Business Clearstream 1

Charges of Revelations

The charge of Denis Robert and Ernest Backes rests on four points:

It affirms that companies also have accounts at Clearstream, and that they were used to make illegal transfers of funds. Le Monde

No proof was brought. The customers of Cedel International then Clearstream can ask so that their accounts are or not published, i.e. made available of their counterpart. These accounts as well as the different audited ones and are subjected to same controls. The customers of Clearstream are private banking or public as well as Central banks or financial institutions like 4 companies.

Some say that today many international industry groups are also financial groups, including an banking institution, which, in fact, gives little direction to the distinction between a company and an banking institution.

- - confirms in addition: " It provides to its customers, essentially banques" , the daily newspaper of the evening writes thus, adding that " These precise details do not mean that Clearstream is safe from operations of bleaching, operated by gangster or terrorist networks. So more than 90% of the transactions are realized for strictly controlled banks, the fact that the company also has as customers of the financial groups established in tax shelters, these little controlled centers offshore oil rig, is a weakness. And this, even if these relations are legal, Clearstream affirming not to trade with banks whose head offices are in countries driven on the black list of the GAFI, the international agency in charge of the fight against the blanchiment."

Cedel International then Clearstream would hold accounts of private individuals. That is false. No private individual can hold of account in Clearstream. It is necessary to be bank or financial institution.

According to Governed Hempel, a former data processing specialist of Cedel-Clearstream laid off into 1992 of the data would have been unobtrusive before the investigations of Luxembourg justice. Put in residence by the police force and justice to repeat the operations which he said to have made daily, Mr. Hempel was unable to do it. In its book the Block box , Denis Robert describes how it will be carried out in boat by Mr. Hempel who will never deliver the evidence requested to him.

majority of great the thirty last years accounting scandals as the bankruptcy of the Bank Ambrosiano and the assassination of Roberto Calvi, the “ banker of Dieu ”, the sulfurous bank Menatep of the Russian billionaire Mikhaïl Khodorkovski, the bankruptcy of BCCI, the payment of rétrocommissions in the Affaire of the frigates of Taiwan via the General society, and even by the Bahrain International Bank, which is not other than one of the banks of the Ben Laden and which was shown to finance Usama Bin Laden, could not take place without illegal transfers of funds. It forever proven only these operations which have nothing to do with the trade of Clearstream passed by the system Cedel International, then Clearstream. Ernest Backes as affirms in Révélation$ as it was in load of the transfer of 7 million dollars of the Chase Manhattan Bank to the Citibank, on January 16th, 1980, which made it possible to pay to the release of the American hostages prisoners in the embassy of Teheran. It gave a copy of the files to the National Assembly, illuminant thus of a day new what the Americans call October the Surprise. None of these documents established anything.

In March 2001, they presented their work to the intergroup " Capital Tax, Tax Systems and Globalization intergroup" the European Parliament like with the National Assembly (Parliamentary mission of Vincent Peillon and Arnaud Montebourg). Without result.

In the continuations of this investigation, Denis Robert will diffuse three listings in his possession: that of 1995 (4500 accounts), that of April 2000 (16322 accounts) and that of October 2001 (33 400 accounts) ( Paris Match of May 4th, 2006). They are these listings, stolen by a former listener, Florian Bourges and proposed with the sale by the latter with Denis Robert (cf Limps It Black) which would have been faked and be used as a basis for the attempt of intoxication of the French intelligence services and judge Van Ruymbeke in the Affaire Clearstream 2.

The answer of Clearstream

On several occasions between April and June 2006, in the debate surrounding the Business Clearstream 2 (known as of the corbel), Clearstream could define its position in about thirty discussions with AFP, the World , the Barber , Libération , Capital , the Point , new Obs.com, Reuters, the Echoes , the Platform , Time , 20 Minutes .

