Is Allen Stanford An Asset Of The CIA?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Is Allen Stanford An Asset Of The CIA?

Postby jingofever » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:20 pm


After all, last year, Stanford's Venezuelan offices were raided on suspicion that the billionaire was a US government tool, involved in spying:
Officials from Venezuelan military intelligence raided a branch of his offshore bank over claims that its employees were paid by the CIA to spy on the south American country.

The officials spent three hours searching files and documents at offices of Stanford International Banks in the Venezuelan capital Caracas, removing several of them for closer inspection.

The Stanford Group's spokeswoman, Lula Rodriguez, denied that any of the bank's employees were involved in spying.

SEC Was Told To Back Off Stanford In 2006:

It's becoming clear that the juiciest aspects of the Stanford Fraud have to do with his political connections. We know he was a friend of George W. Bush, that he donated a lot to Congressmen, and that he practically bought off big-time Democrats to kill an anti-money laundering bill. Now we learn that the SEC's initial investigation into Stanford was waived off in 2006.

This was buried at the end of a NYT report:
The current S.E.C. charges stem from an inquiry opened in October 2006 after a routine exam of Stanford Group, according to Stephen J. Korotash, an associate regional director of enforcement with the agency’s Fort Worth office.

He said the S.E.C. “stood down” on its investigation at the time at the request of another federal agency, which he declined to name, but resumed the inquiry in December 2008.
User avatar
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:26 pm

Allen Stanford Forfeited $3 Million In Drug Money In 1999
How Much Of The Federal Debt Is Financed With Drug Money?

All of these links are from the same site, a once respectable source of financial news and analysis, now just another crazy bunch of conspiracy theorists and slanderers.
User avatar
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:44 pm

Surprise: Stanford Under Federal Drug Investigation

They suggest that whoever is behind the investigation told the SEC to back off because, "Authorities say the SEC action against Stanford Tuesday may have complicated the federal drug investigation." But the article they quote claims the drug investigation "has been ongoing since last year" while the SEC was blocked in 2006.

Stanford was taken down only after Alex Dalmady blew the whistle a week ago.
User avatar
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is Allen Stanford An Asset Of The CIA?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:04 pm

jingofever quoting NYT wrote:The current S.E.C. charges stem from an inquiry opened in October 2006 after a routine exam of Stanford Group, according to Stephen J. Korotash, an associate regional director of enforcement with the agency’s Fort Worth office.

He said the S.E.C. “stood down” on its investigation at the time at the request of another federal agency, which he declined to name, but resumed the inquiry in December 2008.

Could it be thanks to this provision from 2005? ... =rss_daily

MAY 23, 2006

By Dawn Kopecki

Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules

Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.

FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.

In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.

AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

Kopecki is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau
Copyright 2000- 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Prior thread:

Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:23 pm -- Crisis a cover for mob-style "bust-out" by spooks? Well, the likely answer is: no shit! Anyone remember this item from Business Week more than two years ago? The White House authorized the intelligence czar (Negroponte at the time) discretion to grant secret waivers on all SEC rules for any company. National security apparently requires money laundering and cooked books. That would give incredible advantages to such a company in its dealings on the closed markets of derivatives. Wonder if any of the heavyweights involved in the current crisis are among the beneficiaries, and what impact this may have had? Was this the beginning of plunder operations in advance of the inevitable crash? Can companies who received such waivers still present cooked books as the derivatives now unwind? Will the DNI have the authority to block investigations of criminal behavior by protected financial players? ... 561#220561
User avatar
Posts: 15272
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:17 pm

Sir Allen is apparently on the lamb
Stanford's whereabouts are currently unknown, and U.S. marshalls assisting the SEC have been unable to serve him with court orders. CNBC reported that Stanford tried to flee the country on February 17. He contacted a private jet owner and attempted to pay for a flight to Antigua with a credit card, but was refused because the company would accept only a wire transfer.
As of February 18, Stanford has not been criminally charged and a U.S. Marshalls spokesman said he was not aware of any arrest warrant. ... te_note-24

Was big supporter of US Democrats in 08.

Any bets on a movie by Christmas?
User avatar
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:17 am

Someone playing the drug market? (To pump prices up)
Also stuff about earlier posts at Cryptogon, suspecting that drug money is now not only used to bail out banks (like UN says) but also to buy US Treasuries!
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:56 am

Yeah hes part of a CIA plot to destroy cricket so the KH that Hugh IDed the other week, something to do with baseball, would work in England.

