IELR Blog

Leaked Video Implicates Venezuelan President in Odebrecht Bribery Scheme

October 16, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian 1 Comment

President Nicolàs Maduro of Venezuela has become the latest Latin American leader implicated in the Odebrecht bribery scheme, the New York Times reported last Thursday.

In a leaked video published on the blog of Luisa Ortega, Venezuela’s ousted attorney general, Euzenando Prazeres de Azevedo a manager of Odebrecht’s Venuzela arm, says that a representative of Maduro asked him for “a large sum” during Maduro’s 2013 presidential campaign. “He asked for 50, I accepted to pay him 35 million,” Azevedo admits in the video, which was filmed by Brazilian prosecutors last December.

Two days after releasing the initial video, Ortega posted a second video on her blog in which Azevedo claims that, from 2004 to 2013, Odebrecht contributed extensively to Venezuelan political campaigns at the federal, state, and municipal levels. “We were always looking to contribute to these campaigns, and we contributed to many of them, specifically in those states and the municipalities where we had projects,” Azevedo says in the video.

Ortega released the second video on the eve of Venezuela’s gubernatorial elections. Despite polls predicting an opposition victory, Maduro’s Socialist Party won 17 governorships, while the rival Democratic Unity coalition captured only five. Maduro’s alleged involvement in the Odebrecht bribery scheme has thus far gone unreported in the Venezuelan state media.

Ireland’s High Court Refers Schrems II to Europe’s Highest Court: Implications for E.U.-U.S. Relations

October 11, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems | Photograph: Christian Bruna/AFP/Getty Images

Ireland’s High Court has asked the European Court of Justice to rule on the legality of Facebook and other U.S.-based technology companies’ transfer of EU citizens’ data to the United States. The case, called The Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, has huge implications for data privacy and E.U.-U.S. relations.

Background

Schrems I – Safe Harbor

In June 2003, Austrian law student Max Schrems filed a formal complaint against “Facebook Ireland LTD,” Facebook’s Ireland subsidiary, before Ireland’s national data protection authority. Schrems, a Facebook user, alleged that Facebook Ireland LTD was violating the Irish Data Protect Act by outsourcing the processing of his data to “Facebook Inc.,” the social media giant’s U.S. headquarters. Section 11 of the Irish DPA states:

The transfer of personal data by a data controller to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area may not take place unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the privacy and the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.

Schrems argued that, following the Snowden revelations that identified “Facebook Inc.” as a voluntary participant in the NSA’s PRISM mass surveillance program, the Ireland DPC could not guarantee that Schrems’s data was subject to “an adequate level of protection” upon transfer to the United States.

Initially, the DPC declined to take Schrems’s case, citing the 2000 Safe Harbor Decision, under which the European Commission determined that companies participating in the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor Framework provided “an adequate level of protection” with regards to data privacy. But an appeal from Schrems eventually brought the case before the High Court, which in 2014 agreed to refer several questions to the CJEU. In a landmark ruling, the CJEU invalidated the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor Agreement, finding that the framework did not adequately guard against “interference, founded on national security and public interest requirements or on domestic legislation of the United States, with the fundamental rights of the persons whose personal data is or could be transferred from the European Union to the United States.”

Schrems II—Standard Contractual Clauses

The case made its way back to the Irish High Court, which in turn remitted the complaint back to the DPC. The DPC started an investigation into the case, and invited Schrems to reformulate his complaint in light of the ECJ ruling on the Safe Harbor Agreement.

For his reformulated complaint, Schrems contacted Facebook, requesting that the company identify all of the legal bases upon which it relies to transfer user data to the United States. Facebook referred to a data transfer and processing agreement dated November 2015, which relied on the European Commission’s standard contractual clauses decision of 2010. Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs, also called “Model Clauses” or “Model Contracts”) are sets of clauses issued by the Commission in order to provide adequate data privacy safeguards during the transfer of personal data from the E.U. to third countries who do not guarantee “adequate” protection per E.U. standards. Companies based in third countries, including the United States, can employ the clauses verbatim to ensure timely approval of their data transfer protocols.

In his reformulated complaint, Schrems attacks the legitimacy and binding status of the SCCs. In particular, he argues that the DPC is not bound to respect Facebook’s cited SCC because U.S. surveillance programs, namely PRISM, violate Article 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the Irish Constitution, and, further, that all SCCs, including the cited SCC, provide an “emergency clause” that “takes account of a situation where national laws of a third country override these clauses and allows [data protection authorities] to suspend data flows in the situation.”

