text:
JON. FOX
Born and raised in Greensboro, N.C. Jon Fox left at age 20 and never looked back. Jon drove a big-rig across the country, hitting every state except Hawaii along the way, and fine-tuned the sound of his country music with influences one can only get while living a life on the road.
"The sort of rock-infused country music that reminds us all why we entered the country sphere in the first place."
"Songs sprung from the soil of the nation's heartland, as rich and as rugged as that source would imply."
- Lee Zimmerman
© 2023 by Jon Fox..
Contact Jon at jonfoxmusic@gmail.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Austin Heller
Comprehensive Reform for Lobbyists
Posted on November 5, 2013 by Austin Heller
On Oct. 17, President Obama declared victory over the Republican Party after a contentious government shutdown and debt ceiling debate. In a moment of doublespeak remarkable even for Mr. Obama, he proceeded to promise a three pronged economic agenda for the last quarter of 2013.
He pledged to enact a budget (his code word for raising taxes) and a new farm bill, which would expand the food stamps program and institute massive subsidies. In addition, he promised comprehensive immigration reform before the end of this year. It is not a stretch to link this promise to the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" bill which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hawked.
In the same speech where he revived his push for the immigration bill which was openly and unashamedly written by lobbyists and Washington insiders, the President also attacked lobbyists, saying "all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists." He was presumably including the very ones who helped write his immigration bill.
On Oct. 7, 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, "We're going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process." As the immigration reform was authored earlier this year, quite the opposite occurred. The president sat down with business and labor leaders to craft a bill that could benefit them, rather than us.
This lobbying was somehow spun as a positive! The "Gang of Eight" crowed that the bill would have the support of labor and business, and the media gushed about how the bill would surely pass with such a storm of support. Essentially, the corporations and unions were given the opportunity, behind closed doors, to not merely make demands but to actually help write the bill. In exchange, Congress could count on their support.
I don't blame these lobbyists. The proposed immigration overhaul would have a massive effect on our labor economy, directly affecting the interests of businesses and unions across the nation. It is entirely in their interests to promote their organization. The problem rests on the tendency of the Obama administration, though this did not start with him, to push these massive overhaul bills.
The immigration overhaul is over 800 pages long. Similarly, both the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul and Affordable Care Act (ACA) were massive pieces of legislation. Moreover, the size of these bills is not determined just by this page count. While the ACA is over 1,000 pages, the bureaucratic regulations written for its implementation have broken the 20,000 page mark.
It is the size and lack of transparency of these bills that attracts lobbyists and special interest groups like flies. With a bill of 1,000 pages, it is not obvious to the public, or even to many Congressmen, when a lobbyist has written in a provision or two.
Let us briefly examine an example. The ACA does not seem like the sort of legislation that would concern the National Rifle Association (NRA). Yet, somehow, Title X on page 2,037 of the ACA, contains five provisions concerning conversations about guns with doctors. It is difficult to imagine how this came to be. The NRA is a powerful conservative group which did very little to oppose the ACA. Is it such a crazy suggestion that the NRA was allowed to add these provisions to ensure that they would not work to defeat the bill? Perhaps the truth of the matter is not quite so incriminating, but the role of lobbyists in crafting legislation is well documented. The larger the piece of legislation the more ripe it is for such manipulation.
This immigration bill that the President has promised to push through Congress is officially dubbed "The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013". It joins Dodd-Frank and the ACA as another example of the massive, far-reaching overhauls pushed by the Obama administration as their answers to America's ills. The hordes of professional lobbyists see in this proposal endless opportunities for themselves and their well-paying clients. Unsurprisingly, they have joined in the frenzied, whole-hearted effort to see its hundreds of pages become the Law of the Land.
Once again, we risk having a massive piece of legislation, one holding a very significant long term impact on the American public, and yet written predominantly behind closed doors, rushed through. I ask you, "What is the big rush?"
This is not the way the Constitution intended for legislation to be enacted. Our Founders feared the power of special interests and warned against allowing massive, multi-facetted bills to be pushed through Congress. This reckless, imprudent process both denies the transparency needed to understand the content of these bills and simultaneously allows lobbyists to include whatever self-serving provisions they desire.
As this article is being written, the Obama administration promises on its own website, "an unprecedented level of openness", and proclaims that "Government should be transparent. (emphasis is theirs) Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing."
While Mr. Obama has outwardly rejected lobbyists both during his 2008 campaign for the Presidency and in his recent speech now in 2013, his call for the urgent passage of immigration reform is really just a call for one more colossal, lobbyist-ridden bill. As Nancy Pelosi said about the ACA, we have to pass it to know what is in it.
As curious as I am about this immigration overhaul, I am certainly not curious enough to pass it before we understand it.
Phantoms & Lies of Hitting the Debt Ceiling
Posted on October 15, 2013 by Austin Heller
On Oct. 17, the United States will reach a deadline to raise the debt ceiling. At this time, Congress will have to authorize the federal government to continue accruing debts to fund our massive deficit spending. Naturally, the Obama administration has pursued a concerted policy of fear mongering by predicting default on Social Security checks and interest payments on the national debt. The US Treasury Department declared that a default would result in a recession, and President Obama told Wall Street that they should be concerned about the mere possibility of default.
The mantra continues quite simply that "We must borrow money to pay the interest on money that we already borrowed."
These doomsday predictions are, quite bluntly, complete fabrications. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the United States will not default on its debts and Social Security checks will remain intact. Unless President Obama willfully chooses to defy the Constitution and bring about the apocalypse he envisions, there will be no government default.
If the debt ceiling is reached, the United States has certain obligations which it must pay. A failure to pay these obligations would result in default. The media and government claim that there is no law in place to prioritize these obligations, but they clearly have not read the Constitution since the 1860s.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned." This clause referred to the debts the United States incurred during the Civil War. Under this provision, the administration would be legally obligated to make payments on its debts even if we reach the debt ceiling.
What exactly are these debts? What qualifies as a legal obligation by the United States government? Interestingly, the answer comes from the very liberal Paul Krugman, as he attempts to widely construe our debts. He identifies both interest payments on bonds and Social Security payments as debts which must be paid. Krugman admits that the Treasury Department could "pay off bonds in full," but he argues that "Social Security benefits have the same inviolable legal status as payments to investors."
First, let's examine the situation with regards to bond payments. Obama's fear mongering over default involves the declaration that our credit rating would be down-graded if we do not raise the debt ceiling. This would result in higher interest rates on the debt in future. However, Moody's Investors Service, a major credit rating agency, disputes that claim. They assert: "The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt."
The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that the government must service its debt. Since the US has approximately $222 billion in monthly revenue, with debt service payment obligations of only $35 billion suggestions that the American government might fall into default are patently absurd, unless Barack Obama willfully ignores the 14th Amendment in order to make his "gloom and doom" projections come true.
Second, Social Security would not be destroyed by the debt ceiling. Shocking as it may be to many of you, the Social Security Administration actually runs on a surplus. According to Reuters, payroll revenue (what those of us with paycheck deductions see marked as FIFA on our paystubs) will bring in $38.8 billion more than the SSA must pay in benefits. I recognize that this is incredibly unintuitive and deserves some explanation.
Social Security payroll revenue is held by the Treasury Department in the Social Security Trust Fund. Generally, this money is raided by the Treasury Department to pay for other programs, which is why there is such uncertainty in the stability of the Social Security system. However, if the debt ceiling is reached, and the administration does not intentionally violate the 14th Amendment, all Social Security revenues must be paid out to recipients as Social Security benefits.