Stanford was reportedly prevented at Houston airport from chartering a private jet to Antigua at the same time as the United States regulators continued to sift through his bank as they investigate an alleged $8 billion fraud. Another difficult day for the ECB ended with:

* Calls for the resignations of the entire 12-man executive board;
* Counties considering returning the Stanford money;
* Two county chairmen demanding the removal of Giles Clarke as chairman of the ECB;
* Pressure for the ECB to release full implications of the Stanford deal.


The ECB is the English Cricket Board.

On a more serious note, I wonder what interest Rupert Murdoch has in 20 twenty cricket these days.

OH, and as if the English need any help destroying English cricket.
Joe Hillshoist
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:40 am

Back to Venezuela:

Stanford saga prompts run on banks ... index.html

(CNN) -- Politicians and banking regulators across Latin American and the Caribbean have called for calm after panicked investors pulled their money from banks owned by the Stanford Group, whose owner is accused in a multibillion dollar investment and sales fraud scheme.

"This bank does not have any problem, is a healthy financial institution," Edgar Hernandez Behrens, Venezuela's superintendent of banks, said of Stanford Bank Venezuela, the state-run ABN news agency reported. An estimated $2.5 billion to $3 billion has been invested in the bank, he said.

The bank recorded "extraordinary withdraws" on Tuesday and Wednesday beyond what it can manage, Behrens said, according to ABN. Officials with the Venezuelan Central Bank, the banking superintendent's office and Stanford Bank huddled on Wednesday to decide how to deal with the problem.

A similar scene played out in Antigua, where customers lined up outside Stanford-owned banks to pull their money.
User avatar
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:39 am

Venezuela Seizes Control Of Stanford Bank

Venezuela has taken control of a local bank owned by Allen Stanford, who is wanted in connection with a massive multi-billion-pound fraud.

There was a rush on Stanford-owned banks in Latin American on Wednesday when details of the alleged fraud emerged.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez had said Stanford Bank Venezuela is sound but had also warned he would take control of any failing institutions.



As Others Fled Venezuela, Stanford Saw a Chance

CARACAS, Venezuela — In 2005, foreign investors were growing nervous about Venezuela as President Hugo Chávez began asserting greater control of the economy, but Stanford Group decided it was time to put down stakes.


Stanford expanded its operations nationwide, luring clients in provincial cities like Maracaibo and Puerto Ordaz, and amassed an impressive list estimated at more than 10,000 clients. This country’s banking regulator estimates that Venezuelans placed about $2.5 billion into Stanford International.


On Thursday, the finance minister, Ali Rodriguez, said that Venezuela had taken control of the retail bank and would be looking for a buyer.

“Venezuela’s banking system is totally stable,” said Mr. Rodriguez, seeking to diminish any fears of a broad financial crisis.


By putting their money in such securities, Venezuelan investors are believed to have both contributed to the capital flight that has weakened the local currency — the bolívar — and profited from it, transferring hard currency back to Venezuela on the black market to acquire some goods denominated at the official exchange rate.

Mr. Faraco estimated that as much as 30 percent of Stanford International Bank’s $8 billion in reported assets last year came from Venezuelans.
User avatar
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:20 pm

The BBC has him as Sir Allen in US fraud charge tycoon disappears.
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:44 pm

FBI tracks down Allen Stanford to Virginia. No word on the city he was found in.
User avatar
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby dqueue » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:20 pm

User avatar
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: DC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:35 pm

It would be a neat trick for CIA to set up a bank in Venezuela designed to fail, potentially costing govt there a wedge of cash. If say Stanford provided accounts with fictional balances to coconspirators or dupes, and/or transferred any actual cash overseas leaving only the shell & its liabilities, then Ven.govt might feel obliged to pay out account balances to maintain faith in its financial system. If so, hopefully they'll just frame the account holders as anti-venezuelan profiteers and give them only their first 1000 bolivars.
User avatar
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:09 pm

jingofever wrote:FBI tracks down Allen Stanford to Virginia. No word on the city he was found in.

dqueue wrote:Langley?

Falls Church? Fredericksburg? :shrug:

Found! Accused Scammer Stanford Turns in Passport in Washington

SEC Moving to Seize Billionaire's Planes, Yachts, Bank Accounts and Homes

February 19, 2009—

The billionaire banker accused of scamming $8 billion, R. Allen Stanford, was located by FBI officials today and served with civil papers by the SEC, putting an end to a nationwide search.

Stanford later turned in his passport to federal prosecutors, saying "he would not flee," according to one of Stanford's lobbyists, Ben Barnes.

Stanford was located in the Fredericksburg, Virginia area, the FBI said in a statement. The papers he was served with were the SEC's complaint, the memorandum of law filed with the complaint, the court order freezing his asset, and the court order appointing a receiver, according to a SEC statement.

Stanford is "very depressed," according to Barnes and sought to end a federal manhunt for him by directly approaching officials at the Justice Department, Barnes said.