In May 2016, the Irish DPC’s office announced that, after conducting its investigation into the matter, it did not find that SCCs could adequately address the data protection deficiencies of U.S. law. Since the SCCs were established by the European Commission, however, the DPC acknowledged that it did not have the authority to unilaterally declare them invalid. It thus brought the case back before the Irish High Court, seeking a referral to the CJEU. Last Tuesday, the High Court agreed to refer the case to Europe’s highest court.

So What?

Implications for U.S.-EU Trade

The E.U.-U.S. trade relationship is the most robust trade relationship in the world, accounting for 30-40% of global trade in goods and services. The transatlantic flow of data underpins and sustains this relationship. Multinational companies in the U.S. and E.U. regularly send data to and receive data from their subsidiaries across the Atlantic for communications, human resources, and research and development purposes. Furthermore, many goods and services, such as online banking, telecommunications, and advertising are now primarily delivered over the Internet. According to a Brooking Institution report, these “digitally-deliverable services” constitute over 60 percent of exports for the U.S. and over 55 percent of exports for the European Union.

Cases such as Schrems I and Schrems II risk disrupting the free flow of data between the United States and the European Union. By creating legal and regulatory uncertainty about proper data transfer protocol, these cases raise the costs and risks to U.S. companies of doing business in Europe. These increased costs and risks in turn discourage U.S. companies from engaging with European businesses and consumers. Legal and regulatory barriers to transatlantic data flows prove particularly costly for small businesses, which often lack both the financial and human capital required to navigate cumbersome regulations.

Implications for Transatlantic Law Enforcement and Intelligence Cooperation

While the potential implications of the E.U.’s fervent data protectionism on trade and the global economy have been extensively discussed, the potential effects on another area of strong E.U.-U.S. cooperation – law enforcement and intelligence sharing – have thus far been largely neglected.

U.S. intelligence capabilities, especially with regards to signals intelligence (SIGINT), dwarf those of E.U. member states, and the E.U. has heavily relied on U.S. intelligence for decades. Washington and London have had a long-standing intelligence sharing pact called the UKUSA Agreement since 1946. Both are key members of the Anglo-American intelligence sharing group known as Five Eyes, alongside Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Furthermore, documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal several tiers of intelligence-sharing alliances that count both the United States and several European countries as members, among them Denmark, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland. Following the November 13, 2015 terror attacks in France, Washington also agreed to boost its sharing of raw operational and military intelligence with Paris.

In short, if Brussels continues to erect barriers to data flows to and from Washington, many E.U. member states may have to forfeit some of their VIP access to American intelligence as well.

The Master of Arts in Financial Integrity-Case Western Reserve University

September 29, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

The Master of Arts in Financial Integrity – Case Western Reserve University

The course of study is intended for professionals who design and implement anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation financing policies and related integrity initiatives. Taught by leading academics and practitioners from around the world, the MAFI program is the first of its kind offered by a major research university.

To obtain the MAFI degree, students must successfully complete eight courses for a total of 32 credits. The 2017-2018 MAFI tuition rate is $2,106 per credit hour. Scholarship aid is available.

Program Format

Courses are conducted for 16 months through a series of intensive, weekend sessions held on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Students may participate via video conferencing. The next cohort, beginning October 20, 2017, will be taught in Washington, D.C., USA.

Required Courses

Electives

Admissions Requirements

Applicants should have a BA or equivalent degree and professional experience in financial integrity or a related field.

The application deadline is October 16, 2017.

Frequently Asked Questions

What about remote attendance?
Courses are available remotely through live video conferencing. However, students are urged to attend as many classes as possible to ensure both in depth learning and professional networking.
What time are classes held?
The classes are held one weekend a month from 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Is financial assistance available?
Yes! We have financing to provide merit scholarships. Other types of aid may include government loans and financial assistance through employers.
How long does it take to complete the degree?
October 2017 to December 2018, or 16 months.
What are the admissions requirements?
BA or professional experience in financial integrity or a related field.

Complete information on course content and our internationally recognized stellar faculty can be found at http://www.law.case.edu/Academics/Degrees/Master-of-Arts-in-Financial-Integrity

For more information contact MAFI@case.edu.