Given that the program takes in more revenue than it pays, it is again ridiculous to suggest that payments from the Social Security system to recipients would default, unless, of course, President Obama deliberately ignores the 14th Amendment to transform his scare tactics into reality.
The Debt Ceiling
This is not to say that the debt ceiling would not have an impact on our government spending or the economy. The government would have to make drastic cuts to its spending very quickly, but this would not result in a default.
What we're doing is borrowing money to pay interest on our debt. That's similar to a family whose credit cards are maxed out applying for a new credit card to pay the interest of their debt. That is not a long range plan for financial sanity, for the family in our example or for America.
Imagine that that family throws a fit when they are denied their credit card, and you will have a pretty good understanding of the administration's debt ceiling argument.
Slouching towards Washington
Posted on October 8, 2013 by Austin Heller
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
There is much chatter about the comings and goings of politicians in Washington D.C. The presidential races are watched with the utmost anticipation, and the media obsess over the bickering and scheming of hundreds of federal congressmen. These politicians, of course, have a great deal of power over our country and our lives, especially in this day and age.
However, standing in the shadows, in firm control of our economy and our wellbeing are the generally faceless controllers of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's Chairman, currently Ben Bernanke, shows his face occasionally, issuing some incredibly obtuse statement about the state of the economy and his policy plans. Unfortunately, the average American cannot understand such statements and thus ignores them. This is the only sad pretense of transparency that we have come to expect from our central bank.
I am writing today to both underscore the extreme importance of this institution and to expose the increasing power being wielded by the bank. Not only does the Federal Reserve have inestimable power over our economy, but the woman who is generally expected to succeed Bernanke will certainly seek to continue expanding this control.
The Federal Reserve has been tasked with two ultimate responsibilities: inflation and employment. It seeks to both control inflation and to maximize employment through manipulation of the monetary supply. In pursuit of these goals, the Fed seeks to balance a precarious juggling act.
The Federal Reserve primarily pursues these goals by controlling interest rates on bank loans, with the purchase of bonds and other securities. Higher interest rates decrease inflation by reducing the amount of money brought into the economy out of bank reserves. A classic example of a high interest rate policy was the Fed's policies in the late 1970s when interest rates were increased in order to combat rising inflation.
Currently interest rates are very low, ideally increasing employment under classic stimulus principles: more money in the economy boosts consumer spending and thus hiring. Unfortunately, the Fed cannot decrease interest rates below zero but still wants to pump more money into the economy. Instead, they have opted to pursue a policy of quantitative easing.
Under this policy, the bank pumps billions of dollars into the economy each year by purchasing long-term commercial assets from private banks. Predictably, this policy has two primary risks. First, it can lead to higher inflation. More money in circulation reduces the value of the currency, potentially leading to inflation, and the Fed's quantitative easing pumps enormous amounts of money into the economy.
In addition, the Federal Reserve runs the risk of creating what is known as an asset bubble. These bubbles, as we have recently seen both with the housing and the internet markets, result from too much money being poured into the economy through credit, hence artificially inflating the productivity and value of the marketplace. The disastrous effects of these bubbles need not be explained, I am sure.
It is the Federal Reserve's job to determine when to raise interest rates in order to prevent both inflation and asset bubbles. Failure to account for either possibility would have an incredible impact on common Americans who will find that their savings accounts have less real value due to increased inflation or who suffer from the sort of economic collapses that we saw in 2008. We are being forced to trust the judgment of bankers and politicians, whose motives and even identities are known to very few Americans. It is a wonder that the media has so little attention to spare on such matters.
The she-devil of Constitution Avenue
Paul Krugman, the former Enron consultant and current columnist for the New York Times, once ironically dubbed Janet Yellen the "she-devil of Constitution Avenue." Krugman, with the same judgment he used to advocate the artificial housing bubble and predict the transient nature of the internet, assures us that inflation is not an issue and heralds Ms. Yellen for her extremely "dovish" beliefs concerning inflation. Calling her a dove simply suggests that she is less concerned about inflation than she is about restoring employment.[1] This means that if she becomes Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Yellen will be less likely to raise interest rates to fight inflation and artificial bubbles than many.
This predilection is particularly alarming given that Yellen is in large part responsible for the current quantitative easing policy of the Federal Reserve. Additionally, she was in charge of the Fed's banks in San Francisco, one of the areas hardest hit by the collapse of the last bubble.
Her tendency towards increased government spending suggests that as Chairman Yellen will continue, if not expand, quantitative easing in order to restore full employment. Admittedly, Yellen does seem to be a very intelligent woman, so it stands to reason that we ought to consider whether she would have the good judgment to cut off the spigot should matters begin to spiral out of control. She has repeatedly stated that the government must spend more to bring our country out of the recession, getting further praise from Krugman by doing so. Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reports that she has always pushed Bernanke into the current policy of quantitative easing.
Yellen was president of the San Francisco Federal Bank and, as the Cato Institute argues, she has defended the Fed's role in regulating the disastrous bubble that hit the Western States in particular in 2008. A review of her 2010 Senate testimony shows that Yellen defends the role she played in trying to prevent this crisis. She states again and again that the bubble would have been prevented if the Fed had more power, ignoring any possible role that Fed interest rates and policies might have had on this crisis. While she may have been unable to stop this catastrophe, we must seriously ask whether she would consider the Federal Reserve's role in another asset bubble given her refusal to do so during the mortgage crisis.
Let us put together the pieces. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Yellen would aggressively pursue quantitative easing as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, hence increasing the risk of inflation or an asset bubble. When combined with her less than strong concern over inflation and her refusal to admit that the Fed's monetary policy contributed to the housing crisis, her tendencies create a very frightening picture indeed.
A Constitutional Remedy
Predictably, the Constitution provides a very clear alternative to Federal Reserve and its increasing power. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton engaged in a fierce battle over the creation of the first National Bank. Jefferson argued vociferously that the creation of the bank was unconstitutional.
Hamilton, one of the strongest supporters of big government among our Founding Fathers, justified the bank as an implied power under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, as well as both the General Welfare[2] and Necessary and Proper clauses.[3] He, of course, ignored the fact that no such understanding of these phrases was accepted at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, an attempt to use simple punctuation to expand the General Welfare clause was resoundingly struck down by the Convention.
Thomas Jefferson, in a famous opinion on the Constitutionality of the bank, argued for a much more strict interpretation of the Constitution. His opinion is widely regarded as a crucial tenant of strict Constitutional constructionism, and I recommend reading it even outside of this specific subject matter.
First, Jefferson claimed that the Interstate Commerce clause argument holds no water, because the bank would explicitly impact intrastate commerce, just as our Federal Reserve does today.
Jefferson refuted the implied powers of the General Welfare clause by pointing out that the government only has the right to "lay taxes for that purpose," rather than "to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare."
Finally, he attacked the Necessary and Proper argument by pointing out that all the powers of the government can "be carried into execution without a bank. A bank is therefore not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase."
This is a powerful argument by one of the leaders in constitutional originalism. The existence of a national bank such as the Federal Reserve is as unconstitutional now as then, and for the same reasons. This fundamental discussion has been ignored, however, as we simply debate how much the Fed should pump money into the economy. We have strayed so far from the actual restrictions that the Constitution sets on the powers of a central bank that we would do well to bring the debate back to these fundamentals.
Even if this does not actually end the stranglehold of the Federal Reserve, it cannot help but reduce its influence by shifting the argument from the pragmatic policy decisions of the Fed to the fundamental discussion of whether it ought to even exist. Instead of arguing about whether it should assume more power, we should be arguing whether or not to give it any power at all.
Any liberal reader will be appalled by this notion. They will ask, "But what would we do without a central bank?" I will preemptively say two things on this subject. First, there was a long period of time in the United States where there was no central bank. In fact, one of the most highly regarded banking systems that America has experienced was the privately run and independent Suffolk banking system. This bank provided an alternative to central banking after Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United States, and it ensured market stability and sound currency in New England for almost two decades.
The Suffolk system was distinctly different from the Federal Reserve. It was intended to prevent the inflation of currency, which it did admirably. It is not just libertarians and Austrian economists that admire the Suffolk System. In fact, the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis published a paper analyzing the bank and its successes, eventually asking "is there a need for a government-sponsored central bank?"
Second, we suffer from the same sort of economic collapses that faced America before the Federal Reserve. Don't take my word for it, though! Janet Yellen herself made that argument in a speech in early 2013. She began this speech on a humorous note, encouraging her audience to remember a well-known incident where a speculative bubble collapsed, leading to economic hardship. She was, however, not referring to 2008 but to 1907. It was not until 1913 that the Federal Reserve was created, in part due to the crisis of 1907, as she explains. Yellen proceeds to state "it is striking how many of the challenges of that era remain with us today." Does it occur to her that perhaps the answer is not more regulation? Perhaps the Federal Reserve was not the answer to the crisis of 1907? Indeed, if it were the answer to that crisis, then it stands to reason that we would not encounter similar hardships today.
The Federal Reserve demonstrates incredible power which will only expand when Janet Yellen takes charge. How can we trust our economic livelihood to the decisions of a handful of academics and politicians who meet periodically in Washington? Long ago our government abandoned our Constitution, empowering a bank with incredible power over our lives. It is time to push back against the Fed and retake our rights and our freedoms.
[1] It is a commonly accepted fact that Yellen is a dove on monetary policy. Her apologists may attempt to argue otherwise, and I am happy to engage in that debate should any reader wish to.
[2] The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
[3] [Congress shall have Power to] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing Powers
The Problem with Internationalism
Posted on September 21, 2013 by Austin Heller
The recent debate over intervention in Syria demands a broader discussion of the United States' role in the international community. While the notion of an imminent military strike seems to have passed for now, we should not let this incident slide into obscurity. It is time to critically evaluate American foreign policy and to determine what role our nation must have as a part of the international community.
For years we have been considered the "world's policemen", a role that is untenable and often promotes the interests of foreign countries over our own. This role has a lengthy history, but it is important to examine how our foreign entanglements have changed over the last couple of decades. During the Cold War, we could not police the entire world, but we were tasked with preserving stability in what was then referred to as the Free World, with the Soviets enforcing stability on their side of the Iron Curtain. During the Cold War, we actively worked to promote our interests throughout the world. We supported regimes that opened trade with the United States, and we suppressed rebellions that would disrupt the stability of allied countries and crucial regions.
The end of the Cold War saw a collapse in this international balance, with the former Soviet states incapable of enforcing the stability to which the Eastern world had grown accustomed. In the intervening two decades, the United States has been called in to act as an enforcer of international law. Time and time again, we intervene in foreign affairs due to human rights violations or as part of a UN or NATO task force. The crucial difference being that rather than engaging in competition with our political and economic enemies we are enforcing the dictates of international conventions and organizations. We have shifted from pursuing foreign policy concerns that further our interests to channeling our resources into matters which are necessarily to the benefit of our citizenry. It is this change from national concerns to international concerns that must be re-evaluated.
The duty of a national government is to promote the interests of the nation first and foremost. The Founding Fathers understood this, with political ideals derived from the philosophical tradition of social contract theory. This theory held that individuals came out of the state of nature (a state of anarchy before political institutions) in order to enjoy certain benefits that they had lacked in the state of nature. John Locke was arguably the most influential of these political philosophers on the founding of America, and he claimed that individuals join together in governments in order to protect their natural rights and allow for some impartial judge to adjudicate disputes between members of this government.
This philosophical tradition is relevant to the concerns of American foreign policy as it designates the purpose of a government, at least a government that the Founding Fathers hoped to create. While clearly nuanced, the purpose of a government, under this theory, is the protection of the rights of its citizens and the adjudication of their differences within the civil society. It is the promotion of the members of the social contract that concerns the government. That which does not advance their concerns by protecting their rights and property is not the purpose of a government as the United States was envisioned.
In this philosophical context, I will call upon George Washington's famous farewell address of 1796. This speech is often quoted as an endorsement of isolationism, but it is more complex than that. "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."
The salient feature of Mr. Washington's speech is its warning against the idea of entangling alliances. In the 1790s, war was brewing between France and England, and Washington was afraid that an alliance with either one would drag the fledgling nation into war and destruction. Today, we do not primarily fear being brought into a war where we will be overpowered and crushed, and we certainly are not overshadowed militarily by our neighbors. The dangers of entangling alliances, however, remain as they can obligate the United States to enter conflicts which are of no benefit to its citizenry.
It is generally accepted that a strike on Syria does not promote our national interests. We have been reluctant to even arm the opposition, in fears that the widespread conflict will spread to other regions. The idea that conflict in Syria could spill even more into Israel and Turkey, or even into Iran, is a terrible specter that has given American policy makers pause time and time again (cite). Furthermore, it seems clear that, regardless of which side wins the Syrian civil war, we will not find an ally there. Assad will continue to work with Russia, China, and Iran, which certainly would not promote our interests. If the rebels succeed, we face the prospect of a hardline Muslim regime. Egypt's brief rule by the Muslim Brotherhood certainly did not further United States interests, suggesting that a similar regime in Syria would be equally inhospitable. The destruction of Assad's regime, moreover, would promote instability in the country, just as Mubarak and Gaddafi's overthrows did.
Instead the impetus for a strike is based on the so-called "red line" advocated by President Obama. In 2012, Obama declared that he would intervene in Syria if Assad were to use chemical weapons. When Assad eventually did use chemical weapons, Obama announced that we would strike Syria and destroy their capability to use such tactics. A hailstorm of criticism against Obama harangued him for not consulting Congress before establishing this "red line" as it forced our foreign policy credibility to depend on a unilateral policy statement by the president. Obama responded to this criticism claiming that it was not his red line, but instead it was a line drawn by the international community. Despite the lack of UN support for the strike, Obama claimed that the international community had historically condemned and forbidden the use of chemical weapons as enshrined in the Chemical Weapons Convention. A failure to enforce these laws, he said, undermines not just his credibility but the credibility of these international agreements.
Let us take Obama at his word for a moment. There is certainly a lot of international legal precedent against the use of chemical weapons. Obama's claim that there is an international red line is accurate, but why does that mean that America must enforce those laws? This is an even more pressing question given that the UN itself is not supportive of a strike. How is the enforcement of international law in this case important enough to outweigh all the potential negatives of a strike? Our president's desire to spend American taxpayer dollars and jeopardize American national security and economic interests in such a manner sets this international law over the pursuit of American interests. How is this the proper function of our government?
Now, of course, I must be charitable towards President Obama. He is our president after all. There are plenty of arguments for why a strike on Syria is necessary for American interests. While I explain these arguments, please keep President Washington's warning in mind.
The President of the United States did set an ultimatum concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction. If he chose not to enforce this declaration, it would undermine the credibility of the United States on international matters. South Korea has expressed fear that North Korea would not be deterred by American threats of violence. This is a problem similar to that which faced President Eisenhower when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary. He had pursued a foreign policy which asserted that the United States would attack the Soviets if they attempted to expand in such a fashion. When he did not uphold this threat, it undermined our credibility and foreign policy strategy. This is a very real problem in today's age, as we attempt to enforce global stability and support our allies across the globe.
So here is the crucial problem. We have become obligated, based on our extensive involvement in the international community, to advance a foreign policy agenda that does not promote our interests. It does not promote our economic ties, nor does it advance allied interests in Syria, nor does it promote stability in the region, yet it is necessary to strengthen our credibility given our traditional role of enforcing international law. We have entangled ourselves so hopelessly in the international world, so completely embraced this internationalist mentality, that our government is compelled to act against our interests.
This dilemma does not mean that the United States should pursue a policy of isolationism. There are plenty of ways in which our foreign involvement does benefit the United States. We promote economic growth in countries that either manufacture goods for export or purchase American products, and we ensure stability in regions that are crucial to our national security and economic interests. The extent of this involvement, however, should be a pragmatic one. The pursuit of international law and order, as we can see with Syria, is not a pursuit in and of itself that benefits the United States. We must be aware, however, that our leaders should be looking out for our interests, not those of the UN Security Council.
The debate over Syria should be a wakeup call to America. It teaches us that our foreign entanglements have reached such a point where we can no longer be the sole judges of our national policy. By refusing foreign involvement in Syria, we can start a precedent that the United States is no longer the world's policeman. We must demand that our leaders uphold our laws and our interests, not those of the international community.
A Well Regulated Militia
Posted on September 3, 2013 by Austin Heller
With the recent resurgence of President Obama's push for gun control, it is important to critically examine the meaning of the Second Amendment. This word "critically" is crucial here. It is often argued by proponents of gun control that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to own guns but instead protects the rights of the states (or the federal government) to maintain militias. It is true that the reason for which the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" is that "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state". Such an interpretation of the amendment, however, does not take into account the original context of the words and the intent of the "well regulated militia" clause.
In order to understand the original understanding of this clause, this article will critically examine two primary sources from the Founding era which served as the backdrop to the ratification of the Second Amendment.
As we all know, in 1776 British oppression had reached a breaking point in the American colonies. One of the primary examples of this oppression was the abuse perpetuated by British standing armies on American liberties. Virginia, specifically, had faced these difficulties with exceptional intensity. By June 1776, Lord Dunmore, colonial governor of Virginia, had threatened martial law, engaged in conflict with American rebels, and burned the city of Norfolk. Elsewhere in the colonies conflict with the British troops had reached the point of open rebellion and many Virginians were particularly outraged by the military rule that was imposed upon Boston at this time.
With this historical background, we can better understand the emphasis in favor of the right to bear arms and the fear of standing armies in Virginia in 1776.
On June 12, 1776 the Virginia Constitutional Convention adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. This Declaration was influential on Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and often regarded as a blueprint for the eventual United States Bill of Rights as a perusal of the document implies.
Section 13 of this document states: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".
Let us take a moment to break this down. First, it is clear that standing armies ought to be avoided. This is not a declaration in support of simply having standing state militias. Whatever we are to glean from the rest of the statement must preclude an endorsement of standing militias. Second, we have a definition for a "well-regulated militia", specifically that it is composed of "the people". This wording certainly differentiates it from a standing army of government troops. From these deductions, it can be concluded that the Virginia Declaration of Rights sought to protect the people's ability to be trained in arms, rather than to support a standing government militia.
Let us continue our examination to another document, this time written by Thomas Jefferson himself: his draft of the Virginia state constitution. While this draft was not adopted by the state of Virginia it is an important insight into Jefferson's own conception of rights. Jefferson was one of the most influential politicians in attempting to include a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, so his vision of rights gives a strong indication into the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Jefferson is unequivocal in his fear of a standing army: "There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war". I have difficulty imagining another logical interpretation of this sentence. Furthermore, he is equally explicit in supporting a personal right to arms: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]".
A clever and perhaps skeptical reader will immediately latch onto both exceptions to a right to bear arms in this provision. More interestingly is his allowance that a freeman may be debarred the use of arms outside of his own lands. A compelling but irrelevant argument may be made that Jefferson allowed for instances where the use of weapons in public spaces may be prohibited.
Exceptions aside, Jefferson's draft clearly protects the right of citizens to keep weapons in their homes, as he specifies the rights of arms within one's own lands. Juxtaposed with such a fear of standing armies, we can deduce intent similar to that in Mason's Declaration of Rights: that the possession of arms is a necessary check on the power of a standing army.
In the modern era we have a powerful standing army that stretches across the world. There is, of course, no provision in our Constitution against the existence of such an army, but there are a few major checks on the power of the military, such as the Third Amendment. The Second Amendment, taken nearly verbatim from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and advocated for by Jefferson, whom we know to have supported the personal right to bear arms and opposed a standing militia, can now be understood better according to its original intention.
The "well regulated militia" clause can certainly not be construed as endorsing standing militias. Instead the Second Amendment ought to protect the freedom of an armed populace with the right to bear arms as a check on the military authority of a standing army.
Obamacare doesn't have to be our burden!
Posted on August 28, 2013 by Austin Heller
In November 2012, Speaker John Boehner announced that Obamacare was the "law of the land" and that he would not seek to repeal it. His statement was criticized by many as a capitulation to this massive government expansion, implying that the House of Representatives would cease attempting to block its implementation.
More recently, as you may have heard, a group of Republican senators have spearheaded a movement to urge Boehner's house to defund Obamacare. Establishment Republicans (and of course liberals!) balked. The Senate would block any repeal act, they said. President Obama would veto anything that doesn't fund Obamacare. The American people will call us obstructionist!
When the Founding Fathers formulated our two houses of legislature, they worried that the long terms of senators would result in an aristocracy with no regard for the public. As a concession to these fears, the Founders gave the House of Representatives the 'power of the purse'.
When specifying the roles of both houses of the legislature, the Founders had to balance the desire to have a relatively stable house, whose members could more properly understand the intricacies of the government, and a more democratic house that would stay close to the interests of the people. In some ways the Senate has more power than the House: it can confirm appointments to the Executive Branch, for example, and is generally regarded as the more powerful of the houses. Hamilton, writing in Federalist 66, compares the House to the Senate and states that "[the Constitution] has provided in [the House's] favor several important counterpoises to the additional authorities to be conferred upon the Senate." He then states that one of these powers is the "exclusive power of originating money bills".
Our situation today is a realization of this decision. In response to Obamacare, the 2010 election saw a takeover of the House by opponents of the law. In 2012, the people saw fit to return these same opponents to the House! The Founders clearly put a great deal of emphasis on the House's power of the purse, and they would not have included this provision if they thought it ought not to be used.
You are now asking, of course, what you can do. How can you change the minds of such a large establishment of Republicans? It seems that the greatest fear of the Republican establishment is that they will be blamed by the public for a government shutdown, assuming Obama vetoes a plan to defund the law. It is, therefore, the public which has a key role in determining the ramifications of such an action.
We must then demonstrate that the public opposes Obamacare.
It has always been a cliché to call or write to one's representatives. But with social media, we can do much more! Senators Cruz, Paul, and Lee all have Facebook and Twitter accounts advocating this plan. Furthermore, here is a handy list of House Republicans who support defunding and here is a list of like-minded Senators. Millions of people, all of whom will face the negative effects of Obamacare, have social media accounts. It is therefore our duty to spread the message via social media, both by posting about the dangers of Obamacare and by sharing the message of those who are actually representing our interests on this issue.
With today's technology we can do more than just call our representatives. We can spread awareness to urge others to do the same. If it becomes clear that we as the public support this plan, how can Boehner and his establishment fear the public's response to standing up and fighting? Even if our calls go unheeded, we must make a stand and demonstrate our opposition to massive government expansion into our healthcare with the same provisions that our Constitution enshrines.


Constitutional symptoms and pancytopenia are occasionally the initial presentation of pediatric brucellosis. Therefore, in endemic areas, in children with pancytopenia, both brucellosis and malignancy should be included in the deferential diagnosis. We report here a child with pancytopenia and hepatosplenomegaly as manifestations of brucellosis in whom bone marrow morphology and flow cytometry data revealed hemophagocytosis, left shift in myeloid cells and activation changes in antigenic properties of T and B lymphocytes and monocytes. The patient had an uneventful and complete recovery after appropriate antibiotic therapy. Our report demonstrates that bone marrow and flow cytometry findings in children with brucellosis may include significant reactive changes in hematopoiesis.


text:
Home Travel & Tourism Air France & Thai Airways to build aircraft maintenance center in Thailand
Air France & Thai Airways to build aircraft maintenance center in Thailand
NNT
Air France and Thai Airways International have voiced their interest in jointly investing in an aircraft maintenance center in Thailand, while the Ministry of Transport is pushing ahead with its plan to build an aviation industrial estate.
According to Transport Minister Arkom Termpitayapaisit, Air France and Thai Airways are going to conduct the planning for the establishment of an aircraft maintenance center. The study which is expected to take nine months will begin from October 2015 until June 2016. The planning detail will then be submitted to the Thai Airways board of directors.
Arkom said Air France and Thai Airways had planned to set up a joint venture to manage the center. This will lead to job opportunities for more than 350 people and pave the way for Thailand to be one of the world's aircraft service and maintenance hubs, like China, Singapore and Europe.
Arkom also disclosed that the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning was close to finishing its feasibility study of an aviation industrial estate and was conducting public hearing regarding the 15-billion baht project. Results of the study will be submitted to the Ministry of Transport in October. The project will be proposed to the cabinet for consideration in November.
Previous articleTHAI anoints two aircraft
Next articlePM: Economy to strengthen in a few years
Thailand Travel Mart buyers party at Grand Mirage
Jean-Baptiste Papin Named Commercial Director of Hilton Pattaya
Tourist number projection remains at 40 million
Phuket eyes Andaman tourism branding
Travel & Tourism June 22, 2018
THAI Sponsors Mobile Dental Unit Project
Travel & Tourism April 16, 2013


SP President #AkhileshYadav addresses media over coalition with Nishad and other parties ahead of #2019Elections. Video: ANI.
In an order to unite SP, BSP leaders and party workers, Akhilesh Yadav today in a tweet, sent a message. He also initiated new slogan to motivate party workers.
At Rally With Mayawati, Akhilesh Yadav's Retort To PM On "Sarab, Milavat"
In an exclusive interview to ABP News, Uttar Pradesh's former chief minister Akhilesh Yadav talks about who will be the candidate from Varanasi and Lucknow.
SP President Akhilesh Yadav addresses a rally in Sambhal, UP. Video: ANI.
Akhilesh Yadav addresses public rally in Deoband.He attacked the BJP.
Akhilesh Yadav addresses a public rally in Moradabad, UP.


Register for a professional account to see wholesale prices.
Ultimate Sprinkle helps to prepare the skin for the most effective waxing. This Talc-Free Powder provides a barrier between the skin and the wax, allowing the wax to more effectively adhere to each hair while protecting the skin. Agape's Ultimate Sprinkle is a blend of cornstarch, arrow root powder, kaoloin clay, and oatstarch.
Cornstarch is one of the most healthy alternatives to traditional talc. Starch is extracted by milling corn which is dried and then processed into an extremely fine powder. Cornstarch is soft, gentle and absorbent.
Arrow Root Powder is made from the root of the manoic plant. This starch flour has a very fine texture, natural absorbent properties, and a fine white color.
Kaolin Clay is beneficial for all skin types because of its purifying properties. It has high mineral content as well.
Oatstarch provides all of the wonderful properties of cornstarch, but oatstarch adds anti-irritating attributes of oats to help soothe and provides this powder blend a great flow.


text:
Minister urged to reconsider approach to asylum seekers in Immigration Bill 2007
Sinn Féin Dáil leader Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, speaking in the Dáil today, said one o the most appalling measures in the Immigration Bill 2007 is the one which give immigration officers and Gardaí the power to remove a foreign national from the State on suspicion of them being here illegally. There is no obligation on the officer or Gard to prove their suspicions.
Deputy Ó Caoláin said today, "I want to highlight the provisions relating to the principle of non-refoulement, the prohibition on returning asylum seekers to a country where they are likely to face persecution or torture. This is a cornerstone of international human rights law. It recognises that not everyone facing such a danger will meet the Convention definition of a 'refugee', and guarantees their protection nonetheless.
"It is incumbent on states that are parties to the Convention, as Ireland is, to ensure that no one who arrives here seeking protection is refouled. This obligation needs to be taken very seriously. We must remember that this is literally a matter of life and death for these people. It is not an area that the State should be cutting corners on, or honouring in the breach. Human lives are at stake.
"One of the most appalling measures in this bill is Section 54 which states that
Where it appears to an immigration officer or a member of an Garda Síochána that a foreign national is unlawfully present in the State or at a frontier of the State, the officer or member may remove the foreign national from the State.
"The person can be sent to any country it appears to the officer that they are a national of. The officer is under no requirement to verify their suspicion. There is no appeal.
"The possibilities here are staggering and I would remind the House of a very recent case that occurred in the northern part of this island. Frank Kakopa was arrested at Belfast Airport, strip-searched and held in Maghaberry for three days as an 'illegal asylum seeker' even after showing his British driving licence, payslips and bank statements - even after his employers in Liverpool had phoned the airport to confirm that he worked for them. No, it appeared to the officers that he was illegally present and that is all that they needed to put him through three days of hell. It is obvious that they made that judgment on the basis of the colour of his skin and his African accent. The sad likelihood is that under this section of the legislation, particular foreign nationals will be singled out on the same basis.
"I appeal to the Minister to rethink his approach to the immigration and asylum issues. They are two different procedures and should be treated differently. Indeed, there is much to the argument that they should not even be covered in the same legislation. The procedures in this bill for long term residency appear not to distinguish between migrant workers and persons granted humanitarian leave or subsidiary protection. A more flexible approach should be taken with regard to the latter, in consideration of the circumstances that brought them here. They did not come by choice." ENDS


I am interested in how the perception of reality is colored by dreams, memory, superstition, religion, bias, prejudice, and fear. My mixed-media works, in general, refer to the overlay of belief systems created by the individual to piece together their personal paradigm.
My vocabulary—a combination of kitsch, ersatz and craft materials, junk and personal objects—is re-aesthetisized into accumulated forms that serve as metaphors for the build-up, organization and assimilation of information. The personal objects are evidences of pain, happiness, loss, guilt, shame—all the material detritus of the everyday human experience.
The vernacular (as a language of objects indigenous to my class and culture) is used here to subvert the hierarchy of high art. The kitsch of popular culture is transformed—through collage and intense manual labor—into the elite fine-art object. By evoking the elitism inherent to the idea of the hand-crafted object, these mass-produced articles become the raw materials that are employed in the "hand-crafting" of the art piece.
