welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

End of the Drug War: Mexico and the Cartels
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5133
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:47 pm    Post subject: Re: good ol capitalism Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
It is generally accepted that the US allows the cartels to exist to guarantee the cheap labor needed to sustain "growth" in the economy.


By what reputable expert?

Or by what expert?

Or even, by whom other than a nut job?
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9583

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not 'generally accepted.' But this is Thy, so don't even respond to him.

Quote:
I ask this in all seriousness since I'm confident you just might be the person who could answer this: how like is some type of armed conflict? how long until? could the result be possible annexation, even if as a territory?


This is already essentially armed conflict. It's analogous to the Mexican armed forces being put into the situation of occupying itself and trying to pacify territory.

I have no idea how the situation could result in annexation. I doubt it's even a possibility. The united states is probably going to react hard to the first significant signs of violence climbing over the border, but we'll only be trying to contain it at point of sale in our own territory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
It's not 'generally accepted.' But this is Thy, so don't even respond to him.

Quote:
I ask this in all seriousness since I'm confident you just might be the person who could answer this: how like is some type of armed conflict? how long until? could the result be possible annexation, even if as a territory?


This is already essentially armed conflict. It's analogous to the Mexican armed forces being put into the situation of occupying itself and trying to pacify territory.

I have no idea how the situation could result in annexation. I doubt it's even a possibility. The united states is probably going to react hard to the first significant signs of violence climbing over the border, but we'll only be trying to contain it at point of sale in our own territory.

I meant armed conflict between Mexican cartels and out side military forces.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9583

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The situation would have to change pretty severely for the cartels to think they could 'annex' the united states. The corruption, rot, and decay at all levels of the Mexican governmental and police authority which allowed the cartels to grow with impunity and start challenging the government openly don't exist in America, and the cultural difference (thus far) make it unlikely that it could work the same way. If they got uppity and just started terrorizing a town in the U.S., you'd just start seeing ATF-style state and federal raids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the paranoia of the cold war, how could the US not neutralise the drug trade unless it was implicit?

</straw paranoia man
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
The situation would have to change pretty severely for the cartels to think they could 'annex' the united states. The corruption, rot, and decay at all levels of the Mexican governmental and police authority which allowed the cartels to grow with impunity and start challenging the government openly don't exist in America, and the cultural difference (thus far) make it unlikely that it could work the same way. If they got uppity and just started terrorizing a town in the U.S., you'd just start seeing ATF-style state and federal raids.

I was kinda thinking the other way around, like suddenly the US having a lot more territory.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's kinda stupid, guy.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6113
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why the hell would we annex Mexico?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3333

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Sam wrote:
The situation would have to change pretty severely for the cartels to think they could 'annex' the united states. The corruption, rot, and decay at all levels of the Mexican governmental and police authority which allowed the cartels to grow with impunity and start challenging the government openly don't exist in America, and the cultural difference (thus far) make it unlikely that it could work the same way. If they got uppity and just started terrorizing a town in the U.S., you'd just start seeing ATF-style state and federal raids.

I was kinda thinking the other way around, like suddenly the US having a lot more territory.


The U.S. already has more territory than it knows what to do with, cultures between places like say the PNW and areas south of the mason dixon are about as different culturally as you can get and still be "the same country".
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And _trust_ me, the difference between any part of the US and Mexico are so culturally different people don't even know the language for describing the differences. We won't ever annex Mexico.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3596
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:22 pm    Post subject: I'm actually curious if sam feigns ignorance Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:
It is generally accepted that the US allows the cartels to exist to guarantee the cheap labor needed to sustain "growth" in the economy.


By what reputable expert?

Or by what expert?

Or even, by whom other than a nut job?



Sigh............

Let's just pick the most recent article.



welp wrote:


American Banks 'High' On Drug Money: How a Whistleblower Blew the Lid Off Wachovia-Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scheme
A fraud investigator helped expose the shocking world of multi-billion dollar drug laundering by American banks and the surprising lack of oversight by the Feds.
June 10, 2011




Martin Woods, an Englishman in his mid-40s, is blessed with a Sherlock Holmes instinct and demeanor. Woods is an expert at sniffing out "dirty" money passing through International Banking Systems.

A police officer for 18 years and later a detective with London Metro Police Agency, Woods capitalized on his unique expertise as a fraud expert by joining Wachovia's London-based Bank in March 2005 as an anti-money laundering officer.

It wasn't long after taking the job that he discovered that his own employer, one of America's leading banks, was a major player in aiding the "bloodthirsty" Mexico drug cartels to launder billions of dollars in drug money through Wachovia banks. Woods traced and identified a "number of suspicious transactions" related to Mexico-based Casa de Cambios (CDC).

Casa de Cambios are currency-exchange operations set up along the U.S. Mexico-border to assist cross border transfers of money to remit labor paychecks. And on the illegal side the Casa de Cambios are also known as the superhighway for narcotic proceeds into the U.S. and overseas financial markets.

When Woods zeroed in on deposited traveler's checks with sequential numbers sent by the CDC he discovered that large amounts of funds were exceedingly more than a typical person would need. The questionable CDC checks either lacked adequate identifying information or had none at all, including no legible signatures affixed on the funds.

Following this discovery investigator Woods issued a "suspicious activity report" (SAR) on a series of the CDCs' financial transfers and deposits. Then he requested the CDC checks to be temporarily blocked from transaction pending further investigation.

Not long after, an exchange of heated words occurred. A senior Miami-based manager called Woods' SAR reports "defensive and unwarranted."

Feeling jaded, Woods, as he recalls, "came under fire from the bank staff to change tactics and develop a better understanding of Mexico."

Wachovia officials ordered Woods to cease inquiries about Mexican CDCs and to also stop blocking other Eastern Europe and Moscow accounts. The British investigator, snapped, "I don't need to read up on Mexico. My interest are drug trafficking and money laundering."

His instincts proved correct. On April 10, 2006, during early morning hours, a DC-9 airplane landed onto the tarmac at the International Airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, located east of Mexico City. Once the engine turned off, military soldiers trained by U.S. FBI agents immediately grew suspicious and surrounded the aircraft. Armed with high-powered weapons, the soldiers searched the luxury plane and discovered five-plus tons of pure cocaine packed in suitcases.

The cocaine was valued at $120 million, and the Feds working with Mexico later determined the drugs were headed for the United States from Venezuela. A stash of paperwork found on the plane eventually identified discreet connections between an American bank and Mexico-based currency operation Casa de Cambios Puebla. A subsequent investigation would prove that Wachovia Bank washed billions of illegal drug money into the U.S. financial system on behalf of the Mexico-based Casa Cambios.

With U.S. Federal law enforcement backing him up, Martin Woods investigation assisted the Feds to build an airtight case against Wachovia. Starting off, the Feds discovered that $13 billion dollars in drug money was transferred by the CDC into correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia to purchase airplanes for the use of trafficking drugs from Colombia to Mexico and then the drugs were shipped to the U.S.

This high-profile investigation ultimately revealed that from 2004-2007, a staggering amount of illegal drug proceeds totaling $378.4 billion dollars were transferred into Wachovia by the Mexico-based Casa Cambios that violated U.S. government anti-money laundering compliance.

Following these findings a slew of federal charges filed in 2009 by Federal prosecutors in Florida hit Wachovia with the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act in U.S. history.

Douglas Edwards, senior vice president of Wachovia Bank confessed they didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling the $378.4 billions for the Mexico's Casa Cambios. But Edwards declined to answer specific questions including how much they earned for handling the billions of dollars for the currency operation.

Overall, the amount of drug proceeds ($378 billion dollars) that the CDC deposited into Wachovia Bank actually equaled one third of Mexico's entire $1.4 trillion dollar annual GDP.

As part of the agreement Wachovia agreed to pay the government a fine of $110 million dollars with an additional fine of $50 million dollars to be paid to the U.S. Treasury Department. The total fine of $160 million dollars was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3 billion dollars in profit made in 2009. By the time Wachovia agreed to pay the hefty fine, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia during the banking crisis for $12.7 billion. Then Well Fargo reaped a windfall from the government, a gift of $25 billion dollars of taxpayers money as part of President Obama stimulus package in 2009.

"Today, we announce the deferred prosecution of Wachovia, one of the largest banks in the United States, said U.S. Jeffrey Sloman on March 12, 2010. "Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations by laundering drug proceeds."

Sloman further stated, "as this case demonstrates, financial institutions---no matter how large will be held accountable when they allow 'dirty' money to pollute the U.S. banking system."

The Wachovia scandal sent fears into the banking industry among prominent members because now they suspected the Feds would crack down more heavily against foreign customers, particularly Mexico.

In an interview with a Daily Business Review reporter, International Banking Attroney Clemente Vazquez-Bello, said, "The concern, obviously, in the industry is are we going to pay for the sins of Wachovia. ... It's mind-boggling beyond comprehension that in the compliance world that an institution of their size and stature would have permitted these enormous deficiencies."

Mexico Drug Cartel

Mexican drug lords are among the world's most dangerous and wanted criminals. They are savage, rich, notorious for violence, and transport massive shipments of narcotics into the United States and throughout the world. They profit billions from the prohibitionist drug policies of the U.S. government.

When Mexico president Felipe Calderon took office in December, 2006, he immediately ordered the armed forces to kill or capture the cartels including their members and associates. So far, the unrelenting violence has killed more than 35,000 people, with 15,000 last year. Overall, the stark reality in this ongoing brutal and sadistic violence has failed to stem the drug war.

The tremendous amount of proceeds that the CDC transferred in-and-out of Wachovia bank raise a provocative question: How do Mexican cartels get their money into American banks? Either banking officials were asleep at the wheel or tacitly ignored the shady business going on to boost profits for themselves.

"The failure of U.S. banks to take adequate steps to prevent money laundering is a widespread and ongoing problem," said Michigan U.S. Senator Carl Levin in February 2010.

Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker wrote stories about the Wachovia drug cartel scandal on his website. Hopsicker's investigation uncovered the fact that the airplanes that were busted with cocaine and purchased through Wachovia with illegal drug funds, previously had a steamy relationship with CIA and National Defense contractors.

Disappointed that the case against Wachovia didn't go to a criminal trial, investigator Woods lamented, "Bankers will continue to take dangerous risks because the deferred prosecution concludes there's no personal consequences for their actions."

"We were hoping the case against Wachovia went to trial because the laundering of drug money was related to organized crime, drug trafficking and thousands of murders in Mexico," he said.

Antoino Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, "there's evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis]."

If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it's reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.

As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: "A U.S. Senate staff chaired by the banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through U.S. Banks."

The UK Independent newspaper reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constituted "the third-biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade."

"New York and London are the world's biggest financial institutions for money laundering and offshore tax havens," Woods told this journalist during recent interview. "New York is the global currency for legitimate and criminal business because it is offshore to everywhere. And London is the world's biggest financial center by value and volume."

How Martin Woods Exposed Wachovia's Drug Money Laundering Scheme

Back in 2001, Martin Woods played an instrumental role in helping U.S. authorities to crack a Russian-based money laundering scheme involving Lucy Edwards, Vice President of Bank of New York. Wood's tenacious undercover work led the FBI to charge Edwards and her husband with laundering illegal proceeds for the Russian Mob.

In March 2005, as mentioned earlier, Woods joined the London branch of Wachovia Bank as a senior anti-money laundering officer. Woods strategic M.O. was to safeguard the company from cleverly disguised illegal proceeds by implementing bank policies referred to as "Know Your Client" (KYC).

KYC requires investigators and banking officials to identify dirty money ranging from fraud, tax evasion, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing as the primary target.

Once fraud was detected, Woods was charged with reporting to Wachovia Bank headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. So when the Mexico-based Casa Canbios began sending suspicious funds into the bank, Woods implemented an enhanced transaction monitoring program to retrieve more intricate details on customers making deposits. He struck gold.

Woods identified similar numerous "suspicious transactions" of proceeds deposited into Wachovia banks that was traced back to Casa Cambios in Mexico.

The funds in question were traveler cheques in euros. A close inspection of the cheques showed the lack of "know your client" information and the cheques had no legible signatures.

"It was basic work," Woods later recalled in his whistleblower lawsuit against Wachovia. He pointed out how the Mexico-based CDC failed to answer simple questions: "Is the transaction real? Does the cheques meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if not, why not?"

Prior to Wachovia hiring Martin Woods in 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department had already issued warning alerts to foreign and American-based banks explaining that Mexico-based CDCs were primarily owned by kingpin drug cartel Joaquin "el Chapo" Guzman. In 2006, the Feds, working with Mexico identified six CDCs that laundered $120 million dollars in drug money for the Arellano Felix cartel.

Treasury officials said the CDCs were used exclusively by money launderers to transfer or exchange the value of Mexican hard currency that was sent to bank accounts in the United States or other countries to conduct financial commerce.

The U.S. government further said that the CDCs did not operate in the same manner the way banks operated in the United States, nor did the CDCs provide or maintained checking accounts, savings accounts or any commercial banking services.

Alarmed over the CDC transactions, Woods reviewed previous wire transfers that CDC sent and he was shocked to learn that the techniques the CDC had used earlier duplicated the scheme. For instance, a retrack of CDC transactions revealed lack of sufficient information to identify the true identities of the individuals that sent the money from the CDC businesses in Mexico.

Realizing the wire transfers from the CDCs was most likely a money laundering operation, Martin Woods began an inquiry by filing "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) and sent them to the London authorities and he also sent duplicate SARs to Wachovia supervisors in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Following the SARs alert, Woods requested the Wachovia banking system to deny Mexico-based CDCs sequentially numbered traveler's cheques.

Satisified he'd done his job, Woods expected Wachovia to respond accordingly with an internal investigation into his discovery of the CDCs banking operations.

As an investigator, Martin Woods held the belief that it was his duty to prevent criminals from polluting Wachovia Bank with illegal proceeds and that the bank would back him up.

He was wrong.

Dirty work at the cross road awaited him. Wachovia's top-level officials became his worst enemy that culminated into a force of subterfuge to undermine his superior work and destroy his credibility.

According to court records, on June 16, 2007, Wachovia ifficials challenged Woods for filing the "suspicious activity reports" (SAR). They argued that the SARs' should have never been filed against Mexico-based CDCs' and that Woods had no legal clout to investigate a foreign case.

Adding injury to insult the bank officials said Woods had no 'right' to access sensitive documents held overseas from Britain, regardless if Wachovia maintained the documents.

Following confrontations with Wachovia staff, Woods received a letter from a manager calling him a failure to perform at acceptable standards.

Apparently the controversy surrounding the proceeds that CDC was sending into the bank finally took effect. A few months later Woods noticed something odd: the Casa Cambio Puebla, simultaneously stopped routing traveler's checks through Wachovia's London branch.

A gut instinct motivated the investigator to ask Wachovia's American-based banks if they seen a similar routing change involving CDC traveler's checks.

His request caused an uproar from Wachovia's Miami-based manager Carlos Perez. Perez managed the Latin American accounts owned by the CDC Puebla. Visibly upset, Perez angrily questioned Woods, demanding to know "why he had problems when there was no problems when the CDC sent traveler's checks to London."

Meanwhile Martin Woods was overwhelmed with stress and frustration. Each attempt he made to crack this monstrous case his superiors sabotaged the investigation. During a conference held in London with foreign and U.S. federal law enforcement agents, Woods informed the DEA and FBI of his suspicion about the amount of quesionable funds that the CDCs' were sending into Wachovia banking systems.

He further told the agents that he suspected the involvement of certain top-level officials in helping the CDCs' to launder drug profits into Wachovia banks.

U.S. federal authorities immediately started an investigation beginning with the Wachovia branch in Miami Florida. "A narcotic investigation always involve two things and that's drugs and money," said Mark R. Trouville, the Special Agent in charge of Miami's DEA field division.

Once U.S. investigators confirmed Woods' suspicion they put in a lot of time to examine the SARs' that he sent from London to Wachovia's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

And Wachovia offered no blunt resistance or sabotage. "I felt good that the U.S. federal government wouldn't be intimidated by Wachovia," Woods wrote in an email sent to the author of this story.

Following a long deceitful trail of cover-ups by Wachovia to protect the CDCs' illegal proceeds the Feds soon discovered that Casa Cambio Puebla, one of Wachovia's long-term customers, had deposited hundreds of millions of dollars into different accounts at the bank.

The mastermind behind CDC Puebla was Pedro Alatorre, a savvy businessman who fronted the CDCs' as a money laundering operation for the Mexico cartels, specifically the Sinaloa and Gulf drug syndicates. Evidence showed the CDC Puebla owned over 40 interbank accounts at Wachovia branches in Miami, New York and London.

Things began to heat up. On May 26, 2007, DEA seized CDC Puebla accounts at Wachovia's bank in Miami Florida. The Feds contacted Mexico law enforcement and they agreed to help.

During the investigation Mexico agents started watching Alatorre's operation and they observed undercover couriers carrying "clear plastic bags" stuffed with cash that was transported to Alatorre's Puebla branch located at the Mexico City Airport.