INTERPOL General Assembly Adopts Data Processing Policy on Refugees

September 29, 2017 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

The INTERPOL General Assembly met in Beijing for a four-day conference, which concluded today and convened as many as 1,000 senior law enforcement officials as well as government ministers from a total of 156 countries. The General Assembly is the chief governing body of INTERPOL, whose mission is to serve as “the natural custodian of global law enforcement interests”.

According to an INTERPOL media release, one of the outcomes of the conference was to adopt a policy on data processing on refugees, with the primary purpose of preventing criminals and terrorists from abusing refugee status. This resolution was overwhelmingly approved by delegates at the convention, and puts forth a series of measures that member countries would be required to enforce during the asylum application process. This would involve “systematically checking INTERPOL’s databases”, as well as using and expanding access to the INTERPOL Information System so that all relevant authorities can more easily exchange information.

The policy also asks that member countries inform either INTERPOL’s General Secretariat headquarters or the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files when “an individual has been granted refugee status” as well as “on the outcome of an asylum application review”. This requirement corresponds to the national laws and confidentiality requirements that the General Assembly already has in place.

Jürgen Stock, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, is confident that this resolution will help maintain a balance between improving international police cooperation and improving safeguards to ensure the protection of the rights of refugees. It also serves to formalize a policy set forth by INTERPOL’s Executive Committee in June 2014 that has already “been applied to the processing of Red Notices and diffusions against refugees”. Finally, it directly relates to the United Nations Security Council resolutions that encourage countries to take action to safeguard refugee status against abuse “by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts”.

The conference concluded with the delegates reaffirming their support for INTERPOL’s seven global policing goals for 2030. These key security topics involve countering terrorism, promoting border integrity, protecting vulnerable communities, securing cyberspace, promoting global integrity, curbing illicit markets, and supporting environmental security. Secretary General Stock closed the conference with a call for a united effort to address these evolving security threats, which is needed now more than ever.

86th INTERPOL General Assembly Underway in Beijing

September 28, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian 2 Comments

Opening of the 86th General Assembly on September 26, in Beijing | Source: www.interpol.int

Today marks the third day of the 86^th International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) Generally Assembly in Beijing, China. The General Assembly, composed of delegates from 190 member countries, is the supreme governing body of the organization. The GA meets annually for a four- day conference, at which they adopt Resolutions regarding finances, resources for international cooperation, and general policy by a simple majority.

Here are some of the highlights from the 86^th General Assembly thus far:

Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered the opening remarks. President Xi underscored the need for cooperation. “China has actively participated in global law-enforcement cooperation and global security governance, resolutely supported international fight against terrorism, joined global cooperation in combating cyber crimes, worked with other countries in fugitive repatriation, fighting against telecom fraud and other crimes,” President Xi remarked.
Meng Hongwai, the current president of INTERPOL, also delivered remarks. President Hongwai stressed that “INTERPOL in the new age should be an INTERPOL that faces the future.” For Hongwai, a forward-facing INTERPOL would “participate in the discussions” and “take a stance” on global security issues, as well as excel in “supplying technical services” and providing a “platform for cooperation among… countries, international organizations, private entities and civil society.” Read the full transcript of President Hongwai’s speech here.
The GA voted to admit Palestine and the Solomon Islands as member countries. The decision to admit Palestine was met with ire by Israeli officials – Israel’s Deputy Minister for Diplomacy, Michael Oren, wrote on Twitter that “[b]y admitting ‘Palestine’, which praises terrorists of the past and refuses to condemn those of today, Interpol makes the world less safe.”

Look for more updates and analysis on the 86^th General Assembly in the next issue of the International Enforcement Law Reporter.

The “Father of International Criminal Law,” M. Cherif Bassiouni (1937-2017)

September 27, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

M. Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian-American law professor hailed by many in academic and policy circles as “the father of international criminal law,” passed away on September 25, 2017. He was 79. The cause of death was reported to be complications from multiple myeloma.

Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni was born in Cairo, Egypt, on December 9, 1937. His father was an Egyptian diplomat to India. In 1956, while a young Bassiouni was studying law in France, the Suez Crisis broke out. Bassiouni returned to Egypt to serve in the Egyptian army, and fought against the attack on the Sinai Peninsula.

In 1964, Bassiouni received his law degree from Indiana University, and also received a doctorate of law from George Washington University. As a legal scholar, Professor Bassiouni was incredibly prolific. In his six decade long career, he published 256 scholarly articles and over 30 books on topics ranging from international extradition to the Islamic criminal justice system.

Professor Bassiouni with Barack Obama Chicago, IL | 2008

Professor Bassiouni was not only a scholar of international law, but a human rights champion. As vice-chair of the UN General Assembly, he helped establish the International Criminal Court, earning him a Nobel Peace Prize nomination in 1999. He has investigated war crimes and human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Afghanistan, among other countries. In 1990, he co-founded the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University, where he had taught for over six decades.

Opinio Juris has published a farewell note by Professor Bassiouni that his students sent out posthumously from his email account to his list of friends and acquaintances. He is survived by his wife, Elaine Klemen-Bassiouni, a stepdaughter, Lisa Capitanini, and two grandchildren.

President Trump Issues Proclamation Detailing Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Attempted Entry into the United States

September 26, 2017 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

On September 24, 2017, President Trump released a presidential proclamation with an extended and more detailed version of the travel ban that his administration has been constructing for months. This new version follows as a result of the worldwide review the president requested in March as part of Executive Order (E.O.) 13780, which resulted in an in-depth evaluation of nearly 200 countries “with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices”, as well as whether or not they “have a significant terrorist presence within their territory”. Per the outcome of this review along with advice from the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, as well as the Attorney General, President Trump decided that there are a small number of countries that do not meet the criteria, and may therefore pose a risk to “the security and interests of the United States and its people”. With that in mind, the president has imposed travel restrictions on individuals from the following countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Additional restrictions have been placed on Iraq and Somalia, albeit to a lesser extent than the aforementioned countries.

As previously mentioned, this new order is far more comprehensive than the administration’s original travel ban, which was released without warning on January 27, 2017, causing chaos at airports across the country and sparking protests against the ban’s controversial nature. While the original ban only targeted individuals from predominantly Muslim countries, North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad have now been added to the list, while restrictions on travel from Sudan have been dropped. Opponents of the Trump administration nicknamed the original order the “Muslim ban”, following in part from Trump’s comments on the campaign trail when he called for a ban on travel for all Muslims to the United States in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015. Multiple legal battles ensued questioning the constitutionality of the so-called Muslim ban, resulting in its nullification by multiple circuit and district courts. A revised version of the ban eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which allowed the ban to take partial effect in June and agreed to hear further arguments in October. However, the Supreme Court abruptly cancelled these oral arguments on September 25th, shortly after the newer, broader ban was released.

Although the new ban is country-specific, for the most part it restricts entry from both immigrants and non-immigrants, including those on business or tourist visas. Valid student and exchange visitor visas will not be affected. The administration specifically seeks to restrict travel from nationals with immigrant visas since, should national security issues arise, they are more difficult to remove from the country once they become lawful permanent residents. According to the proclamation, this “heightens the costs and dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals”. Any immigrant or nonimmigrant in the United States, or those that have or qualify for a visa before the applicable effective date will not affected. Waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis, but only if the individual meets certain conditions and requirements that will be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Secretary of Homeland Security may at any time, after consulting with the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Director of National Intelligence, decide to add or remove some or all restrictions for a given country, based on whether or not they are in compliance with the standards outlined in the proclamation.

Trump Administration Issues Executive Order Outlining New North Korea Sanctions

September 22, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian 1 Comment

On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order imposing additional sanctions on North Korea. The sanctions come in response to North Korea’s escalating weapons tests over the past months, including two intercontinental ballistic missile launches in July and a nuclear test in early September.

The new sanctions go significantly further than those imposed by the UN Security Council earlier this month. While the UN Security Council sanctions mostly focused on sanctioning those operating within North Korea (by instituting an assets freeze, as well as a partial oil embargo for example), the Trump administration’s sanctions more heavily target actors, such as China, that do international trade and business with North Korea, who then want to do business with the United States.

For the full text of the EO, see here. For a full text of OFAC’s updated FAQ related to the North Korea sanctions, see here.

Building the Border Wall: Updates

September 21, 2017 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

Amid Recording-Setting Year for Drug Seizures at Sea, Trump Administration Considers Cuts to Coast Guard to Fund Border Wall

At an event in San Diego on Wednesday, the Coast Guard announced a record-breaking year in cocaine seizures at sea. The service has seized more than 455,000 pounds of cocaine so far in the fiscal year, which will end in October 1, breaking last year’s record of 433,790 pounds. In addition, the Coast Guard has detained at least 681 individuals suspected of smuggling throughout this year.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a joint press conference with Coast Guard officials in San Diego, and lauded the Coast Guard’s enforcement of drug laws. “By preventing overdoses and stopping new addictions before they start, enforcing our drug laws saves lives,” Sessions said. “This record-breaking year by our Coast Guard saw the arrest of more than 600 suspected drug traffickers and kept nearly half a million pounds of dangerous drugs from getting to our streets — and ultimately to our neighbors, friends, and families.”

Sessions’ praise for the Coast Guard’s historic year for drug seizures comes as the Trump administration eyes cuts to the Coast Guard budget to generate funding for the proposed US-Mexico border wall. A draft budget circulated in March proposed slashing billions of dollars of funding for federal disaster relief agencies and programs, including cutting 11 percent each of the TSA and FEMA budgets and 14 percent of the Coast Guard’s budget, while increasing funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection by 36 percent and 27 percent, respectively.

The proposed budget cuts to federal disaster relief have encountered renewed criticism in the wake of several powerful hurricanes that devastated parts of Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean islands this season.

California Sues Trump Administration over Wall, Citing Environmental Concerns

Later on Wednesday, the state of California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop construction of the border wall. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges that the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security are “in violation of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] because they failed to prepare an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] concerning a construction project that will span hundreds of miles in four states and in areas that either contain or are adjacent to environmentally sensitive natural resources.”

Furthermore, in failing to submit “a timely consistency determination,” the complaint alleges that the DHS has violated the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) with respect to the wall’s construction in San Diego County.

The suit also alleges that the project “is not authorized by Section 102 of IIRIRA because it fails to distinguish between different areas of the border and whether a particular area is an area of high illegal entry into the United States.” In addition, the suit claims that DHS failed to include the San Diego and Calexico project areas “as part of its obligation to identify and construct necessary barriers in Priority Areas prior to the December 31, 2008, deadline.”

To read the entire complaint, see here.

FinCEN Warns Financial Institutions to be on the Lookout for Suspicious Activity Linked to Venezuelan Corruption

September 21, 2017 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an advisory on September 20, 2017 in order to warn financial institutions about suspicious activity with links to widespread political corruption in Venezuela in an effort to safeguard the U.S. financial system from potentially illicit activities. As a result of endemic corruption in both the political and economic spheres, any and all Venezuelan government bodies, including state-owned enterprises (SOEs), are at risk for public corruption and money laundering. However, FinCEN noted that transactions involving Venezuelan businesses and nationals not affiliated with the government are not necessarily at risk.

FinCEN stressed that any awareness or knowledge of money laundering schemes employed by corrupt Venezuelan officials should be brought to their attention, since any information regarding this matter can assist other financial institutions in reviewing whether or not they or their clients are at risk. These risks specifically pertain to transactions with or involving Venezuelan government agencies or SOEs, any of which could be used as a vehicle for money laundering, embezzlement, and other corruption proceeds.

FinCEN included a list of financial red flags that institutions should watch for, including “transactions with the Venezuelan government that are directed to personal accounts” or “companies that operate in an unrelated line of business”, as well as “payments involving government contracts that originate from non-official Venezuelan accounts” or “from third parties that are not official government entities.”

The reason FinCEN is volunteering this information is to help U.S. financial institutions meet their due diligence obligations with regards to the situation in Venezuela. Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act already requires that these institutions “have regulatory obligations to apply enhanced scrutiny to private banking accounts held by, or on behalf of, senior foreign political figures and to monitor transactions that could potentially represent misappropriated or diverted state assets… or other public corruption proceeds.” Therefore, FinCEN asks that these institutions take “reasonable, risk-based steps” consistent with the regulatory obligations already in place.

This advisory comes on the heels of Executive Order (E.O.) 13808, issued by President Trump on August 25, 2017, which imposes sanctions that prohibit “certain debt, equity, and profit and dividend disbursement activities” with the Venezuelan government as well as with Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), its state-owned oil company. Furthermore, in February 2017 the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) exposed Venezuela Vice President Tareck El Aissami, along with his front man Samark Lopez Bello, for contributing to international narcotic trafficking in violation of the Foreign Narcotic Kingpin Designation Act.

As a result, FinCEN believes that other Venezuelan senior officials not yet designated by OFAC may try to cover their tracks and protect their assets. However, as long as U.S. financial institutions continue to comply with their due diligence obligations and report any suspicious activity related to illegal transactions connected to the Venezuelan government, the U.S. financial system will remain protected.