I choose particular materials for their visceral qualities, as well as their symbology and real-world references. The power of the fetish object intrigues me. The methods by which disparate elements are connected are as integral as the objects themselves. All materials, as words in a paragraph, are treated in a more-or-less equal manner and bring their own bits of signification and narrative to the visual "story."
Shawne Major: Pareidolia—Callan Contemporary, New Orleans, LA, Aug-Sep.
Intersections of Gender and Place — MS Univ. for Women Galleries, Columbus, MS, Oct.
The Independent, (Mar 2,) "Collection Affection"
The Mississippi Press, (Jul 31,) "Shawne Major's Exhibit Ravens and Crows opens Friday at the Mary C."
The Vermilion, (Sept. 11,) "Fall Brings New Crop of La. Bicentennial Exhibits"
Art Forum, (Jan,) "Being There, Elizabeth Schambelan"
Times of Acadiana (Jan,) "New Orleans Reinvented"
Art Daily.org, (Mar 19, online), "Prospect 1. New Orleans Announces Artists for Biennial"
Times of Acadiana, (Mar 5, Lafayette, LA), "Sacred Space Brings Tapestries to Opelousas,"


text:
Walk Away from Los Angeles Re-entry Program Apprehended
LOS ANGELES—The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) today announced that an inmate who walked away from a Los Angeles area re-entry program last Saturday has been apprehended.
Inmate Janathen Sufle was discovered missing in the early morning hours of May 28 after the facility's staff was notified that his GPS device had been tampered with. Following a search of the facility, located in downtown Los Angeles, local law enforcement agencies were notified, as were agents from CDCR's Office of Correctional Safety and its Fugitive Apprehension Team.
Following surveillance of possible locations where Sufle may have fled, he was taken into custody without incident in the city of Compton on Wednesday, June 1.
Sufle was committed to CDCR from Los Angeles County on September 1, 2015 to serve a three year sentence for first degree burglary, and was scheduled to be released to parole supervision in September, 2016 due to credits earned for time spent in custody prior to sentencing and good behavior.
Contact: Bill Sessa
(916) 445-4950 ###
Previous Post	Walk Away from Pilot Rock Camp Apprehended
CRESTLINE, CA – California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) officials announced today that inmate…
Next Post	Homicide of Salinas Valley State Prison Inmate Under Investigation
SOLEDAD – Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) investigators are investigating an incident that left one…


text:
sto Report Aug 31_lite
wickerette
report for sto
saveSave sto Report Aug 31_lite For Later
Allied Chemical International Corp. v. Companhia De Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro, 775 F.2d 476, 2d Cir. (1985)
Sap Down Payment Processing
Introduction to Letter of Credit
Interest Letter
Access to Capital Forum 2015
Keng Hua and PRMI
SMEToolKit_QueryResolution_LetterofCredit
Credit Manager or Credit Analyst or Business Analyst or Financia
Basic Finance Terms
Export Documentation and Procedures
2090409190- 11.44.001.657.018C.pdf
Jds Tia Nurani Junior Staff Product Manager
Tax Banggawan
Law & Practice of Banking.pdf
Anton Holban - Ioana
Transpo Digests
Hitesh Expenses
Maldives Asset Recovery STO Singapore
Draft Report Private and Confidential - in anticipation of legal proceedings
1 Introduction 2 History of the Republic of the Maldives 3 STO Maldives (Singapore) Pte Limited - Background 4 STO plc Audit 5 Key Persons within STO and STO Singapore 6 Initial Forensic Examination 7 Further Forensic Examination 8 Mocom/Myanmar 9 Commission paid to Mr Rashid 10 Companies trading with STO Singapore 2002 2006 11 Next Steps
Grant Thornton Draft Audit Report 2010 STO Singapore
1.1 Grant Thornton UK LLP were requested to undertake an asset tracing and investigation exercise via an engagement letter dated 23 March 2010, subsequently amended on 8 July 2010, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Maldives ("the government") with regards to a number of individuals. In addition, we were requested to investigate the assets of the former president Mr Maumoon Abdul Gayoom ("Gayoom"), his family members, and connected parties following the findings of the Auditor General's Audit reports in 2007 and 2008 that government funds and national institutions were being used for personal benefit. During our investigation in the Maldives, we were provided with three hard-drives from the Presidents Commission, which investigates allegations of corruption and misappropriation of assets. These hard-drives contained copy images of the harddrives in the STO Singapore office as at 2009. Allegations of skimming from oil trades were provided. We were informed that although the hard-drives had been imaged, that no further investigation had taken place into the allegations, due to various reasons of which lack of resources and technical knowledge. This report outlines the investigation process that Grant Thornton UK LLP undertook, and our findings to date.
History of the Republic of the Maldives
2.1 In order to understand the political set up of the Maldives, I set out briefly below the political history of the Maldives in order to provide some background knowledge of the Maldives during the period when Gayoom was in power. The countrys current political system was established in November 1968 when it was proclaimed The Republic of Maldives Islands. It was renamed The Republic of Maldives in April 1969. The Maldives first President, Amir Nasir, remained in office until November 1978, when Gayoom, who was at the time the Minister of Transport, assumed the presidency. President Nasir abolished the role of Prime Minister in 1975 leaving only the Presidency. Mr Gayoom was elected with 92.96% of the votes as the new President of the Maldives. He was last re-elected to a sixth five-year term in October 2003 with 90.28% of the vote; he was the sole candidate, having been chosen by the Majlis. The Peoples Majlis, (the Parliament), consists of 50 members of whom eight members are appointed by the President, two members are elected from the capital, Mal, and two members from each of the 20 Atoll constituencies. The speaker of the Majlis - who is not a member - is appointed by the President. A deputy speaker is also appointed by the President from among the members. These appointments gave the President considerable power to influence the conduct of the Parliament.
2010 Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved.
Although the Maldives did not have a party system, a 1998 constitution gave citizens the right to contest the vote for the presidency in parliament. Before then it had been a criminal offence to offer oneself as a candidate. During his Presidency, Gayoom was also the Defence Minister, Finance Minister and Chief Justice of Maldives (among others), but following international pressure and media attention stepped down from these additional positions in 2004. The October 2008 Maldivian presidential election was the first presidential election Maumoon Abdul Gayoom allowed to be contested. Standing as the DRP candidate, Gayoom lost in the election's second round, in which he received 45.75% of the vote against 54.25% for his opponents, President-elect Nasheed succeeded Gayoom as President on November 11, 2008.
2.10 According to an Amnesty International report, in 2003 "there were severe restrictions on freedom of the press, and political parties were unable to function." Their report introduction stated that "This report provides information on arbitrary detention of government critics and their continued imprisonment before and after convictions in grossly unfair trials. It also highlights a pattern of torture and illtreatment, and serious flaws in the criminal justice system. In the past decade, dozens of people - including politicians, journalists and others protesting government policies - have been detained arbitrarily in defiance of their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Several prisoners of conscience have been tried and convicted by the Criminal Court without having access to a lawyer, or to an independent and impartial appeal mechanism. Their cases highlight the failure of the government to address fundamental flaws in the criminal justice system resulting in arbitrary detention, grossly unfair trials and long term imprisonment of government critics." (Source: Amnesty International)
STO Maldives (Singapore) Pte Limited - Background
3.1 STO Maldives (Singapore) Pte Limited ("STO Singapore") is a subsidiary of State Trading Organization Plc ("STO") a state owned organisation. The State Trading Organisation Public Limited Company (STO) was established in 1964 and its main task is importing and trading goods. The government currently owns 92.29% and 7.71% is held by the general public The STO specialises in the import of staple foods, fuel, lubricants and construction materials. Its main aim is to supply these goods at a reasonable price to the public. The majority of the STO's activities is the supply and sale of petroleum and aviation fuel. STO Singapore was set up in 1997 in order to purchase diesel and related products on behalf of the Maldives, but progressed to include the sale of these products to other countries. The majority of its sales were to STO in Male, and to Myanmar with the exception of 2002 where the majority of sales revenue came from Malaysia. This is shown in the Appendix XXX. We were only able to obtain information from 2002 to 2008, as
there were no accounting data back up files prior to 2002, and paper documentation was sparse.