Clearstream ensures “to have spent 15 million euros of various audits to examine, without to have found anything”, the charges contained in the books of Denis Robert, Révélation$ and the Block box . The firm affirms “to have collaborated in the three searchings of open Luxembourg justice following the publication of '' Révélation$ '' and in the visit of a French judge”: “All opened Us to them, one can make with difficulty more. ”.

Accounts of private individuals

In a maintenance published by the newspaper Challenges (April 20th, 2005), the person in charge of the relations presses Clearstream, Bruno Rossignol, reaffirmed that the clearing house does not provide an account to the natural persons. “ Clearstream does not have accounts in the name of natural persons. We can have some only in the name of financial institutions. Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke had checked it and enclosed his investigation, at the end of the year last I believe, while concluding with the manipulation ” it affirmed.

The shortly after this intervention, Denis Robert refuted this declaration, and publishes on April 28th a video showing a list of accounts on which particular names are identifiable. It is not acted in fact not of private individuals but of Italian stockbrokers since transformed into companies of investment. This refutation is equivalent saying that Michelin is a private individual since the name of the company is that of a person.

Accounts not published

Clearstream explains that “an banking institution can require to have an account not published, i.e. an only known account of the establishments concerned with the transaction, the controlling authorities and the listeners of the company”.

The accounts not published are the current practice of the financial world. No account of private individual in any bank for example is published. Denis Robert ensures to hold the evidence (microfiches and listings) according to which other companies would have been useful himself about it, as well as suspect banks. It forever provided them to justice neither Luxembourg nor French what should however be easy to make.

Among the large companies having had accounts not published, Ernest Backes quotes the Shell Petroleum Group, Unilever, Siemens. Among the banks, Backes quotes the international Banque of Luxembourg (309 accounts not published), Citibank (271), the Barclays (200), LCL (23) and the Japanese bank Nomura (12).

May 19th, 2006, Jean-Louis Gergorin revealed the result of its personal investigation: “I downloaded the user's manual of Clearstream, which is not available any more on Internet. The banks are only one key of entry to open an account at Clearstream: of swears , it is a banking subsidiary account; de facto , it is an individual account. With a few million euros, you can ask for the opening of an account. There are access codes so that the customer has an direct access in Clearstream without passing by his bank. But this one does not give to Clearstream the number of this clients' account, only the code of transfer. Then the reporting of the transfer of funds is sent to the bank, not in Clearstream. The whole of the transactions is then consolidated on the level of the general account of the bank. There is no more trace of specific movements. ”

Menatep

The Russian bank Menatep, pertaining to the billionaire Mikhaïl Khodorkovski (imprisoned today in Siberia), was shown to be implied in the " Kremlingate ", when 4,8 billion dollars of funds coming from the Fonds International currency (the IMF) disappeared in nature, including in US banks. The Ménatep bank would have opened the account not published n°81 738 on May 15th, 1997. According to Ernest Backes, the three months for which it would have microfiches show only transfers of cash through account of Menatep, of which much with the Bank off New York. Natasha Gurfinkel Kagalovsky, old responsible for the Bank for New York and the woman of the vice-president of Menatep, was shown to have helped with the bleaching of at least 7 billion dollars coming from Russia, according to the journalist Lucy Komisar (who works on Clearstream).

November 26th, 2003, Backes and another former banker, Switzerland Andre Strebel, deposited felt sorry for in front of the Swiss public prosecutor against Khodorkovski and its colleagues Plato Lebedev and Alexei Golubovich, by showing them of money laundering and participation in an criminal organization. They asked the opening of an investigation and the excavation of the registers of the Swiss office of Menatep SA, Menatep Finances SA, Valmet and Bank Leu in Geneva, which would be in connection with charges of fraud against the Russian company Avisma and of the activities of money laundering of Menatep in Switzerland. According to this complaint, Menatep would have been related as of its creation on Russian oligarchy and the Russian Maffia, such as Khodorkovski, Alexander Konanykhine and the Russian godfather Semyon Mogilvich. According to Komisar, “though Menatep went bankrupt in 1998 officially, it oddly remained on the list of the accounts not published of Clearstream until 2000”. The listings of Clearstream present also 36 other Russian accounts, the majority not published.

