Please see here for more information and to sign up.

The University of Oklahoma is launching a four-part OU Global Risks & Threats Series on Saturday, June 6, with leaders from the intelligence, finance, law enforcement, corporate and cyber sectors. The other three virtual events will occur in late June, July and August.

The subject of the first of the four forums is The Pandemic Threat: Risks and Impacts of COVID-19, and will focus on the latest threats, trends and strategies on how to address the most critical issues of the pandemic. The forum is scheduled 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Central Time (USA). There will be a break halfway through.

Over the four sessions, attendees will gain knowledge of real-world solutions, with valuable insights from decision makers in the public and private sectors about their experience handling today’s most complex global challenges. Because of the pandemic, the series will take place as easily accessible virtual forums, presented online via Zoom. Questions for the speakers can be sent in before the forums.

Registration for the first event is US$30. Additional information, including a full agenda and presenter bios, is available online at price.ou.edu/GRTS, and the registration website is price.ou.edu/GRTSregistration.

Adriana Sanford, J.D., dual LL.M, the founding director of OU GRTS, Senior Fellow at the OU Center for Intelligence and National Security, and Assistant Director of Executive Education Programs at the Gene Rainbolt Graduate School of Business, will be the lead-off speaker at the events and preside throughout the series.

The lineup for the COVID-19 virtual event on Saturday, June 6, is:

Special Guest Speaker

• Honorable Eduardo Aninat, Former Finance Minister of Chile, former Chairman of the Board of Governors and member of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF

Keynotes and Featured Speakers

• Adriana Sanford, J.D., dual LL.M., Former Fortune 500 Senior Counsel, Global Threats Expert, and International Television Commentator
• Lou Bladel, former Chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section and current Managing Director of Assurance Services at Ernst & Young
• Tom Finan, former FBI Assistant General Counsel and current Cyber Growth Leader at Willis Towers Watson
• Cheemin Bo-Linn, ED.D., former Vice President of IBM and current Board of Director Member and Global Risk and Recovery Expert
• Bruce Zagaris, global anti-corruption and anti-money laundering expert
• Ross S. Delston, former FDIC regulator and global AML pundit
• Scott B. MacDonald, global economist and former OCC International Economic Adviser
•  Jeff Schermerhorn, complex cyber risk expert at Willis Towers Watson

Future speakers include:

• Spotify’s Head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer and former Microsoft General Counsel and Corporate Vice President for Legal Affairs, Horacio Gutierrez
• Chief Commercial Officer for Aon Intellectual Property Solutions, and former Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Philips and IBM Vice President of IP and Licensing, Brian Hinman
• Former Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent and CIA Operations Officer (Narco-Terrorism and Global Security Threats), Matt Addington
• Group Chief Risk Officer for Coca-Cola HBC, Gerold Knight

OU GRTS is a collaborative effort between the Michael F. Price College of Business and the OU Center for Intelligence and National Security, consistent with the University’s initiative “to solve real-world problems in ways that both build human knowledge and improve the communities that we serve.”

“The OU Global Risks & Threats Series provides a unique opportunity to leverage the insights of a diverse, talented group of international experts to better understand the risks and opportunities created by the COVID-19 pandemic and other major global concerns,” said James L. Regens, Ph.D., Regents Professor and director of the Center for Intelligence and National Security – an Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence.

OU GRTS maintains a cross-industry speaker ecosystem of world-renowned experts, visionaries, strategic decision-makers, and industry leaders that provide guidance, direction and insights.

“We think it is important to share our work and our vision with the global community and to help shape the next generation of world leaders, decision-makers, senior executives and skilled students,” said Wayne Thomas, interim dean of the Price College of Business. “By bringing world experts together, we can better understand the threats that have political, economic and social implications on all of us, and we can advance real-world solutions and work together on a multilateral basis,” he added.

About the University of Oklahoma

Founded in 1890, the University of Oklahoma is a public research university located in Norman, Oklahoma. OU serves the educational, cultural, economic and health care needs of the state, region and nation. More information is online at www.ou.edu.

About the Michael F. Price College of Business

The Michael F. Price College of Business has experienced significant growth over the past five years in the number of faculty, staff and students and has become OU’s second-largest college, with more than 4,900 students. The College offers undergraduate, master’s, executive and doctoral programs across six academic divisions in Accounting, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, Finance, Management and International Business, Management Information Systems, and Marketing and Supply Chain Management. The College’s Gene Rainbolt Graduate School of Business is a 27,000-square-foot facility located in the heart of Oklahoma City’s Innovation District and is home to the College’s full-time and professional MBA programs, as well as the Executive MBA in Aerospace and Defense and the Graduate Certificate in Aerospace and Defense.

