JP Morgan pays $88.5m to settle sanction violations

JP Morgan Chase has agreed with the US Treasury Department to pay $88.3m (£54.2m) to avoid liability for "apparent violations" of sanctions against Cuba, Sudan, Liberia and Iran.

The Treasury said such violations, which took place between March 2005 and March 2011, were "egregious".

These included processing 1,711 transfers totalling $178.5m to Cubans in contravention of US regulations.

JP Morgan said there had been no intention to violate regulations.

"The firm screens hundreds of millions of transaction and customer records per day, and annual error rates are a tiny fraction of 1%," said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for the bank.

"We are pleased to have resolved these matters and to move forward with enhancements to our [foreign assets] compliance programme."

JP Morgan reported net profits of $5.4bn for the three months to 30 June, up from $4.8bn a year earlier.

Source: BBC

US maintains Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria on terror sponsors' list

The US has retained Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria on the list nations which allegedly sponsor of terrorism.

The State Department retained these four countries in this list after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton determined that the government of these nations has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

As a result, these countries would face a wide range of sanctions including a ban on arms-related exports and sales; controls over exports of dual-use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism; prohibitions on economic assistance and imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982, the Government of Cuba maintained a public stance against terrorism and terrorist financing in 2010, but there was no evidence that it had severed ties with elements from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and recent media reports indicate some current and former members of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty continue to reside in Cuba, the State Department said.

Iran, designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2010.

Tehran's financial, material, and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy, it said.

In 2010, Iran remained the principal supporter of groups implacably opposed to the Middle East Peace Process, it added. Sudan, which was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1993, the State Department said remained a cooperative partner in global counter-terrorism efforts against al-Qaida in 2010.

During the past year, the Government of Sudan worked actively to counter AQ operations that posed a potential threat to US interests and personnel in Sudan.

Sudanese officials have indicated that they viewed continued cooperation to the US as important and recognized the potential benefits of American training and information-sharing.

Syria was designated as the State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1979. In 2010, it continued its political support to a variety of terrorist groups affecting the stability of the region and beyond, the report said.

The State Department said Syria provided political and weapons support to Hizballah in Lebanon and allowed Iran to resupply the terrorist organization with weapons.

The external leadership of Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, were based in Damascus and operated within Syria's borders.

Statements supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah consistently permeated government speeches and press statements, it said.

Source: Deccan Herald

KENYA: AML Bill Passes, But Does Govt Mean Business?

Kenya's Parliament finally passed the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Bill in December. But while the passing of the bill is viewed as a highlight of the Tenth Parliament, many fear it may just be a gimmick by the government to appease international partners.

George Kegoro, the executive director of International Commission of Jurists - Kenya Chapter, says while the legislation is good, he doubts there is political will to completely stamp out money laundering in Kenya.

"The existence of the legislation is not sufficient to deter the vice neither are the stiff penalties that are recommended in the bill," he says. "There is need for genuine support from the government to enact this law. We need a good set of people to be put in place to interpret the legislation."

Kegoro, whose organisation undertakes advocacy and policy work aimed at strengthening the role of lawyers and judges in protecting human rights and the rule of law, argues that while the bill was government-sponsored, Kenya’s track-record on corruption is poor and he doubts the genuineness of the political class.

It is the fourth attempt since 2004 to pass a bill to prevent the concealment of large profits from drug trafficking and other organised crime, and even this time around it faced resistance from members of parliament who believed the bill was a sly back-door re-introduction of an Anti-Terrorism Bill which had been quashed.

When the bill was tabled in November, an assistant minister in defiance of his own government, strongly opposed the tenets of the Bill. The assistant minister for public service, Aden Sugow, opposed the Bill saying it was an attack on the Muslim community. He argued implementing the Bill would be bowing to the interests of external interests and said that Kenya currently has adequate laws in place to deter money laundering.

While supporting the bill, defence minister Yusuf Hajji warned of a general feeling among the Muslim community that the legislation was targeting them. The Bill went forward after assurances from Prime Minister Raila Odinga that the government had no such intentions.

Once signed by the president, the law will establish a Financial Reporting Centre to assist in the identification of the proceeds of crime. An Asset Recovery Agency will be charged with tracing and recovering ill-gotten assets.

According to Job Ogonda executive director of international corruption watchdogs Transparency International, this would mean millions of dollars stashed in off-shore accounts swindled from Kenya could be recovered.

But Ogonda doubts the passage of new legislation will improve Kenya’s standing as a corrupt state internationally.

"At the moment it is embarrassing to be a Kenyan. Nigeria is improving with regards to corruption because they have shown tangible commitment of doing something about graft. However, the same cannot be said for Kenya," he says.

"We have previously had good pieces of legislation which would have helped fight graft, however, nothing has been done. How many ministers or former ministers have ever gone to prison because of corruption?" Ogonda wonders.

Ogonda is referring to anti-corruption legislation such as the Public Procurement and the Public Officers Ethics Act which require all public office holders to declare their wealth and origin of the same: this older legislation has had no noticeable effect.

Kenya’s record internationally as a corrupt state has for many years been bad and in the bribery and corruption index released by Transparency International, the country has kept the company of states such as Nigeria, Russia and Zimbabwe. Currently, Kenya is position 147 out of 180 on the global index of corruption.

Indeed the passing of the anti-money laundering bill comes in the wake of the release of a U.S. State Department report saying 93 million dollars of earnings from drug trafficking are laundered in the country’s financial system annually.

Another equally damning report by a UK firm, Kroll Associates, hired by the Kenyan government to track wealth acquired corruptly, revealed an estimated $1.7 billion is currently stashed in off-shore accounts. While the results of this 2004 report have remained confidential, the document was leaked: no action has been taken against any of the prominent figures named in its 110 pages.

But all the right noises were made when the bill was moved in Parliament by deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, who said that in view of the magnitude of the problem to the economy, the debate should focus on the quality of the legislation to ensure it was stringent enough.

Seconding the bill, Raila said, "The country risks becoming a pariah state unless the legislation is passed. We have suffered from the effects of money laundering especially in the property sector whose value has been skyrocketing due to the money being brought from the acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia".

A boom in property prices in Nairobi is preventing a majority of Kenyans from buying real estate, and in some cases even pricing locals out of the rental market. Media reports are linking the boom with profits from Somali pirates who seized numerous vessels during 2009, extracting handsome fees from their owners before releasing ships and crew members. In certain Nairobi neighbourhoods, Somalis are willing and able to pay rent up front for periods of even up to two years.

Ogonda states that for many years, Kenya has been a hub of money laundering with illegally acquired cash from Europe, South Africa, South America, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania finding its way into local financial markets.

"Due to our porous borders and poor implementation of legislation, people have simply walked in with huge amounts of cash, hired a lawyer to front for them who in turn invest the cash, especially in property," Ogonda says.

He says despite moves to assure the independence of the new watchdog agencies' leadership, and fresh monitoring requirements for the banking system, the version of the bill which is now awaiting presidential assent does not demand greater accountability from lawyers whose lawyer-client privileges remain intact.

Kegoro notes that the prescribed penalties are fairly high - jail terms of two to five years, with fines of up to $65,000 for individuals, and corporate penalties set as high as $330,000 or the value of the property. But, he argues, it is not the severity of the penalty that will make people fear it. It is the certainty of being caught, hence the need for genuine political will to implement the law.

Ogonda is in agreement. "Application of the bill is what will be the determining factor. The structure of governance has to support the law and if it remains the same the legislation can exist and nothing will change."

By Susan Anyangu-Amu

Source: IPS

Saudi Arabia: Cabinet looks at money laundering

Monday’s Cabinet meeting, chaired by King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, resulted in approval for measures to address issues concerning money laundering and terrorism funding as well as housing.


The King briefed the session, held at Al-Yamama Palace in the capital, on the most significant communications of the past week, including the visits to the Kingdom of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir.
King Abdullah also briefed the Cabinet on communications he received from the President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and his reception of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Dawoud Awghlou and the Second Vice President of Afghanistan, Abdul Karim Khalili.

Minister of Culture and Information Abdul Aziz Khoja released a statement to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) saying that the meeting looked at reports on developments in the Arab and Islamic world as well as wider international affairs and discussed the Kingdom’s economy following the recent announcement of the national budget.

Cabinet approval was given to authorize Prince Naif, Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, to sign with foreign authorities a memorandum of understanding on collaboration in investigation into money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Measures were also approved following a study on providing land grants to Saudi nationals to facilitate the acquisition of homes. The measures included joining the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs program to the Iskan housing program to guarantee citizens housing, the provision of land to the Housing Commission to build homes for nationals in conformity with regulations and government-planned zones, provide all services stipulated for by the budget, and help beneficiaries of housing projects integrate with the rest of society by ensuring that projects are evenly distributed across cities. Cabinet approval was further given for the proposed Board of Directors at the Balad Al-Ameen Construction Development Company for the period of three years and its members from government, private and other sectors.

Similar approval was given for the restructuring of the Board of Directors of the Jeddah Development and Construction Company.

Source: The Saudi Gazette

Libya's Membership Application To MENAFATF Approved

Members of the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing organization, the Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force, or MENAFATF, approved Libya's membership application Tuesday, MENAFATF President Abdulrahim Al Awadi said.

"The plenary of 17 members approved the application of Libya to be a member and the application of the World Customs Organization to be an observer member," Al Awadi told reporters in Fujeirah, United Arab Emirates.

Libya will become the 18th member state of the organization, which was set up in November 2004 and includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Sudan, Iraq and Egypt. The U.S., U.K., France and Spain are observer members, as well as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The U.A.E. currently holds the presidency.

The U.A.E., which is keen to expand membership, also proposed that Djbouti, Comoros Islands, Seychelles and Maldives become members. The proposal is still being studied by member states.

Al Awadi added that the taskforce will meet next in Bahrain, which takes over the presidency of the organization in May 2009.

He also said that the global credit crisis won't draw attention away from fighting money laundering and terrorist financing.

"Members reiterate the financial crisis should not affect progress and, on the contrary, will add resolve to progress," Al Awadi said.

Source: Zawya

Islamic Charity Charged with Terrorist Financing; Former U.S. Congressman Indicted

KANSAS CITY -- A federal grand jury in the Western District of Missouri has returned a superseding indictment that charges the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) and several of its former officers with eight new counts of engaging in prohibited financial transactions for the benefit of U.S.-designated terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The indictment also charges former U.S. Congressman Mark Deli Siljander with money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the case.

The 42-count superseding indictment returned today was announced by Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; John F. Wood, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri; Joseph Billy, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division; and Monte C. Strait, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Kansas City Field Office.

“This superseding indictment paints a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States Congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payment for his advocacy on behalf of the charity,” said Assistant Attorney General Wainstein.

“An organization right here in the American heartland allegedly sent funds to Pakistan for the benefit of a specially designated global terrorist with ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban,” said U.S. Attorney Wood. “By bringing this case in the middle of America, we seek to make it harder for terrorists to do business halfway around the globe. The indictment also alleges that a former congressman engaged in money laundering and obstruction of a federal investigation in an effort to disguise IARA’s misuse of taxpayer money that the government had provided for humanitarian purposes.”

IARA, the Islamic charitable organization named in today’s indictment, was headquartered in Columbia, Mo., and was formerly known as the Islamic African Relief Agency-USA. IARA was officially formed in 1985 and closed in October 2004, when it was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as a specially designated global terrorist organization. Mubarak Hamed, 51, of Columbia, Mo., a naturalized U.S. citizen from Sudan, served as IARA’s former executive director and is named as a defendant in the indictment.

Also charged in today’s superseding indictment is Mark Deli Siljander, 57, a former U.S. Congressman from Michigan (1981-87) who serves as the owner/director of Global Strategies, Inc., a planning, marketing and public relations company located in the Washington, D.C. area.

Other defendants named in the indictment are Ali Mohamed Bagegni, 53, formerly of Columbia, Mo, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Libya and a former member of IARA’s board of directors; Ahmad Mustafa, 55, of Columbia, a citizen of Iraq, and a former fund-raiser for IARA; Khalid Al-Sudanee, 56, a citizen and resident of Jordan, and the regional director of the Middle East office of the Islamic African Relief Agency (also known as the Islamic Relief Agency, or ISRA); and Abdel Azim El-Siddig, 51, of Palos Heights, Ill., a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Sudan, and formerly vice president for international operations for IARA.

On March 6, 2007, IARA, along with five officers, employees and associates were charged in a 33-count indictment for illegally transferring funds to Iraq in violation of federal sanctions. They were also charged with stealing government funds, with misusing IARA’s charitable status to raise funds for an unlawful purpose, and with attempting to avoid government detection of their illegal activities by, among other things, falsely denying in a nationally-televised interview that a procurement agent of Osama bin Laden had been an employee of IARA. These charges are included in the superseding indictment returned today.

New Terrorism-Related Charges Against IARA

Today’s superseding indictment adds to the original charges by alleging that IARA and its former executive director, Mubarak Hamed, engaged in prohibited financial transactions for the benefit of Specially Designated Global Terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader and founder of the Hezb-e-Islami-Gulbuddin (HIG), who has participated in and supported terrorist acts by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Hekmatyar has vowed to engage in a holy war against the United States and international troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. government designated Hekmatyar as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on Feb. 19, 2003, thereby blocking all property and interests in property of Hekmatyar.

According to Counts Thirty-Four through Forty-One of the new indictment, IARA and Hamed knowingly and willfully engaged in financial transactions for the benefit of Hekmatyar’s organization by sending approximately $130,000 in 2003 and 2004 in numerous transactions to Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan, purportedly for an orphanage housed in buildings owned and controlled by Hekmatyar.

“Sending money to benefit designated terrorists jeopardizes both U.S. national security and the security of nations around the world,” said Assistant Director Joseph Billy, Jr., FBI Counterterrorism Division. “The FBI will continue to work diligently with our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence community to pursue suspected terrorists and their supporters, whether in the United States or overseas.”

It is important to note that the indictment does not charge any of the defendants with material support of terrorism, nor does it allege that they knowingly financed acts of terror. Instead, the indictment alleges that some of the defendants engaged in financial transactions that benefited property controlled by a designated terrorist, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

New Charges Against Former Congressman

Today’s superseding indictment also names Mark Deli Siljander as a defendant on counts of money laundering, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. According to the indictment, Siljander was hired in March 2004 by defendants IARA, Hamed, and Bagegni to advocate for the removal of IARA from a U.S. Senate Finance Committee list of non-profit organizations suspected of being involved in supporting international terrorism.

The Senate Finance Committee placed IARA on this list of charities and published the list on Jan. 14, 2004. Siljander was to advocate for IARA’s removal from the list and reinstatement as an approved government contractor by gathering information and meeting with individuals and agencies of the U.S. government.

As compensation for the services that Siljander agreed to perform, IARA transferred roughly $50,000 in stolen federal funds to accounts that were controlled by Siljander at the National Heritage Foundation and the International Foundation. According to the indictment, the funds used to compensate Siljander for his services had previously been stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by IARA, Hamed and Bagegni. The International Foundation and the National Heritage Foundation, which is not related to the Heritage Foundation, are not charged with any wrongdoing in this case.

IARA, Hamed and Bagegni had previously entered into a series of agreements with USAID for relief projects in Mali, Africa. When USAID terminated those agreements in December 1999, the amount of money involved totaled approximately $2 million. IARA had allegedly failed to fully fund the matching contributions required to receive USAID funds. After the termination of these agreements, the indictment alleges, IARA, Hamed and Bagegni, without authorization, retained approximately $84,922 of USAID money and failed to return the funds to USAID as called for by the agreements.

According to Count Twenty-Eight of the indictment, Siljander and defendants IARA, Hamed, Bagegni and El-Siddig conspired to engage in money laundering by transferring stolen USAID funds, knowing that the transfers were designed to conceal the nature, source and ownership of the proceeds. Counts Twenty-Nine through Thirty-One of the indictment charge Siljander along with IARA, Hamed, Bagegni and El-Siddig with engaging in money laundering by transferring stolen USAID funds, knowing that the transfers were designed to conceal the nature, source and ownership of the proceeds.

Obstruction of Justice

Count Thirty-Two of the indictment alleges that Siljander obstructed the due administration of justice in the grand jury investigation in the Western District of Missouri by making false statements to FBI agents in December 2005 and to FBI agents and federal prosecutors in April 2007.

According to the indictment, Siljander told federal officials that he had not been hired to do any lobbying or advocacy work for IARA and that the money or checks he received from IARA were charitable “donations” intended to assist him in writing a book about bridging the gap between Islam and Christianity. When he made these statements, he then well knew and believed that each statement was false, the indictment alleges.

The public is cautioned that the charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, IRS-Criminal Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. AID-Office of Inspector General.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony P. Gonzalez from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri, in conjunction with Trial Attorneys Corey J. Smith, National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven M. Mohlhenrich, Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

http://www.thesop.org/article.php?id=9137

Terror attack victims file $40 billion suit against Sudan, Iran

By Morton Saulo

Victims of terrorist attacks on American embassies in Africa have filed a $40 billion lawsuit against the Republic of Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their complicity in the attack.

Mr Gavriel Mairone, counsel for the victims, announced that a lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Washington DC, on behalf of over 270 employees of the US government (and their family members) that were killed or seriously injured in the Al Qaeda suicide bombings against American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

On August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda perpetrated simultaneous suicide truck bombings on both embassies, killing 247 people and injuring more than 5,000.

Act amended

In January 2008, the US Federal Sovereign Immunity Act was amended to strip states supporting terrorism of immunity and grant employees and contractors of the United States government (in addition to US citizens) the right to sue in US federal court such states for damages resulting from terrorist attacks perpetrated anywhere in the world.

For the first time, survivors and family members of US government employees killed and maimed in the US Embassy bombings in Africa became eligible to seek compensation from the Republic of Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Iran in US federal court.

In December 2004, Mann & Mairone, together with other attorneys, filed an historic, multi-billion dollar lawsuit in US Federal court in New York against Arab Bank on behalf of over 2,000 victims of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, the US government fined Arab Bank more than $20 million in connection with money laundering and terrorist financing.

Source: The Standard

Laundering costs British bank $350M

BY JOSEPH A. MANN JR.

American anti-money-laundering officials racked up their biggest success to date when a British bank agreed to pay $350 million to the federal government and the Manhattan District Attorney's office earlier this year for violating federal and New York state laws.

Lloyds TSB Bank, an international bank based in the United Kingdom, in January agreed to forfeit the money after U.S. investigators found that it falsified information on electronic fund transfers from Iranian and Sudanese banks to U.S. banks.

The Lloyds penalty was a chilling reminder of the severe consequences facing violators of U.S. anti-money-laundering laws.

In this case, it was employees of the bank who found a way to avoid setting off alarms at U.S. banks, according to court documents.

Describing the Lloyds case at a recent conference in Hollywood organized by moneylaundering.com, Adam Kaufmann, bureau chief at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, said his office began investigating Iran and Iranian banking about three years ago.

ALTERED TEXT

As the investigation unfolded, the DA's office and the Justice Department, working with the IRS and New York state banking officials, found that beginning in the mid-1990s, Lloyds' offices, primarily in the U.K., Tokyo and Dubai, altered the text of electronic messages that moved funds from banks in Iran and Sudan to Lloyds and then to correspondent banks in the U.S.

The alterations, called ''stripping,'' involved removing any references to Iran, Sudan or any other terms that might raise a red flag at U.S. banks. These actions by Lloyds bypassed money-laundering filters and violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which bans exportation of services to Iran and Sudan without authorization. Lloyds also violated New York State penal law by falsifying business records, Kaufmann said.

U.S. financial institutions believed that the transfers originated at Lloyds, not at banks in Iran and Sudan, thus causing them to provide financial services that were banned.

DODGING FILTERS

In 2002, Lloyds sought to stop stripping transfer messages in its own offices and advised Iranian banks on how to format messages that would avoid filters established by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, Kaufmann said.

Lloyds voluntarily terminated the Iranian transfers in 2004. Payments from Sudan were halted in 2007. Kaufmann noted that recipients of funds in the U.S. are still being investigated.

Between 2002 and 2005, transfers from Iranian banks through Lloyds that terminated in the U.S. totaled around $300 million, while Iranian transfers that entered the U.S. and then were sent to beneficiaries in other countries reached into the billions of dollars. Transfers from Sudanese banks between 2002 and 2007 totaled about $30 million.

DIFFERING OPINIONS

Why did Lloyds decide to engage in the deception? The Justice Department's Mia Levine, who prosecuted the case with Kaufmann, said apparently ''there was a difference of opinion within Lloyds as to whether the bank was subject to U.S. laws.'' Some bank employees responsible for administering Lloyds' anti-money-laundering program were concerned about the transfers from Iran and Sudan, but other employees weren't.

Ironically, some transfers from Iran to the U.S. are permissible, Levine added, but Lloyds didn't seek permission from U.S. authorities.

In announcing the settlement in January, the Justice Department and the Manhattan DA's office said Lloyds ''accepted and acknowledged responsibility for its criminal conduct'' and agreed to forfeit $350 million as part of deferred prosecution agreements. Lloyds has agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, fully comply with international anti-money-laundering standards and disclose information on past Iranian and Sudanese transactions.

If the bank complies with the terms, it won't be prosecuted.

Source: The Miami Herald

US keeps Cuba on terrorism blacklist

The United States announced Thursday it has retained communist Cuba on a list of countries that allegedly support terrorism.

The State Department report lumping Cuba with Iran, Syria and Sudan was released weeks after US President Barack Obama made overtures to Havana, which is under a decades-old embargo, by lifting curbs on travel and money transfers.

Despite keeping Cuba on the blacklist, the report also highlighted positive steps taken by the government in Havana.

The report said "the Cuban government continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists," even if it "no longer actively supports" armed struggle beyond its shores.

It said members of the Basque separatist ETA, the Colombian rebel group FARC and the Colombian group ELN remained in Cuba last year after some arrived to help conduct peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia.

It also said that the government of President Raul Castro "continued to publicly defend the FARC," the Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

But it noted that on July 6 last year former president Fidel Castro urged the FARC to release the hostages they were holding without preconditions.

And Castro "has also condemned the FARC's mistreatment of captives and of their abduction of civilian politicians who had no role in the armed conflict," it added.

It said that the United States had "no evidence of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities in Cuba," but pointed out that Cuba's banking systems remain among the most secretive and opaque in the world.

It also said Havana still allowed members of US militant groups like the Boricua Popular, or Macheteros, and the Black Liberation Army to live on its territory, even though they were fugitives from US justice.

"In keeping with its public declaration, the government has not provided safe haven to any new US fugitives wanted for terrorism since 2006," it added.

Source: AFP

UK: Muslims Boycott Bank Over Closed Accounts

By Ted Jeory

British muslims are organising a boycott of Barclays Bank after it closed the accounts of an Islamic charity that operates in some of the world’s terror hot spots.

Barclays has given the Bradford and Bolton-based Ummah Welfare Trust just 30 days to move millions of pounds, but the bank has refused to explain why.

The charity says it raises funds for orphanages and other humanitarian aid projects in war torn countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Kashmir, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq.

However, the Sunday Express has discovered that as part of its work, it also channels funds to controversial Palestinian charity Interpal, which is the subject of a current Charity Commission investigation over alleged improper links to Palestinian “terror” organisation Hamas, and whose own accounts were closed last month by Lloyds TSB.

In a further finding, the charity also openly advertises its close associations to the Al-Salah Society—also known as the Al-Salah Islamic Association—an organisation blacklisted last year by the US Treasury for being a charitable “front” for Hamas’s “terrorist agenda”.

American pressure is believed to be behind Barclays’s move, but the lack of any explanation from the bank has caused many in Britain’s Muslim communities to believe the decision is part of a wide-ranging “Zionist” attack by the City on Islam.

Supporters of the trust are now urging Muslims throughout Britain to trigger a wave of account closures in protest.

The Muslim Council of Britain has even called on Gordon Brown to intervene, saying Barclays’s “unjustified” decision has caused “anxiety” and “deep concern”.

The MCB’s deputy general secretary Dr Daud Abdullah said the Prime Minister should resist any pressure from foreign government that result only in discrimination.

He added that despite his warnings “the actions against Muslim charities are being escalated”.

The Ummah Welfare Trust claims the decision will harm “millions” of vulnerable people in 25 countries and it has warned Barclays that its reputation among worldwide Muslims could be ruined.

It is now urging Muslims to inundate Barclays chief executive John Varley with letters stating: “I would also request you to review your decision to avoid unnecessary disruption. Otherwise, I will urge all friends and colleagues to close their accounts with Barclays Bank.”

Six years ago, the Charity Commission froze the accounts of the Ummah Welfare Trust while investigators and police probed allegations that donations were being misused in Kashmir.

However, an eight-month commission inquiry was satisfied that “considerable aid” had been handed out in the region and investigators concluded they “did not find any evidence of any misapplication of the charity’s funds”.

The commission then allowed its operations to continue.

Since then, its donations have spiralled from £240,000 a year to more than £2.3milion, according to latest accounts.

Trustees say the bulk of the cash is sent to their flagship project in Pakistan, a “rehabilitation” academy for 1,000 orphans aged between eight and 14.

The accounts also show that during the past four years, the charity has also issued more than £200,000 in grants to Palestine and Lebanon via Interpal.

City legal sources believe British banks are becoming increasingly wary about how charity money is being used.

They say that bankers’ concerns follow an historic court decision in America last month when the Holy Land Foundation, once the US’s largest Muslim charity, was found guilty of illegally financing Hamas by about £8million.

“You can’t be a multinational bank and hope not to fall foul of the US’s anti-terrorism funding laws,” one source said.

“The Holy Land Foundation trial that has made it pretty clear to bankers that you can’t do Nelsonian Blindness about what these ‘charities’ are doing.”

Under UK law, banks must report any suspicions of laundering to the Government’s Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is unable to comment on any potential specific ongoing investigations.

A Barclays spokesman its decision was not “taken lightly”, while the Charity Commission confirmed there was no current investigation into the Ummah Welfare Trust.

Interpal chairman Ibrahim Hewitt said: “This is the latest case of Islamophobia within the banking sector. This is purely another attack against the Muslim community."

Source: Sunday Express