STO plc Audit
4.1 During the audit planning for 2007, comments were made under "Entity risk fears" regarding STO plc. That "STO revenue is in all most all the years just the same as its cost of sales leading to very low profit margin. in financial year 2006 there has been a decrease of approximately 87% of the net profit compared to financial year 2005. Similarly Maldives National Oil Company is operating under a very low profit margin. In 2006 profit margin has declined by approximately 67% compared to 2005. The main risk assocated in the entity is segregation of duties at the top level. Transfer of money within the organisation ".
It was also mentioned in the audit approach that Mr Maniku " was also the Chairman of STO Maldives Singapore, Maldives National Oil Company, Fuel Supply Maldives, Allied Insurance Company, so there might be related party transaction between these subsidiares. Therefore control risk is very high."
Key Persons within STO and STO Singapore
5.1 The following individuals were directly appointed by Gayoom and held significant strategic and influential positions within the organisation.
Abdulla Yameen 5.2 Abdulla Yameen is the younger half brother of Gayoom and was given the Chair of the STO position and the Trade Ministry in 1990. Mr Yameen was also the Minister of Tourism and of Civil Aviation. 5.3 5.4 Abdulla Yameen stepped down from the position of STO Chairman in 2005. However evidence found within STO Singapore (Exhibit XXX - source STO Singapore Hard-drive, copied in 2009) of debit notes being created from STO Singapore to STO, for payments made on account of Mr Yameeen during 2007/2008. On further examination, we were informed that these debit notes were created as a result of receiving funds from Mr Yameen deposited to the STO head office, which were then transferred to STO Singapore's bank accounts. This corresponded with a document received from STO Head Office confirming the payments were deposited by Yameen into STO's bank accounts via cheque. In conversation with Mr Muneez, the Managing Director of STO Singapore, this was to provide monies for the living expenses of his son and daughter, both studying in Singapore. Their living expenses were distributed by Mr Muneez.
Two issues arise in the above process; a) Why Mr Muneez was tasked with the responsibility over many years of the distribution of funds to Yameens family when no apparent consideration appeared to be given to Muneez for this. b) That despite stepping down from his role as Chairman in 2005, he was still using nationally owned institutions (STO) and their company bank accounts to transfer personal funds to members of his family up until late September 2008.
It would be highly unusual for a person no longer connected to the company of which he used to be Chairman to use company bank accounts for personal use/money transfers.
5.10 It should be noted that this continued up until very shortly before the elections took place that resulted in a change in government, removing his brother Gayoom from the Presidency. 5.11 As Chairman, Yameen should have been aware of the strategic risks and opportunities being presented to STO and would have needed to provide his guidance. He would have been aware of the oil trading as the Singapore arm would not have been incorporated without his approval. 5.12 From copy letters translated from Dhevi, Mr Yameen has previously requested Gayoom to sign letters, drafted by Yameen, to foreign leaders/ministers with regards to oil production and sale. 5.13 This further corroborates our view that Mr Yameen was aware of and would have been involved in the oil strategy that took place within STO and STO Singapore, not just through his position as Chairman but through his various visits to Singapore and his use of the STO Singapore bank accounts for personal use, and his relationship with Muneez, the Managing Director of STO Singapore. Mohamed Maniku 5.14 Mohamed Maniku was made Managing Director of STO in 1993 and served until 2008 until he was appointed as an Ambassador to Washington. 5.15 Mr Maniku was also a director on the Bank of Maldives Board, due to his position within the STO, and this remained throughout his tenure. This is referred to in a separate report. 5.16 Due to this longevity as MD of STO it could be concluded that he had significant influence within the organization. 5.17 We have reviewed various purchase invoices regarding Mr Maniku's visits to Malaysia and Myanmar from the STO Singapore office, which clearly indicates that Mr Maniku was acutely involved in the STO Singapore oil strategy involving Myanmar and other third parties.
Initial Forensic Examination
6.1 Our initial investigation centred on the hard-drives received from the Presidents Commission. We completed a search on the files obtained within the hard-drives and picked out documents of interest. During the searches we discovered various documents that required further investigation, these are broadly categorised into the following: Mocom/Myanmar sales Unusual Debit Notes/Payments Unusual contracts of sale We also reviewed the STO Financial Statements for 2001 to 2009. The STO was audited by PWC in Male until 2003. For 2004 onwards it was audited by KPMG based in Sri Lanka, which for the first time in STO received a qualification in the audit with the following opinion: "A company incorporated in Singapore by the name of Mocom Trading Pte Ltd in 2004 has not been disclosed under Note No. 30 to the Financial Statements. There was no evidence available with regard to approval of the incorporation. Further we are unable to establish the volume and the nature of the company with the group ." In 2005, KPMG further qualified the audit with the following opinion: A company incorporated in Singapore by the name of Mocom Trading Pte Ltd in 2004 has not been disclosed under Note No. 33 to the Financial Statements. There was no evidence available with regard to approval of the incorporation and we are unable to establish the volume and the nature of the transactions of company with the group. However, the name of the company has been struck off on 20th April 2006". Further to the above, Grant Thornton staff travelled to STO Singapore office on 14 July 2010 for two days to obtain initial documentation and to review the accounting files. This was not a perfect process as STO Singapore's files are poorly organised and not in any clear order. There were 5 small bays of files for approximately 13 years of accounting records, sale contracts, purchase invoices, bank statements, oil trading information etc.
6.10 At the office copies of sales invoices, letters of credit and bank statements were obtained for 2004, as it appeared to have the most available documentation and the KPMG audit first identified Mocom in 2004. 6.11 Work continued on the review of the sales invoices, and of the STO Singapore Financial Statements.
6.12 A general review of the Financial Statements from 2001 to 2009 can be found in Appendix XXX. 6.13 This review shows that revenue increased dramatically from 2001 to 2002, after which sales hovered around the SD$100million mark until 2005. From 2006 onwards, sales decreased significantly and revenue in 2009 dropped to SD$17million its lowest to date. 6.14 A review of the sales invoices in 2004 showed that for each trade sale to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise, there were two sales invoices, one from STO Singapore and one from Mocom Trading Pte Ltd. 6.15 This was an anomaly as all other sales from STO Singapore to the following companies STO Plc, Sirus Marine PTE Ltd, Petroleum Nasional Berhad, and Prestige Marine Services PTE Ltd only had the one sales invoice on STO Singapore letterhead. 6.16 The sum total of all the Mocom invoices to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprises was $45,751,423, whereas the sum total of the invoices raised by STO Singapore to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprises was $51,423,523. A difference of $5,672,500. 6.17 Further, for both invoices, the invoice number and the quantity was the same, however the unit price per barrel of oil, and therefore the total gross amounts were different. 6.18 The invoices issued by each of the companies bear striking similarity to each other, in everything but the price per barrel. The price per barrel is usually somewhere in the region of US$5 per barrel higher in the STO invoices than the Mocom invoices and there was no obvious explanation for this. See Appendix XXX. 6.19 In addition, Mocom and STO Singapore invoices suggested that they are trading from different addresses, but they carry the same contact numbers. 6.20 Bank statements for STO were reviewed for the period 2004 in an attempt to reconcile any differences. It was discovered that monies were received in an account with the United Overseas Bank Ltd ("UOB") for the sales to Myanmar, and could be identified via the invoice numbers which were stated on the bank statements. 6.21 The amounts received ($27,588,887) did not exactly match the invoices raised by STO or Mocom, however they were closer to the amounts raised by Mocom then STO. 6.22 On UOB receiving the monies, cheques were written out to transfer these monies out of UOB. We traced $3.245m being paid to STO Singapores' Standard Chartered Account. 6.23 Bearing in mind that there appeared to be no obvious sizeable debt write offs, there was no apparent logic for the disparity in values between the two sets of invoices.