On its side, Clearstream affirmed in 2006 with the daily newspaper 20 Minutes that if “Menatep can have odd accounts, it was not closed due to bleaching”. Clearstream milked with “authorized banks by their country of origin”, but not “with establishments registered on the financial black list of the Action group” (GAFI), an intergovernmental organization of fight against the Money laundering. Menatep, banks Russian with the charged past, undertook against Denis Robert ten legal actions in the world.

Boards of inquiry parliamentary

Clearstream is with the current of the various attempts to create on the European level of the boards of inquiry about it but forever contacted by European members of Parliament for this reason not more than it was not the subject of visits of Misters Montebourg or Peillon.

Parliamentary boards of inquiry

National Assembly

The deputies Arnaud Montebourg and Vincent Peillon chaired a Parliamentary commission about the financial delinquency and of the money laundering, whose contents were made public on January 22nd, 2002. Heading “Information paper by the mission of information common on the obstacles to the control and the repression of the financial delinquency and the bleaching of the capital in Europe”, the third section of the fifth volume of the first volume relates to " the Clearstream" business; : “Political dependence of Luxembourg with regard to the economic sector of finance: the Clearstream business”. They never asked to meet Clearstream.

The European Parliament

Following the publication of Révélation$ , the European deputies Harlem Desire (PS), Glyn Ford and Francis Wurtz (PCF) required in 2001 of the European commission if the directive of the June 10th, 1990 (91/308 EC) regulating the financial activities were well applied to the Luxembourg. Harlem Désir showed the Menatep bank to hold a " count not déclaré" at Clearstream and reproached “grave offenses” on the use of financial systems to bleach capital. According to him, “amounts much higher than the authorized ceiling were transfered on accounts of Clearstream” and worms of the centers Offshore. The European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein their answered that “the Commission does not have any reason to date to believe that the Luxembourg authorities do not apply it vigorously directing”. Confronted with these denials, the three European deputies published a press release asking for the opening of a European investigation relating to the application of the directive in question.

Lastly, the April 26th 2006, the daily newspaper 20 Minutes points out the first refusal of the European commission, via the former Frits Bolkestein police chief who had refused to reach at the requests of the deputies Harlem Désir, Glyn Ford and Francis Wurtz. Moreover, the daily newspaper (pertaining to a Swedish company) reveals that in May 2005, the European deputy Paul Van Buitenen was astonished by the presence of Frits Bolkestein at the international advisory counsel of the bank Menatep and of its work for the Anglo-Dutch oil company Royal Dutch Shell, two companies marked to hold accounts not published at Clearstream.Paul Van Buitenen requires " éclaircissements" with the European commission and the opening of a parliamentary inquiry. But the president of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, answers that these facts “do not raise any new question” and that one is unaware of “if Menatep contacted Bolkestein when it was in function”. 20 Minutes recalled that Paul Van Buitenen was that which had revealed the corruption affair having brought to the resignation of the commission chaired by Jacques Santer (which was Prime Minister of Luxembourg) and the forfeiture of Edith Cresson. Contacted by the drafting of 20 Minutes, Bolkestein did not considered to be useful to answer.

Legal procedures

Following the publication of Révélations$ , Denis Robert and Ernest Backes were continued by the institutions which they blamed without proof. Mr. Robert was condemned for slandering twice to 1 euro symbolic system and the court fees, the 17th room having considered on March 29th, 2004 that Mr. Robert had not brought “any proof of his allegations” [http://www.arenes.fr/livres/page-livre2.php?numero_livre=4&num_page=375].

In France

The business Clearstream 1 was evoked in front of the French courts, at the time of two lawsuits in slandering. Denis Robert gained one and was condemned in the other 1 euro from damages. Both are in call.