"I am sure Wachovia knew what was going on," says Mexico Attorney General Jose Luis Marmolejo, who supervised the investigation against Wachovia's CDC customers.

In May 2008, the U.S. Justice Department charged Alatorre and his group with federal money laundering charges. Alatorre is fighting extradition to the United States. Investigators made additional arrests of cartel members who deposited drug proceeds into Bank of America in Brownsville Texas. Drug money was also detected in banks in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, and New York.

Infuriated over the mistreatment by certain members of Wachovia's staff, Martin Woods, took a leave of absence to seek counseling. Convinced he was battling against enemies from within his work place, Woods filed a whistleblower lawsuit in May 2009 against Wachovia with London Employment Tribunal.

Cocaine Airplanes: The Wachovia Connection

Journalist Daniel Hopsicker is the host and writer of the prominent website Madcowmorningnews. He's also the exclusive producer of the highly-rated documentary DVD movie "American Drug Lords". Hopsicker is the investigative journalist who reported on his website the embarrasing, but true details of the two airplanes caught red-handed on separate occasions with tons of cocaine on board including Wachovia's connections with these aircrafts.

In an interview for this article, Hopsicker explained, "When Wachovia paid a $160 million fine for a decade-long history of laundering billions of drug money for Mexican drug cartels, it spotlighted the preferential treatmant given some participants in the international drug trade."

Hopsicker deadpanned, "An incredible $378 billion dollars had been laundered through Wachovia Bank whose money origins, according to U.S. prosecutors, were murky."

Hopsicker posed the billion dollar question: "How much did Wachovia make for washing all that filthy lucre?"

"The figure was never revealed although Wachovia had been operating as what federal prosecutors called, 'continuing criminal enterprise.' Yet Wachovia was allowed to plead guility to laundering a fraction of that amount and was only fined $160 million dollars, then sold off to Wachovia."

Regarding Wachovia's dark secrets involving the purchase of U.S. registered narco airplanes that were caught transporting cocaine, Hopsicker unraveled the dirty trail.

"Both of the drug-running American airplanes cited -- a DC-9 airliner (tail# N900SA) [was] also caught in the Yucatan in 2008 carrying 4 tons of cocaine which had connecttions with the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security."

Hopsicker gave the low down on the second airplane. "The Gulfstream was -- or had been -- a CIA plane. And the officers of Skyway Aircraft which owned the airplanes included former CIA and NSA (National Security Agency) operatives."

"One would think an important story of this magnitude would make headlines in every American newspaper and major TV networks including cable programs. But none of the prominent news media outlats reported the story of the U.S. registered aircrafts caught with the narcotics."

Hopsicker concluded, "with the exception of several stories written by Tampa Tribune reporter Howard Altman, those embarrasing details received zero exposure in America's mainstream media." Hopsicker also pointed out that Bloomberg Magazine reporter Michael Smith who wrote an extensive article about Wachovia's sordid history of laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels did little to inspire interest.

"My investigation into the airplanes further uncovered a paper trail of FAA registration documents that revealed hidden connections between Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, Wachovia Bank and their American partners: people who the DEA insists don't exist: "The American Drug Lords."

Greed and Corruption: A Continuing Criminal Enterprise

A confession by Wachovia Bank executives last year indicating they laundered billions of dollars in drug money for the CDC was historic, and highly revealing of their approach to business. The executives had already been warned by U.S. Treasury Department of the serious risks associated with the CDCs.

As early as June 2004, the Treasury Department and banking regulators sent letters to U.S. banks indicating that the CDCs' were illegal money laundering operations; the letter appeared to encourage, not dissuade Wachovia from going after the CDC's drug tainted money.

In the legal agreement, Wachovia confessed to taking over other large banks after terminating their contract with Mexico-based CDCs' based on warnings from FBI, DEA and Treasury Department. Despite repeated warnings, Wachovia washed the bloody profits belonging to Mexican drug cartels to take their own cut.

To fill the void left behind by other competing banks who maintained business accounts for the CDC, Wachovia executed a clever scheme. In September 2005, Wachovia purchased the "rights" to solicit the international banking customers of Union Bank of California (UBOC).

The UBOC had backed off from doing business with the CDCs after warning letters from the Treasury Department. Wachovia wooed the CDC customers of UBOC into doing business with Wachovia although UBOC had already paid the government a fine of $31.6 million dollars for laundering over $20 million dollars in drug money for a Mexico-based currrency operation called Ribadeo Casa.

Once UBOC ceased the CDC operation, Wachovia "sweeten the deal" by hiring a former UBOC manager who previously supervised the CDC accounts and the manager even helped Wachovia's Miami branch to set up the structure of wire transfers. This under-the-table scheme increased Wachovia's business volume with the regular CDC customers.

Under Deferred Prosecution Agreement, here is an additional list of Federal Banking rules and laws that Wachovia also apparently violated to wash billions in profits:

(1) Pursuant to Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 5318, Wachovia failed to establish and maintain an anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program which provides internal policies, procedures and controls designed to guard against money laundering.

(2) Under same Federal Statue, Wachovia failed to implement risk-based programs to verify and record the identity of customers, like the Mexico-based CDCs'. If Wachovia officials would have properly complied with their own AML procedures they would have traced the origins of the CDCs' suspicious transactions, first reported by whistleblower Martin Woods.

(3) Wachovia was also required, Pursuant to rule 31, U.S. code, to file 'suspicious activity report' called the "SAR" with U.S. Treasury Department. But when investigator Woods filed SARs', he was demonized, bullied, and demoted in rank by Wachovia management.

(4) Wachovia intentionally violated banking policies and ignored their own internal policies to assist the CDCs' to launder illegal money into the U.S. Financial System and also failed to govern the repatriation of nearly $14 billion that came from the high-risk CDC business.

(5) Failure to detect and report suspicious activity in a timely manner of the $378.4 billion that Wachovia processed through wire transfers for Mexico-based CDCs'.

(6) When British investigator Martin Woods warned Wachovia of the CDCs' suspicious traveler's checks without legible names and that the names were either handwritten or stamped with numbers and letters, the bank also failed to properly investigate Woods complaints---thus allowing the CDC to launder illegal funds from May 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007.

(7) Between September 2005 and December 2007, Wachovia provided correspondent banking service to several Mexico-based Casa Cambios and also provided them with three valuable services to wash drug profits:

--Unlimited wire transfers of funds without IRS intervention.

--Bulk cash: Without detection the CDC co-workers used armor trucks and undercover vans to transport and deposit over $4 billion dollars in cash into a Wachovia business account.

--Around May 2005, Wachovia introduced a new delivery technique to accept international check deposits called "Remote Deposit Capture" (RDC). RDC allowed the CDCs' to scan deposits into a digital format and the scanned files were forwarded electronically to Wachovia for credit.

Another clever tactic used by Wachovia to buy airplanes for drug dealers who had business accounts at Wachovia was the "structured wire transfer" (SWT). SWT included other serious charges against Wachovia.

Under SWT violation the Feds said that between November 2005 and January 2006, Wachovia, on behalf of the CDC Puebla, transferred over $300,000 dollars from the CDC into a Bank of America account in Oklahoma City.

To assist the CDC to purchase airplanes to transport cocaine, ten wire transfers by four different individuals was sent to Wachovia and deposited into a business account owned by an aircraft broker.

On another occasion, a CDC sent eight wires to Wachovia; two for $49,000 dollars and six for $50,000 each. These funds were also deposited into the account owned by the aircraft broker.

"The funds were used to buy airplanes from a Oklahoma aircraft broker called Aircraft Titles," said journalist Daniel Hopsicker.

According to Bloomberg reporter Michael Smith, when Aircraft employees was queried about the narco airplanes bought from the company they refused comment.

Criminal Charges Rare Against Corporate CEOs, including Executives of America's Largest Bank

With headline stories across the nation exposing massive fraud and money laundering schemes infilitrating the American financial systems: how could it have been so difficult for the Feds to establish criminal intent for these lawbreakers?

Although in selected cases, a civil complaint filed by the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) is usually offered to corporations and banks that allow them to wiggle out of a criminal indictment in exchange for a fine. A civil fine is usually the norm but the bulk of wrongdoing goes unpunished.

Experts familiar with large corporations and banks that violate the law have said the fine these companies pay the government is merely the cost of doing business.

High profile criminal defense attorney Kent Schaffer of Houston Texas is familiar with the disparity in treatment of criminal defendants by the federal government. Schaffer recently represented Allen Stanford, a former owner of several U.S.banks and offshore banks. Stanford is charged in a multi-billion dollar fraud case.

"Federal prosecutors rather have a fine from banks and corporations that violate the law because prosecutors know the banks have the money." When this journalist asked Schaffer if any of his clients were offered a deferred prosecution for laundering drug money, the attorney said, "no, most of them went to prison."

Therefore we must question why bank executives and corporate CEOs' rarely face criminal indictments. And if by chance a series of criminal indictments are handed down the ripple effect of the massive injuries and loss of investor's funds outweigh the civil penalties and fines levied against the 'big wigs.'

A recent Associated Press story provides a penetrating insight into the broader picture illustrating the mindset of prosecutors regarding whether or not to pursue prosecutions in major white collar crimes.

According to prosecutors attending Florida's Anti-money Laundering Conference this past March, the lack of prosecutions of executives and CEOs' boils down to standards of proof to deal with the case criminally or civil.

"You don't find the smoking gun email where an executive said," "I know it's drug money but go do it anyway," New York federal prosecutor Evan Weitz told the AP reporter.

Bypassing criminal charges the prosecutors usually hit a bank with a civil indictment known in the legal circle as 'deferred prosecution agreement', the same deal Wacovia accepted despite overwhelming evidence of intentional criminal conduct.

Adam Kaufman, chief of the investigative division of the Manhattan D.A. office defended the approach in the AP story, by saying, "prosecutors could have indicted low-level bank employees who handled the transactions on a daily basis. But that wouldn't get the executives making the decisions and figuring out exactly who that is can be daunting."

Kaufman continued, "An indictment can be a death sentence for a financial institution and ruining large banks can trigger unforseen economic ripple effects."

The DA summed up what many believe is true, that banks and corporations are "too-big-to fail and too-big-to jail."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner echoed Kaufman's sentiments. Geithner once described the financial system as a "target rich environment" for financial fraud. Geithner further explained how massive a problem it can be: "if banks and corporations were criminally indicted the results would inflict disaster for investors and stockholders."

To prevent financial institutions from facing criminal indictments for intentional violation of federal bank laws, the Feds often press the executives, in exchange for a civil fine, and be put on probation, to confess illegal activity that is particularly described in the media as an oversight to uphold federal policy rules.

Or the government can recommend a "deferred prosecution" or drop the matter altogether.

A deferred prosecution gurantee zero jail time. In 2003, U.S. Justice Department issued a memo commending deferred prosecution as a legal approach. "With cooperation by the corporation, the government may be able to reduce tangible losses, limit damage to their reputation and preserve assets for restitution."

The memo included cozy safeguards: "a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement can help restore the integrity of a company's operation and preserve the financial viability of a corporation involved with criminal conduct."

We are currently living under government more interested in preserving the integrity of financial operations that it has investigated for fraud and money laundering. Even more appalling is the fact our government found the institutions guility of intentionally breaking the law. And still no real punishment.

Whistleblower Vindicated

British investigator Martin Woods felt a relief of vindication when he received the news that Wachovia confessed to all the illegal activity that he brought to their attention. But instead of being commended for a job well done when he uncovered the "dirty money" scheme the executives made him the villain.

In May 2009 he settled the "whistleblower" lawsuit for an undisclosed amount of compensation against Wachovia. Martin Woods is on the rebound and now runs a London-based company called "Hermes Solution," drawing on his expertise.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3596
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:41 pm    Post subject: Because you wanted an "expert" Reply with quote

Oh, and if that isn't enough, I'm sure Chomsky has written something about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a different thing than what you said, though. Though it's obvious that the cheap labour is essential for the American economy, you're making it sound like a giant conspiracy - which it's not.

There are a lot of different and complex reasons why the US would oppose a different drug policy or a different stance on the cartels. It's a bit too simple to explain the US' stance on the cartels.

And don't forget that while the rising violence in Mexico does add to the amount of immigrants that try to get into the US, there were more than enough immigrants before the cartel wars got really bad.

That and a state that's completely or partially run by cartels right on the US border isn't something the US wants. Chaos is fine, but only if it's far away and manageable.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3596
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure the chemicals that drug cartels needed for cocaine production were supplied by U.S. corporations. But I could be wrooong.

Good thing we have tarrifs and shit, to stop that from happening, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you really want something you can prove, just look at Operation Fast and Furious.

Or how American banks are basically laundering the cartels' money. just gonna link to this post

Or just look at the many CIA/DEA-related trafficking stuff in the past.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group