The Price College of Business’s website is price.ou.edu and the Gene Rainbolt Graduate School of Business’s website is ou.edu/price/mba.

About the Center for Intelligence and National Security

As an Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence, the University of Oklahoma Center for Intelligence and National Security conducts interdisciplinary research on key intelligence and national security challenges. The Center also offers a robust academic program spanning science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the social and behavioral sciences, and critical languages. The academic program embraces experiential learning to build valuable foundational capacities in problem-solving, critical thinking and adaptability. Through its study abroad opportunities, OU CINS provides students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees a variety of cultural enrichment experiences.

The Center for Intelligence and National Security’s website is www.ou.edu/cins.

 

By Linda Friedman Ramirez^[1]    

On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Innovation Lab v Wolf and affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security in its controversial Migrant Protection Protocols.^[2]  The injunction had been issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2019.

Some hours after the Ninth Circuit issued its Order, the Government appealed.  Four days later and after briefing by the parties, the Ninth Circuit on March 4, 2020, reaffirmed its original order. The court temporarily stayed the Order to allow the Government until March 12, 2020 to seek intervention by the Supreme Court, and also limited enforcement of its injunction to border areas within the Court’s jurisdiction, that is California and Arizona.

Just what is the Migrant Protection Protocol and how does it impact asylum seekers?  In January of 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) began implementing this new policy regarding non-Mexican asylum seekers arriving in the United States from Mexico.    Denominated the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”), the policy calls for such persons, with certain exceptions, to be “returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings,” rather than either being detained for expedited or regular removal proceedings, or issued notices to appear for regular removal proceedings.

An illustrative case is that of a 41-year-old asylum-seeker, who “thought she would be safe and out of reach from the men in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juárez who had tortured her for 12 days.”  According to an article published in BuzzFeed, this asylum seeker was sent right back to the same city to wait until her U.S. Immigration Court case was completed.  She was, however, later released with an ankle monitor.^[3]

The plaintiffs in the Innovative Lab v Wolf, a collection of immigrant advocacy and civil rights organizations, do not view the Migrant Protection Protocols as protective of migrants.  As has been explained, “The immigrant as a threat will always have traction within the current approach, whereas any attempt to protect migrants and thereby reduce violence along the border has been met with extreme resistance,” writes Professor Jeremy Slack, Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Texas at El Paso in his new book Deported to Death.  “Around the world, the figure of the immigrant has seen resurgence as the scapegoat of choice.”

 

The initial Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed on February 14, 2019. In his Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Honorable Richard Seeborg considered only the narrow issue of whether the MPP complies with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).  “This case presents two basic questions: (1) does the Immigration and Naturalization Act authorize DHS to carry out the return policy of the MPP, and; (2) even assuming Congress has authorized such returns in general, does the MPP include sufficient safeguards to comply with DHS’s admitted legal obligation not to return any alien to a territory where his or her “life or freedom would be threatened?  In support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown the answer to both questions is ‘no.’^[4] Judge Seeborg concluded that the statute DHS contends the MPP is designed to enforce does not apply to these circumstances, and even if it did, further procedural protections would be required to conform to the government’s acknowledged obligation to ensure aliens are not returned to unduly dangerous circumstances.^[5]

The Court noted that “the legal question is not whether the MPP is a wise, intelligent, or humane policy, or whether it is the best approach for addressing the circumstances the executive branch contends constitute a crisis. Policy decisions remain for the political branches of government to make, implement, and enforce.  Rather, this injunction turns on the narrow issue of whether the MPP complies with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).^[6]

First Order, February 28, 2020.

On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order affirming the lower court’s granting of an injunction. The Court reviewed whether MPP was authorized by USC 1225 and 1231. Of particular interest was the degree to which the Government’s program failed to inform asylum seekers as how to express fear of removal to Mexico, when in fact, asylum seekers who are forced to remain in the border areas of Mexico are targeted by criminal elements.^[7]

The Court cited one Howard Doe: “‘told the asylum officer that I was afraid [of returning to Mexico]. I explained that I’d been kidnapped for fifteen days by Los Zetas in Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, [Mexico], and that I’d managed to escape. … Migrants in Tijuana are always in danger, and I am especially afraid because the Zetas torture people who escape them.’ Despite having told their asylum officers that they feared returning, Frank Doe and Howard Doe were returned to Mexico.”

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that it is inconsistent in part with 8 U.S.C.§ 1231(b). “Because the MPP is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with § 1225(b), it should be enjoined in its entirety. Because plaintiffs have successfully challenged the MPP under § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and because the MPP directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border, the issuance of a temporary injunction setting aside the MPP was not an abuse of discretion.”

Some hours after the Court had filed its opinion and order, the Government sought an emergency stay of the Injunction.  The Court issued the stay and required briefing on the stay.   On March 2, and March 3, 2020, the parties filed briefs on the issue of the emergency stay.

Second Ninth Circuit Order March 4, 2020.

On March 4, 2020, the Court issued a revised Order, reaffirming its earlier decision, but restricting its application to only the border areas contained within the Ninth Circuit (California and Arizona.) The Court also allowed the government seven days to pursue its remedies to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In declining to delay the Order beyond March 12, 2020, the Court cited to “uncontradicted evidence in the record shows not only that asylum officers implementing the MPP do not ask whether asylum seekers fear returning to Mexico. It also shows that officers actively prevent or discourage applicants from expressing such a fear, and that they ignore applicants who succeed in doing so. For example, Alex Doe, a plaintiff in this case, wrote in a sworn declaration, “When I tried to respond and explain [why I had left Honduras] the officer told me something like, ‘you are only going to respond to the questions I ask you, nothing more.’” Frank Doe, another plaintiff, wrote in a sworn declaration, “He never asked me if I was afraid of returning to Mexico. At one point, I had to interrupt him to explain that I didn’t feel safe in Mexico. He told me that it was too bad. He said that Honduras wasn’t safe, Mexico wasn’t safe, and the U.S. isn’t safe either.”

The Court also considered the danger:

“Uncontradicted evidence also shows that there is extreme danger to asylum seekers who are returned to Mexico. For example, Howard Doe, a plaintiff, wrote in a sworn declaration: “While I was in Tijuana, two young Honduran men were abducted, tortured and killed. . . . On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, I was attacked and robbed by two young Mexican men. . . . They . . . told me that they knew I was Honduran and that if they saw me again, they would kill me.”

“Because the MPP so clearly violates §§ 1225(b) and 1231(b), and because the harm the MPP causes to plaintiffs is so severe, we decline to stay our opinion pending certiorari proceedings in the Supreme Court, except as noted below with respect to the scope of the injunction.”   ^[8]

One week after the Opinion, the Government now plans to deploy active duty troops to the Border in response to the decision by the Ninth Circuit.  ^[9]    “U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced Friday that it would deploy 80 active duty troops to San Diego’s San Ysidro border crossing and 80 more to El Paso’s Paso del Norte bridge as early as Saturday to provide ‘military police support, engineer, and aviation support’  to customs officials at those two ports of entry. The border agency’s announcement emphasized the role that a Feb. 28 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco factored into their decision to deploy troops to those two cities.”^[10]

^[1]        Linda Friedman Ramirez, Esq. provides research and writing services for attorneys. She is a Life Member of NACDL, and has written for the Champion magazine.

^[2]        2020 WL 964402 (9th. 2020)

^[3]        Adolfo Flores, An Asylum-Seeker Who Was Kidnapped And Tortured With Acid Begged US Border Officers Not To Send Her Back. They Did Anyway, BuzzFeed, March 7, 2020, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/asylum-seeker-tortured-mexico.

^[4]        Ibid.

^[5]        Ibid.

^[6]        Ibid.

^[7]        Deported to Death.

^[8]        Order dated March 4, 2020.

^[9]        Rafael Carranza, Trump to deploy 160 active duty troops to border in response to court rulings, coronavirus, Arizona Central, March, 6 2020, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2020/03/06/trump-send-active-duty-troops-border/4978776002/

^[10]       Ibid.

The IELR sends everyone best wishes for 2020.  2019 proved to be yet another important year for the international enforcement community. For the full version of our Holiday Perspective, please refer to ielr.com.

Tax transparency and enforcement remained prominent in our coverage.  The IELR covered the victories of the Danish tax authority in the U.S. District Court in New York alleging fraud against U.S. pension funds.  Prosecutions of tax enablers loomed large.  Prof. Fred T. Davis wrote about the conviction of UBS AG and its French subsidiary in France in the context of France’s relative lack of success in prosecuting corporations involved in multinational crimes. HSBC Swiss agreed to pay Belgium €294.4 million to settle and a former HSBC chief pled guilty.  A Liechtenstein-related Swiss bank settled a tax enabler case with the U.S. for $10.6 million.  In the U.S., the DPA with HSBC brought $192.35 million in penalties.  The EU added 9 jurisdictions to its tax haven blacklist.

We covered a number of international environmental enforcement stories.  In particular, we reported on the roles of NGOs and data analytics in prosecuting illegal timber trade and deforestation, as well as attempted wildlife smuggling.

Migration enforcement continued to loom large. Linda Friedman Ramirez reported on the acquittal in a criminal case of a CBP agent, shooting from the U.S. and killing a Mexican national on the other side of the border.  Evan Schleicher reported on the gaps between international law and justice in the Mediterranean migration crisis.  In the U.S., while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called for cooperation, President Trump cut aid and closed the border.   A Dutch court ordered the Netherlands to repatriate 56 children of ISIS from Syrian camps as Turkey started deportations.  Lex Haris discussed Turkey’s action to repatriate ISIS members back to Europe.

The IELR covered several post-conflict threats, such as the UN mission in Colombia on the peace process, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and related developments.  Prof. Michael Plachta covered the International Criminal Court’s troubling acquittal of Laurent Gbago, the former President of the Ivory Coast and his right-hand man.  Evan Schleicher reported on the German appellate court overturning convictions of two Rwandans charged with war crimes.  Prof. Plachta reported on the ICC’s rejection of the prosecutor’s request to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan.  Alex Psilakis and Bruce Zagaris covered the U.S.’s revocation of an entry visa for the ICC prosecutor over the Afghanistan case.

Enforcement of international human rights was important.  Ramirez reported on the award by a U.S. District Court of more than $202 million in damages to the family of journalist Marie Colvin, who was killed while on assignment in Syria.  Prof. Plachta reported on the Council of Europe’s adoption of a resolution on fighting impunity by targeted sanctions in the Magnitsky case and beyond.  Ramirez discussed the controversy over the U.S. Justice Department’s dismantling of the FBI’s International Human Rights Unit.  Prof. Plachta discussed the Council of Europe’s call on Russia to re-open and continue the investigation into the murder of Boris Nemtsov.  Zarine Kharazian reported on a U.S. District Court judge ordering N. Korea to pay $500 million to the family of Otto Warmbier in a wrongful death suit.

On genocide, Prof. Plachta discussed the proceedings Gambia brought against Myanmar before the ICJ over genocide against Rohingya.

INTERPOL developments were important in 2019.  Kharazian and Psilakis covered the release of Bahraini soccer star and refugee Hakeem Al-Araibi amidst INTERPOL Red Notice complications.  Yuriy Nemets and Ted Bromund wrote articles taking different positions on INTERPOL’s lack of power to act preemptively in fighting government abuse of the diffusion system.  We covered a U.S. Congressional bill to curb INERPOL abuse after a Helsinki Commission Hearing.

Transnational corruption continued undergoing important developments. We covered ICE officials’ arrest of a Brazilian bribery suspect on a Brazil extradition request.  An Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) expert group reported on anti-corruption, transparency, and integrity in Latin America and the Caribbean.  Using Unexplained Wealth Orders, the UK forfeited £466,321 from the son of Moldova’s Prime Minister and recovered £6 million from members of an international money laundering ring, arising out of Croatia.  Miranda Bannister reported on the U.S. crackdown of foreign influence on U.S. universities.

The IELR reported on several enforcement developments concerning the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  Skadden agreed to a civil settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) over FARA violations.  The U.S. charged two of Flynn’s associates, the first National Security Advisor in the Trump administration, with FARA violations on the Gulen extradition case.  The U.S. indicted former senior Mozambique officials and investment bankers for their roles in a $2 billion fraud and money laundering scheme.

On transparency and disinformation the IELR covered U.S. indictments of two former twitter employees and a Saudi national.

The IELR reported on emoluments cases brought against President Trump.

International money laundering cases were featured prominently in our reporting.  We discussed the prosecutions in several countries, including France and Estonia, of Danske bank and its officials. Estonia ordered Danske Bank to close operations and investigated alleged links to Swedbank.  The European Commission extended its money laundering blacklist and included Saudi Arabia.  The New York Bar censured a lawyer for counseling clients to engage in fraudulent conduct. Ibtissem Lassoued discussed the UAE’s new AML law and FATF’s regional impact. In a conference, The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and StAR reviewed options to prevent abuse of legal professional privilege.

Economic sanctions continued to be a hot topic.  Farhad Mirzadeh covered how European solutions offered little hope for Iran in the face of U.S. sanctions.  Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP attorneys discussed more sanctions targeting Venezuela’s Maduro regime.  Psilakis discussed a UN Security Council report on how N. Korea has evaded sanctions imposed against it as well as U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba.