With the bar, Governed Hempel, data-processing former head of Clearstream, declared: “Clearstream is the largest boiler of the world. ” Questioned by justice it was not able to reproduce what it claimed to have done. Curiously, this introduced witness as key did not bring his assistance to judge Van Rumybecke in the Affaire Clearstream 2.

In April 2006, Clearstream also went civil part in the Affaire Clearstream 2 which relates to anonymous denunciations carried by a corbel near the judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, in margin of the Affaire of the frigates of Taiwan, in the name of a “important damage of image”. In December 2006, Denis Robert was condemned for slandering to 1500 euros of damages.

With the Luxembourg

An open survey by Luxembourg justice for Money laundering and tax swindle against Clearstream led in 2004 to a Non-lieu because of the insufficiency of the evidence on the bleaching and the double accountancy and of the Prescription of certain minor offenses. Twice, Luxembourg justice stopped additional investigations, the possible facts being prescribed.

In November 2004, the large-ducal parquet floor enclosed the principal investigation carrying into the bleaching of capital and “did not establish not prescribed penal offense. ”

Andre Lussi, former president de Clearstream until 2001, remained continued with personal capacity for abuse of corporate asset, forgery and use of forgery before profiting from a withdrawal of case on April 27th, 2006. Recently, the journalist Denis Robert was attacked with the Luxembourg ONG Liberté to inform made circulate a petition to support it.

2001: Call against the " boxes noires" financial universalization

In full polemic surrounding the exit of the Révélation$ book, the judges signatories of the Appel of Geneva of 1996 will publish a declaration of support in the daily newspaper Le Monde .

the May 9th 2001, Eva Joly, Renaud Van Ruymbeke, Jean de Maillard, Bernard Bertossa and Benoit Dejemeppe, sign a platform in Le Monde entitled “the block boxes of financial universalization. ”

This one affirms that “it is time to take the measurement” of the “impact” of the book of the journalist Denis Robert and the Luxembourg former executive Ernest Backes Révélation$ .

They affirm that “the essence of the impact of Révélation$ appears in the deafening silence of the whole of the actors of the system blamed in the operation of Clearstream and, to a lesser extent, of its counterpart Euroclear as well as system of financial routing SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), one of the principal active companies in the security of the electronic banking transactions. ”

According to the magistrates, “the first revelation” relates to the “accounts not published”: “ the existence of accounts not published occult customers does not appear to have any direction within a clearing house. In the same way, the flowering of accounts not published opened by the subsidiary companies of large banks installed in the tax shelters does not cease astonishing ”

They add that one finds the same “principle of dissimulation” in the system SWIFT.

the “second revelation” brought by the work of Denis Robert would be that “the chaos of financial flows is only apparent. ” Indeed, “ if the banking and tax paradises hide with wonder the points of passage and arrival of the dirty capital ”, these financial flows pass “ in the same financial “pipes” as the others, i.e. the companies of clearing and financial routing ”. Consequently, “ the physical invisibility of these transfers is misleading because, actually, the companies of clearing and routing exert a quasi-monopoly on the international transport of the capital. ” except that Clearstream is not a company of clearing but of payment delivery and does not transport a capital.

Lastly, “the third revelation”, “capital” according to the magistrates anticorruption, relates to the recording of the transfer operations de on “microfiches or optical disks”, recording necessary in order to be used “as proof of the transfers and changes of property” in the event of ligite between the users. These microfiches are thus of an obvious interest for the pole of the magistrates of fight against the financial delinquency. These files were opened by Clearstream with justices Frenchwoman and Luxembourg. they did not find anything.

This is why, always according to the judges, “ Denis Robert and Ernest Backes shows us quite simply where the “block boxes” of financial universalization are ”, and “ must make it possible to the European citizens to include/understand the role of the clearing houses and -there very clarifying one day the financial universalization new. ”

They propose as “solution among others” to place these institutions (Clearstream, Euroclear and other clearing houses and routing) “under the control of an international organization who could play the part of the third of confidence. ”

References

'' limp Them noires' of universalization financial, accessible on the site from Harlem Désir

References

Random links: