International Cooperation Archives | Page 5 of 5

FinCEN Starts Global Investigations Division

August 29, 2019 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On August 28, 2019, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced the start of its Global Investigations Division (GID), which will have responsibility to implement targeted investigation strategies based on FinCEN’s unique authorities under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to combat illicit finance threats and related crimes, both domestically and internationally.[

FinCEN Director Kenneth A. Blanco announced that Matthew Stiglitz, a former Principal Deputy Chief in the United States Department of Justice’s Criminal Division with 24 years as a state and Federal prosecutor, will head GID.

According to the press release, GID will leverage FinCEN’s BSA authorities, including Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, to investigate and target terrorist finance and money laundering threats. GID will work more closely with foreign counterparts to coordinate actions against such threats when appropriate.

Before the creation of GID, the former Office of Special Measures (OSM), which was previously a part of FinCEN’s Enforcement Division, provided the investigative resources. In recent years FinCEN’s strategic use of its Section 311 authority as well as its other information collection authorities, such as the geographic targeting order and foreign financial agency regulation authorities, have significantly grown in recent years. Now FinCEN will have one division that concentrates on achieving these goals.

GID will use FinCEN’s authorities to detect and deter a broad range of potential threats to the United States national security and financial system, including ones that are connected to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue state actors, transnational organized crime, international narcotics trafficking, and terrorism.

Just at the end of August, FinCEN and OFAC have focused on Dominican Republic narcotics kingpins and Chinese importers of fentanyl. In addition, FinCEN has issued an advisory to financial institutions on illicit financial schemes and methods related to the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

FinCEN is focused on stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially as North Korea and Iran.

Until now, FinCEN has utilized its power to designate foreign financial institutions as being “of primary money laundering concern” judiciously. However, when banks and financial institutions in the European Union countries of Latvia, Cyprus, and Andorra, have been involved in illicit finance threat activities, FinCEN has investigated and subjected them to Sec. 311 while the EU has not had the capacity to act.

The increase of FinCEN international authority comes at a time when the OECD has downgraded the U.S. on exchange of information, transparency of entity, and regulation of gatekeepers. The downgrades have diminished the capacity of the U.S. Department of Justice and Treasury to respond to foreign requests. In addition, the increased capacity of FinCEN’s international authority occurs at a time of disengagement by the United States government with the United Nations, the G7 and G20. However, since the press release states GID “will work more closely with foreign counterparts to coordinate actions against such threats when appropriate,” foreign law enforcement authorities and international organizations will certainly welcome such an outreach, although some may wonder and test the condition of “when appropriate”.

Indictment of Couple for Illegal Wildlife Trafficking Illustrates Significance of International Cooperation

August 7, 2019 by Alexandra Haris Leave a Comment

On July 24, 2019, a federal grand jury unsealed an indictment for a Florida couple charged with conspiracy and trafficking of protected wildlife. The couple, Novita Indah and Larry Malugin, specifically received charges of smuggling wildlife from Indonesia to the United States and selling the wildlife from their home in Port Richey, Florida.

In 2011, the couple began selling protected wildlife on eBay to international buyers from their Indonesian home. They would falsely label packages to conceal their shipments’. For the next six years, Indah and Malgin continued this practice throughout their moves to Puerto Rico and, ultimately, to Florida in 2013. On January 12, 2017, the couple’s illicit business came to a halt when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) executed a search warrant and recovered 369 wildlife articles from their home. Among the seized articles were Javan spitting cobras, reticulated pythons, and a babirusa skill (a rare Indonesian pig known for its tusks).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) protects the recovered wildlife. In a press release addressing the indictment, Assistant Attorney General Jeffery Bossert Clark said, “the Department of Justice will seek to prosecute individuals who flout this treaty and other important environmental laws.” As a result, Indah and Malugin face a maximum sentence of 20 years of incarceration on charges of smuggling and 5 years for violating the Lacey Act – which prohibits the trade of illegally procured wildlife.

CITES and the Lacey Act have been extremely useful when it comes to capturing and penalizing illegal wildlife traffickers. The two policies work together and illustrate how much more impactful legislation can be when countries concur on the need to protect endangered species and actually implement effectively the enforcement provisions.

First, CITES, an international treaty boasting 183 member states, signed in 1973 and protects over 35,000 species. Its overarching goal is to ensure that international trade does not threaten the survival of wildlife. It functions through a system of classification, which categorizes species in Appendices I to III. Appendix I prohibits all trade for the species listed as highly endangered. Appendix II permits trade, but only for those in exporting countries with a permit. These permits are issued only when there is scientific evidence that trade will not adversely affect the species. Lastly, Appendix III covers species that only need a certificate of origin to be traded. Elephants, for example, are protected under Appendix I and II due to geographically differentiated threats. Countries can allow permit-holders to trade the species, but only if the nation can demonstrate that ivory trade will not result in the species’ decline. If they cannot prove this, the country’s elephants will be listed under Appendix I and will not be allowed for trade.

The Lacey Act, adopted in 1900 as the first federal law protecting wildlife, is U.S. legislation that makes it unlawful to trade fish, wildlife, or plants that are sold in violation of U.S. law or another entity’s law. As a result, the policy covers all wildlife CITES’ protects. Additionally, the Act aims to restore game and birds in areas of the country where they have been depleted. However, while the main goal of CITES is to ensure trade does not impede wildlife survival, the Lacey Act is primarily utilized today to prevent the importation or spread of non-native species. The policy has faced some major violators. Most recently, in 2016, Lumber Liquidators was found guilty of violating the Act and sentenced to more than $13 million in fines – the largest penalty in the history of the legislation. For more of a discussion on this topic, please refer to the most recent issue of the IELR.

Although containing some distinct differences, CITES and the Lacey Act are united in their mission to abate illegal wildlife trade. Not only do their purposes align, but their unity also encompasses working together to strengthen enforcement of these trading issues. As portrayed in the indictment of Indah and Malugin, the couple will face a maximum sentence of 20 years for smuggling wildlife protected under CITES. However, they could receive an additional five years for violating the Lacey Act as they traded these animals within the U.S. The coupling of the two policies creates a larger disincentive and a stronger enforcement of illegal wildlife trading.

In the future, this will be important for the U.S. to keep in mind. Because demand for protected wildlife products spans the globe, suppliers will sell to whichever markets they can access. In addition, enforcement of international suppliers recognize coordination between international organizations, such as INTERPOL, and national law enforcement. Unfortunately, CITES itself does not have enforcement mechanisms of its own.

As the indictment of Indah and Malugin proves, international teamwork and cooperation is vital to strengthen enforcement and action on key global issues. Hopefully this is a lesson that current administrations can take note of and implement in the future. No matter if they do or do not, the IELR will be there to cover it.

North Korean Embassy Raid: As Answers Emerge, Many Questions Remain

May 1, 2019 by Alex Psilakis 1 Comment

In early April, the IELR Blog reported on the break-in at the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. Though Spain sought the extradition of those involved in the raid, the U.S. refused to comment on the situation, let alone offer their open assistance. As a result, it appeared as though the assailants had escaped, leaving behind a complex political incident that entangled the U.S., North Korea, and Spain, all in the shadow of the failed Trump-Kim summit of February 2019.

One month later, the case continues to develop. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. arrested Christopher Philip Ahn, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, for his involvement in the raid. Spain, who put out the arrest warrant against Ahn, has filed a number of charges against him, including robbery, illegal restraint, and associating with criminal organization. U.S. enforcement officials learned of Ahn’s participation in the raid when Adrian Hong Chang, the de facto leader of the group, informed the FBI of Ahn’s involvement. Video surveillance captured images of Ahn as well. Awaiting extradition, Judge Jean Rosenbluth denied Ahn bond, forcing him to remain in custody.

Just days after Ahn’s arrest, U.S. authorities issued an arrest warrant for Hong Chang himself. A Mexican citizen with permanent residency in the U.S., Hong Chang faces charges similar to those of Ahn, including breaking and entering, as well as causing injuries. The arrest warrant – which references information provided by Spanish authorities – labels Hong Chang as the architect and leader of the seven-person raid.

Hong Chang has been on the move from the moment the raid ended. Calling an Uber to escape the scene of the raid, Hong Chang acted under the alias “Oswaldo Trump.” When the Uber parked too close to the police stationed outside the embassy, he cancelled it and called a new one. He travelled to Toldeo, Spain, then onto Lisbon, Portugal, where he flew to the U.S. The day after the attack, he called and set up a meeting with FBI agents in New York. He informed the agents of his role in the raid, and turned over the items that he captured, which included pen drives and hard drives. He claimed that, though they carried dangerous weapons like knives, they did not display them. Hong Chang also voluntarily met with FBI agents in Los Angeles, where he informed them of Ahn’s role in the raid. Yet with the recent release of the arrest warrant, these attempts to garner the favorable treatment of U.S. law enforcement officials appear to have failed. U.S. authorities believe that Hong Chang lies somewhere in the Central District of California, but his exact location remains unknown.

Hong Chang’s lawyer, Lee Wolosky , has sharply criticized U.S. authorities for accepting North Korea’s version of the story. “In due time,” he stated, “We expect to be able to present additional evidence that contradicts the story made up by the North Korean government.” Wolowsky also represents the Free Joseon, an organization that seeks the overthrow of the Kim regime in North Korea. Though Free Joseon originally claimed responsibility for the raid, they have since reneged on that statement, instead arguing that they were invited into the embassy. Free Joseon has, however, committed sharp acts of protest against the Kim regime in the past. They took credit for saving the surviving family members of Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother that Kim Jong Un allegedly assassinated in 2017. They also spray-painted their name and symbol on the North Korean Embassy in Malaysia in March, alongside the phrase, “We shall rise.” They released a video of a man smashing images of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, the previous two leaders of North Korea, as well. Such an act is viewed as heretical in North Korea, since figures of the regime are meant to be viewed with absolute reverence and respect.

Two months on from the February 22 raid, much remains publically unknown. Though U.S. authorities have arrested one man in connection with the raid and are pursuing another, the whereabouts and status of the five other assailants remains a mystery. Furthermore, it remains to be seen how far the U.S. will be willing to go to assist in the prosecution of U.S. individuals who committed crimes in the North Korean embassy. While the U.S. may be upholding their obligations to Spain under international law, executing warrants and preparing individuals for extradition, each step the U.S. takes in this direction indirectly supports the Kim regime. After the FBI returned the items stolen from the embassy to Spain, Spain promptly returned them to North Korea. Additionally, the U.S. has shown little hesitation in moving forward with extradition proceedings against those allegedly involved in the raid, like Ahn.

Since the U.S. and Spain are bound by an extradition treaty, the U.S. is legally bound to follow through on processing the request. Certain exemptions within the treaty could potentially allow the U.S. to avoid extraditing those involved in the raid. According to Article 5, Section 3 of the treaty, extradition shall not be granted when the offense in question is of a “political character.” The raid on the embassy could be viewed as a political act, since it was carried out as a form of protest against the Kim regime. However, the political exemption likely does not apply to this case because the exemption is so narrow. Courts usually recognize the political offense exception when the act committed is done so directly against the state, and possesses none of the elements of an ordinary crime. Rarely are violent acts considered, but if they are, they are minor and almost never involve innocent civilians. Typical crimes exempted include treason, sedition, and espionage, which normally involve peaceful acts like speaking out against the government or demonstrating peacefully. Since Spain is not seeking the extradition of the assailants on these charges, as they are instead focusing on crimes like breaking and entering and causing injuries, it is unlikely that the political exemption will apply in this case.

The raid has undoubtedly placed the U.S. in a difficult situation. In observing the case as it develops, it is worth analyzing how the U.S. balances its legal obligations to Spain with its adversarial attitude toward North Korea. Additionally, five of the seven assailants remain on the run, one of which includes a South Korean national. How legal proceedings develop against these individuals – if any do – will prove worth considering as well. Seeking answers to the many questions that remain, the IELR Blog will continue to monitor the ramifications of the raid in the U.S. and around the world.

XIX World Congress of Criminology Set to Unite Experts from around the World

April 22, 2019 by Alex Psilakis Leave a Comment

Background

On October 27, 2019, the 19^th World Congress of Criminology will commence in Doha, Qatar. The Congress, which will run from October 27-31, will gather academics, researchers, professionals, and policy makers to consider relevant, contemporary issues in crime and criminology. Since its inaugural event in 1938 in Rome, Congresses have been held throughout the world, visiting cities including Rio de Janeiro (2003), Barcelona (2008), and New Delhi (2016).

Sponsors and Supporters

This year’s event in Doha symbolizes the truly global reach of the Congress, as well as of those sponsoring and supporting it. The group that plays the largest role in organizing the Congress – and has since its commencement – is the International Society for Criminology (ISC). Founded in 1937, the ISC strives to support activities and research aimed at fostering a better understanding of the crime phenomenon on a global scale. It also works to translate research into policy making and programmatic interventions, as well as assist in the creation of top-tier criminology and criminal justice programs. Additionally, the ISC publishes the International Annals of Criminology alongside Cambridge University Press, emphasizing their deep involvement in the subject matter.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), through its Education for Justice (E4J) initiative, is another one of the major organizations supporting the Congress. The E4J initiative seeks to support the Doha Declaration of 2015, which calls for universal education amongst children, as well as the prevention of terrorism, corruption, and crime. The E4J initiative has crafted educational materials, such as university modules and teaching guides, in their effort to develop a culture of lawfulness among children and youth. Finally, the Qatar University College of Law is another one of the Congress’s supporters.

Topics and Presentations

The Congress will cover a wide range of topical areas and issues. The Congress will focus on a number of general areas, which include “Science, Technology and Teaching in Criminology,” as well as “Researching, Investigating and Preventing Crime.” Yet it will still touch on a wide variety of topics, which include international law and human rights. Themes covered within this field are to include “International Criminal Law and International Criminal Courts,” “Immigration and Crime,” and “Transnational Crime.” Alongside these, the Congress will consider comparative studies related to criminology and criminal justice. Specific issues areas to be discussed include “Globalization and Crime Trends,” alongside “Cross-Regional and Cross-National Comparison.”

The Congress offers not only an immense variety of topics for presenters to discuss, but a diverse array of ways through which they may present their projects. Individuals may not only present a paper, but hold a roundtable session, present a poster, or participate in a workshop. Participants may even read poetry, literature, or a similar form of creative work that is in some way related to criminology or criminal justice. Through offering this flexibility, the Congress hopes to create a diverse, energetic environment that allows discussion on criminology and criminal justice to thrive however possible.

Additional Information

The submission deadline for the Congress is August 15, though materials are accepted on a rolling, first-come-first-serve basis. Authors must submit the title of their work, as well as an abstract, here. Individuals may also register for the Congress here. If you have any questions, you may contact the Congress by filling out this form.

Utilizing International Cooperation and Networking, the State Department Strives to Strengthen Global Enforcement Efforts

April 16, 2019 by Alex Psilakis Leave a Comment

During the week of April 15, 2019, enforcement agents from around the world will meet in the United States for the fifth annual Towards a More Safe and Secure World International Visitor Leadership Program. International law enforcement, security, counternarcotic, and judicial officials from 56 countries will meet with their U.S. counterparts in 16 cities, focusing on how to improve efforts in combatting transnational crime and countering terrorism. The program will begin in Washington, DC, where plenary sessions will occur at the State Department and National Defense University involving security experts from both the public and private sector.

After meeting in Washington, the foreign officials will visit small and medium-sized cities throughout the U.S., conversing with law enforcement officers and public officials of the federal, regional, and local level. Program consultations will analyze mutual threats related to issues including border security, money laundering, and cyber security. The three-week program will wrap up with two events. First, the St. Petersburg Police Department will host a Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Taskforce Training program in Tampa, Florida. Finally, the FBI’s New York Field Office will co-host the Combatting Transnational Crime Global Cooperation Conference in New York City.

The State Department has outlined a number of project objectives they hope to fulfill in their efforts. They aim to strengthen global cooperation mechanisms to combat terrorism and other transnational crime threats. The State Department also hopes to better understand the means by which they impede global criminal activities including drug trafficking and trafficking in persons. They seek to improve partnerships between community-based organizations and law enforcement agents as well. Furthermore, they desire to address conflicts related to balancing law enforcement and security, while protecting civil liberties. These objectives, among the others they possess, emphasize how the State Department is taking serious, substantive steps to improve international enforcement cooperation, while developing a network of foreign officials more likely to trust one another and work together.

Now in its fifth year, the Towards a More Safe and Secure World program has brought a vast array of officials to the U.S. to study a variety of issues. In 2018, 80 security and law enforcement officials traveled to the U.S. with the program. This included Simon Cheung, a Chief Inspector with the Hong Kong Police Force, as well as Joseph Lengmang, a Director General of a government peacebuilding agency in Nigeria. Mr. Lengmang praised the program, noting, “I am very confident that [the program] is going to lead to a resounding working relationship among nations. Security is the responsibility of everyone, and it’s not going to be possible to think that one single country would have the capacity to deal with transnational challenges and crimes.”

One state that has taken a great deal away from the program is Bosnia and Herzegovina. While Bosnia looked to U.S. and international standards when rebuilding their judiciary and police after the Yugoslav Wars, they continue to recognize the value of international cooperation and networking. Edin Jahic, chief of the Section for Fighting Organized Crime and Corruption at Bosnia’s Ministry of Security, attended the program in 2018 and voiced his deep support for it. He stressed that his country has adopted U.S. mechanisms, such as plea agreements and a witness protection program, which have proven highly successful. He also valued the opportunity to meet private sector and university analysts, as well as develop relationships with his European counterparts.

“I am very fortunate to meet these guys,” said Jahic. “We’ve already made some friendships that are going to last more than these three weeks and, of course, it’s going to be very helpful for my future job.”

The experiences and thoughts of Mr. Jahic emulate what success within the Towards a More Safe and Secure World International Visitor Leadership Program looks like. Through promoting international enforcement cooperation and developing a global network of actors, the State Department is taking the steps needed to assist themselves and the global community in confronting transnational crime and terrorism. The program also illustrates how states (e.g., the U.S.), help develop international networks.