The IELR reported on international evidence gathering, particularly the DOJ’s white paper on the CLOUD Act, the conclusion by the U.S. of CLOUD Act agreements with the UK and Australia.  Prof. Plachta reported on the UK court lifting an obligation to seek assurances from the U.S. in a death penalty case.  Plachta also discussed the European Commission’s recommendation of negotiating a treaty with the U.S. on access to electronic evidence.   Plachta discussed the second round of negotiations of the EU-U.S. treaty on access to electronic evidence.

As always, the IELR covered extradition matters.  We reported several times on China-Canada-U.S. extradition tensions apparently arising from Canada’s detention of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer and daughter of Huawei’s founder.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained two high-net-worth fugitives from Ecuador convicted in absentia of crimes arising from a bank failure.  The brothers have made substantial political contributions to U.S. politicians.  In this connection, after Ecuador withdrew asylum from Julian Assange, we have reported on his detention by the UK on U.S. extradition requests and subsequent extradition proceedings.

The return and recovery of cultural property continues to loom large.  Prof. Plachta reported on the European Parliament’s adoption of a resolution on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods.

A major issue the IELR covered was the interplay of counterterrorism and international human rights.  Psilakis reported on stripping citizenship, and the struggle of states to confront foreign fighters who are citizens that migrated to Syria to join ISIS.

On international narcotics enforcement, the IELR reviewed the State Department’s annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.  We discussed the U.S. government’s imposition of sanctions to curb the flow of fentanyl from China. Also covered was the imposition of sanctions on a notorious drug kingpin’s organization and members, including two former Major League Baseball players.  Prof. Luz E Nagle covered trans-border labor trafficking and forced servitude in marijuana growing operations.

On transnational organized crime developments the U.S. announced continued funding of N. Triangle law enforcement efforts.  We reported on the meeting of prosecutors from the U.S., Colombia and Mexico for a transnational criminal organizations’ working group.  We covered Mexico’s extradition of an alleged barrio Azteca shooter to the U.S.

The IELR discussed the progress in global competition enforcement cooperation, especially the initiative for a Multilateral Framework on Procedures, which the International Competition Network Steering Group adopted.  This development shows how anti-trust authorities are developing harmonized norms and a cooperative framework.

Prof. Plachta covered enforcement developments in the context of economic integration.    He covered the European Parliament’s approval of a new directive as well as the Council of Europe’s adoption of a resolution and recommendation on the protection of whistleblowers.  Prof. Plachta discussed progress of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on law enforcement issues.  Prof. Plachta covered the EU Court of Justice ruling on prison conditions as a prerequisite of the European Arrest Warrant.  Prof. Plachta discussed 10 years of police and judicial cooperation within the EU under the Lisbon treaty.

With respect to arms trafficking, we covered the U.S. and Argentine governments’ seizure of arms targeting mainly Brazil.   Prof. Plachta reported on the UK Appeal Court’s judgment ruling that ministers had acted unlawfully in allowing the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia when they might be used in violation of international humanitarian law in Yemen.

Cybercrime continued to increase.  We covered international law enforcement against business email compromise scheme, resulting in 281 arrests.  We covered Israel’s extradition of a Russian hacker to the U.S., ignoring Russian exchange requests.  We covered a U.S. indictment of 10 persons in Nigerian romance scams.  Lex Haris covered charges filed against two Russians accused of one of the largest cybercrime sprees in history.

On bilateral enforcement cooperation the IELR covered the halting by the U.S. of U.S.-Cuba enforcement dialogue and cooperation.

In regard to espionage, Miranda Bannister discussed the latest in China’s growing spy campaign against the U.S.

Miranda Bannister discussed human trafficking within her reporting on the victims in Essex Lorry incident and the latest in Europe’s human trafficking tragedies.

The IELR blog and social media presence continued to be active with close to 5,000 visits throughout the year and hundreds of new Twitter followers. A special highlight occurred in November, when the Cuban ambassador to the U.S. shared an IELR article on his social media platforms.

The IELR had two great assistant editors, Alex Psilakis and Alexandra Haris.  The IELR continues to be distributed by LexisNexis, WestLaw, EBSCO, and William Hein & Co. each month.  Premium subscribers can use the IELR search engine to identify and read all the back issues on our website.

The IELR was fortunate to have stellar contributions from its interns Evan Schleicher and more recently Miranda Bannister, who continually take on complicated topics and digest them to subscribers.

We hope you enjoy reading the IELR as much as we enjoy publishing it!

Best wishes for the New Year,

The IELR Team