Stanford's Alleged Fraud

Earlier this week, the SEC accused Stanford of defrauding 50,000 customers around the world by lying about the return rate on certificates of deposits offered by his firm, Stanford Financial.

U.S. Marshals seized his company and its assets, under an emergency federal court order sought by the SEC

Federal authorities tell ABC News that in addition to the SEC complaint, Stanford is under investigation in connection with an alleged drug money laundering scheme for Mexico's Gulf Cartel.

In the meantime, the SEC has begun to seize an array of private property owned by Stanford and his firm.
Stanford's fleet of six private jets were recalled to the corporate hangar at Sugarland Airport outside Houston, including the Bombardier 500 luxury jet that was used exclusively by Stanford and considered the "Flagship of the Stanford Empire," according to aviation websites.

According to flight records, the Stanford jet flew into Washington, D.C. earlier this week and returned to Houston yesterday afternoon. Flight crews said Stanford was not seen on the plane when it unloaded.

Life of Luxury in St. Croix

Stanford's 120 foot yacht, docked at a marina in St. Croix, is also likely to be seized, and SEC attorneys contacted marina owners in St. Croix to determine the precise location of the yacht.

Stanford also owns a huge mansion in St. Croix, located in the main city of Christiansted.

Stanford's lobbyist Barnes, a former Texas public official, said Stanford had hired Brendan Sullivan of the Washington firm Williams Connolly.

Sullivan is considered one of the capital's top criminal defense lawyers who has handled a long list of high-profile clients including Oliver North and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
User avatar
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 am

. ... tID=112160

Kucinich: Who Told SEC to "Stand Down" on Stanford Probe?
Chairman of Domestic Policy Subcommittee Opens Inquiry

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Washington, Feb 20 -

Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today sent a letter to Ms. Mary Schapiro, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requesting documents that could reveal which government agency told the SEC to "stand down" rather than take enforcement action against the Stanford Group in October 2006 as has been reported by the New York Times.

Recent media reports have indicated that the SEC was aware of improprieties at Stanford Financial Group as early as October 2006, but withheld action at the request of another government agency.

In a report published in the February 17th edition of the New York Times, an SEC official said that an inquiry had been opened on Stanford in October of 2006. According to the Times report, an associate regional director of enforcement said the SEC "stood down" on its investigation as a result of the intervention of another federal agency.

Stanford is now the focus of an $8 billion fraud investigation and, presumably, an earlier inquiry would have spared many Stanford investors and triggered similar inquiries into other funds which lacked transparency.

"The SEC's recent filing against Stanford stemmed from the 2006 SEC inquiry that had been apparently shelved at the request of the unnamed agency. If this is true, we must find out why the SEC delayed enforcement, and if there were other cases where other government agencies intervened to block enforcement,” Chairman Kucinich said.

"If the SEC did indeed begin an inquiry in 2006 and was called off by another agency, our subcommittee will demand that the SEC reveal the name of that agency which told it not to enforce federal laws which protect investors," said Chairman Kucinich.

The full text of the letter follows:

February 20, 2009

Ms. Mary Schapiro
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549

Dear Ms. Schapiro:

The Domestic Policy Subcommittee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is pleased that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has initiated an enforcement action against Robert Allen Stanford; however the Subcommittee remains concerned about the substantial delay in the Commission’s action. Recent published news reports assert that as early as 2006, the SEC suspended its investigation of Stanford Group under pressure from another unidentified federal agency.1

This assertion raises serious questions about the Commission’s dedication to its mission of protecting investors. The Subcommittee is interested in learning why the SEC suspended in 2006 its investigation of Mr. Stanford’s financial dealings, as well as any role that other federal agencies may have had in that decision.

In order to assist the Subcommittee with its inquiry, I request the following:

(1) All documents pertaining to “Robert Allen Stanford;” Stanford Financial Group and all subsidiaries; including all documents where abovementioned entities may have been referred to by alternate names or identifications; and

(2) All documents received by the SEC from any other federal agency, as well as all documents sent by the SEC to any other federal agency, that pertain to any of the entities covered in (1), between 2006 and the present date.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee in the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X including over the Securities and Exchange Commission. An attachment to this letter provides information on how to respond to the Subcommittee’s request.

We request that you provide these documents as soon as possible, but in no case later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday March 9, 2009.


Dennis J. Kucinich
Domestic Policy Subcommittee

cc: Jim Jordan
Ranking Minority Member

1 Krauss, C., Zweig, P., and Creswell, J. “Texas Firm Accused of $8 Billion Fraud.” New York Times. February 17, 2009.
User avatar
Posts: 15272
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests