed to have been kidnapped?
Amiri said in the interview that after further contact with Iranian agents, he was able to hold a brief video conversation with his wife, which gave him “complete confidence” in the Iranian authorities and the well-being of his family.
Amiri did not disclose from what location he was able to hold the video conference call with his wife, however he seems to suggest that he was concerned about how the Iranian security service would treat him if he returned.
Why should he worry? He claimed that he was abducted and managed to escape. Wouldn’t that guarantee him a hero’s welcome? Or maybe Amiri correctly feared that his tale would be met with suspicion back home? When Amiri decided to return, he didn’t realize that trouble would come so soon. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a press conference in Tehran on Thursday that the “details of his abduction will be clarified after an investigation.” These words should put the fear of God in Amiri. Indeed, if the U.S. account is true, Amiri should start counting his days to a fateful meeting with an Iranian executioner.
Two final notes and one suggestion: When Amiri disappeared, Iranian media described him as a nuclear scientist. However when he returned to Iran, he was referred to by Iran as an “academic” or “researcher.” Is this a concerted effort to belittle Amiri’s status and his access to confidential information on Iran’s nuclear plans? Seems so: “Shahram Amiri is not a nuclear scientist and we reject it,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi told reporters at Imam Khomeini Airport, adding that he is a researcher in one of the universities in Iran.
Amiri said that the U.S. had offered to swap him for the three Americans, Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd, who were arrested in the western Iranian city of Marivan for illegal entry into the country in July 2009. Iranian Press TV said that officials in Iran had dismissed the proposed swap. This sounds like another Iranian attempt to show that Amiri was a captive, not an asylum seeker.
Amiri said that the United States arranged for him to attend a university in Virginia and supplied him with a driver’s license and a Social Security number, even though, he said, he had not requested either document.
Perhaps the U.S. should release copies of Amiri’s various applications with his signature on them. If these are available, it would be interesting to hear Amiri’s explanation, if he’s available for comment.
Posted at 4:54 pm | Post a Comment
One Dead Israeli Spy, Two Theories of Double Loyalty, Three Explanations of How He Died, Four Suspects: Too Many Unanswered Questions — Op Ed by Haggai Carmon in The Huffington Post
July 20, 2010
The Huffington Post Op Ed 7 14 10
In June 2007 Ashraf Marwan, an Egyptian businessman, fell to his death from the balcony of his London apartment.
Did he fall, jump or get a push? These questions have lingered for the past three years and remain unanswered. If he was murdered, then his death could help us figure out whether Marwan was a loyal Israeli spy, a double Egyptian-Israeli spy or a spy with shifting loyalties.
Marwan was a son-in-law of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and a close aide to Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat. Israeli sources labeled him as the best Israeli spy ever, one who gave Israel an early warning of the break of the October 1973 war with Egypt. At the same time, he was accused by Israel’s former chief of military intelligence General Eli Zeira of being an Egyptian agent controlled by Egypt, pretending to be a spy to deceive Israel.
With two conflicting accounts regarding Marwan’s loyalty, it’s little wonder that there are multiple assumptions about how he died. If he was indeed a victim of foul play, who pushed him?
Was Marwan killed by Israeli Mossad agents attempting to prevent the publication of his memoirs, which vanished from the apartment when his death was discovered? Or maybe the assassins were Egyptian agents avenging Marwan’s alleged betrayal (if he was indeed serving Israel only)? Perhaps the assassins were unrelated to Marwan’s distant past, and his death related to his immediate past of arms deals and other businesses, including an association with Libya’s president Muammar Khadafy? Conspiracy theories aside, is it also plausible that Marwan’s death was mere accident or even suicide?
Can Marwan’s personal history shed light on his loyalties?
After completing a degree in chemistry in 1965, he joined the Egyptian Army and in 1966, he married Mona, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s third daughter. After a short stint in a junior position in the presidential press office, Marwan went to London to obtain an advanced degree in chemistry. There, he was rumored to have had a romance with the wife of a wealthy Kuwaiti sheik, who sponsored Marwan’s lavish lifestyle. President Nasser discovered the affair, ordered him back to Egypt and asked his daughter to divorce him. She refused. Back in Egypt, although Marwan managed to have his father-in-law, President Nasser, give him a few political assignments, Marwan never held a top position in Nasser’s regime.
In the spring of 1969, Marwan became a “walk in” spy for Israel. He approached the Israeli embassy in London and offered his clandestine services. After being rejected twice for fear of a trap, he was finally recruited. Included in the Israeli Mossad’s assessment of Marwan’s motives was the fact that he was greedy. He demanded $100,000 for each contact he made with Israel; on the other hand, he expressed disillusionment with his country. It is not farfetched to assume that Marwan was also bitter that President Nasser had not appointed him to high government positions.
As is usual in the case of walk-ins, the Mossad demanded that Marwan prove his new loyalty. And indeed, Marwan provided the Mossad with the record made of President Nasser’s secret visit to the Soviet Union on January 22, 1970, during which the president sought a Soviet supply of fighter jets. Then, President Nasser suddenly died in September 1970, of a heart attack at the age of 52, without having had a known history of cardiac ailments. Marwan’s career in the Egyptian government flourished when President Anwar Sadat succeeded Nasser, leaving behind Ali Sabri, another contender to the presidency.
An intriguing coincidence – or not – is the fact that at Nasser’s funeral, both Anwar Sadat and Ali Sabri suffered heart attacks, which they survived. Was a heart attack ever recognized as a contagious disease?
Was there a conspiracy against President Nasser that ended with his sudden death, bringing Sadat to power with Marwan, his informant? In 2008, an Egyptian court in South Cairo rendered a judgment in favor of Ruqaya Sadat, daughter of late President Anwar Sadat, brought against Dr. Hoda Abdel Nasser, the daughter of Sadat’s predecessor. The judgment was for 150,000 Egyptian pounds, for slandering Sadat by accusing him of masterminding a plan to kill Gamal Abdel Nasser in order to succeed him.
In 1971, Marwan secretly informed President Sadat on Ali Sabri, a former head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, and former vice president, who was planning a coup together with others including Marwan’s immediate boss, Minister for Presidential Affairs Sami Sharaf. President Sadat gratefully gave Sharaf’s job to Marwan, which gave Marwan access to classified information.
Over the years, the secret information Marwan passed Israel included a report on the delivery to Egypt of Soviet Scud missiles, a report on a terrorist plan to attack an El Al plane in Rome and valuable information regarding Sadat’s meetings with Arab leaders.
However, the feather in Marwan’s hat from the Israeli perspective was his warning, 40 hours before Egypt and Syria’s sudden attack on Israel on Yom Kippur of 1973. In fact, Marwan was off only by a few hours.
The unprecedented claim, made by General Zeira in a press interview, that Marwan was a double agent was interpreted by many to create an alibi for Zeira for his failure to act on earlier warnings prior to the break of the 1973 war. He was accused of adhering to the “concept” that Egypt would not attack Israel until it obtained sufficient military power (which per Zeira’s assessment, was still inadequate), thereby ignoring warning signs. General Zvi Zamir, head of the Mossad during the Yom Kippur War and the personal recipient of the alert from Marwan 40 hours before the Egyptian attack, accused General Zeira of leaking top-secret information, and filed a criminal complaint against Zeira. In return, General Zeira filed, in 2005, a libel lawsuit against General Zamir. The case was removed to arbitration before the former deputy chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Theodore Orr. In his judgment, Justice Orr accepted General Zamir’s version that Marwan had not doubled.
Was Marwan a double agent? On one hand, he gave Israel extremely valuable information that proved accurate. On the other hand, the fact that he volunteered in 1969 to serve Israel without being approached first is suspicious. It is a known fact that most embassies of certain countries are constantly observed from the outside. Israel’s embassy in London is probably not an exception. Furthermore, on October 6, 2004, when Egypt commemorated the October 1973 War, Marwan was viewed on Egyptian television shaking the hand of President Mubarak while they laid a wreath on Nasser’s tomb. This could indicate that Egypt does not consider Marwan a traitor, but rather a loyal Egyptian who managed to double-cross Israel.
Marwan’s wife insisted that he was murdered by Mossad agents and caused the British authorities to reopen the case. After hearing evidence and conducting an investigation, a British coroner, William Dolman, issued today an open verdict saying that there was no evidence to support allegations of murder. He added, “We simply don’t know the facts, despite careful investigation.”
The saga and mystery are unlikely to be put to rest, unless intelligence files become public. And that will not happen in our lifetime.
Posted at 4:52 pm | Post a Comment