6.24 We considered the view whether it could be a simple commission calculation with the basis being the STO invoice value. i.e. the invoices were being used to solely back this up and nobody seeking to agree the trades back to the sales ledger? However it is clear from discussions with Muneez and Ravi (the office accountant since 2002) and through reviewing the ledgers during the second visit to the offices that this was not the case. 6.25 We researched the company who had audited the accounts for STO Singapore, and found that the company looked as if it was a sole practitioner. 6.26 Given the above and the fact that the financial statements were audited by small perhaps one person firm, it was agreed that further forensic examination of the accounts was required in order to understand what figures represented the sales and which value (STO or Mocom) was shown in the financial statements.
Further Forensic Examination
7.1 Our strategy was to focus on the oil trades (sales and purchases), tracing through the invoices to the revenue stated values for 2004, to complete the initial examination, and to then review the sales and purchases for other years. STO Singapore appear to have purchased fuel from Shell Eastern, the Singapore Petroleum Company and Petronas, and then sold it to STO, its parent company, or to third parties. Occasionally sales were made for shipping of items on behalf of a government organisation, such as the Office of Election Commission. In order to ascertain whether all purchases of fuel were delivered and sold to either STO or other third parties, work included comparing the purchases of fuel shown in STO Singapore's purchase ledger with: purchase invoices; and sales shown in STO Singapore's sales ledger. As part of this process, we compared the purchase invoices with bills of lading and other documentation such as manifests in order to ascertain where the fuel had been delivered. As referred to above, this was not a perfect process as STO Singapore's files are poorly organised. The folders containing bills of lading etc were difficult to locate and we could not find all of the material we had expected to find.
a) b) 7.4
Sales 7.6 We reviewed the sales invoices for 2004, which as per Appendix XXX showed 78 sales transactions for the year. 7.7 Of these transactions 75% were to Myanmar or to Myawaddy Trading Pte Ltd, also based in Myanmar.
On three of the STO/Mocom Invoices the debtor was stated as being Myawaddy Trading Pte Ltd, which was different to the debtor ledger in the accounts. These are highlighted yellow. All of the transactions were relating Myanmar/Myawaddy were for marine diesel oil. Of the remaining transactions, the next largest debtor was STO plc, buying SD$25million of fuel products.
7.10 The sales invoices themselves showed the following information: Customer Invoice date and number Bill of Lading date BL number Where the shipment was from and its port of discharge The vessel used to transport the products The letter of credit number Description of goods Quantity sold Unit price Sale price
7.11 Appendix XXX shows a summary of the sales transactions that took place in 2004. 7.12 To reconcile the sales invoices back to the purchases made, we reviewed the documentation supporting the transaction, including the bills of lading, insurance documents and purchase invoices. 7.13 In addition we used IDEA software to link specific purchases of oil with the sales, therefore confirming the basis of the transactions.
Bills of Lading 7.14 Bills of Lading for each shipment of oil should show to whom the shipment had been consigned and the corresponding port of discharge. They are created by the supplier from which the fuel product was purchased.
7.15 The consignees shown on Bills of Lading where Myanmar has been invoiced for supply are summarised in the following table. Period 27/1/04 - 7/3/04 Consignee to order of Notes These Bills of Lading are endorsed: "Notify: Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise Myanmar Investment and Commercial Bank" 21/3/04 - 27/3/04 8/4/04 - 13/6/05 Myanmar STO or STO Singapore
7.16 Although the Bills of Lading did not define the consignee in the period from January 2004 to March 2004, notes within the Bill of Lading made it clear that the goods were being supplied to Myanmar and the port of discharge was shown as Yangon, a port in Myanmar. 7.17 However, from April 2004, all of the fuel invoiced to Myanmar is reflected in Bills of Lading where the consignee is shown, as either STO or STO Singapore. These shipments appear to have been discharged in the Maldives instead of Yangon as per the sales invoices. 7.18 Exhibit XXX shows the various documents that support the sale transaction. It can be seen in this example that the bill of lading port of discharge is different to the sales invoice. 7.19 It should be noted that the Bills of Lading are signed by the ship's master and should therefore be highly indicative of where the cargo had been delivered. 7.20 In many instances, we have located fax messages which tend to correspond with the information shown on the Bills of Lading. See, for example the fax dated 10 January 2005 attached to Exhibit 3. This stated that the port of loading was to be Singapore, the consignee was to be STO and that the Maldives was to be the Port of Discharge. 7.21 Although we don't have a Bill of Lading for this delivery, we have a "manifest" completed by Shell which corresponds with the fax. The manifest included in Exhibit 3 states that the port of discharge was to have been the Maldives. 7.22 The fax was addressed to Shell Eastern and was produced by Gemyl Aung. 7.23 In other examples, the corresponding fax was sent by Gemyl Jamal (for example, the fax within Exhibit 23). The signatures for Gemyl Aung and Gemyl Jamal appear to be the same. 7.24 To further corroborate the above, insurance documents were reviewed in relation to oil shipments. Evidence was found to show that the insurance documents for the same transactions stated that the oil was loaded at Singapore and discharged in the
Maldives, again contradicting the sales invoices which had stated that they were being discharged in Yangon. (Exhibit XXX). 7.25 Of the 33 sales invoices directly to Myanmar Petco in 2004, 20 of those shipments appeared to have been discharged in Maldives, and not Yangon. The total sum of these invoices for 2004 is approximately US$30million dollars, equivalent to 653,475 barrels of oil. 7.26 We understand that Gemyl Aung/Jamal was STO Singapore's General Manager, but no longer works for STO Singapore. 7.27 We requested to see Mr Jamal. Mr Muneez called Mr Jamal and requested that we meet. During the phonecall, Mr Jamal was heard to say that he is "not liable" for STO Singapore. We were unable to ascertain what the statement referred to. He refused to come to the office, we understand however, that he remains based in Singapore and we have been provided with a contact number for him by Mr Muneez. 7.28 On occasion, we have located two types of Bills of Lading which tend to show a different port of discharge. For example, a Bill of Lading contained within Exhibit 3 indicates that this shipment was to have been delivered to Yangon Port in Myanmar and the cargo consigned to Myanmar. However, these Bills of Lading have been completed by a cargo agency, Raysun Shipping Lines and are not signed by the ship's master. 7.29 We have discussed sales to Myanmar in more detail in section XXX However, it seems possible that shipments invoiced to Myanmar may have been delivered to a third party. 7.30 Further information is currently being sought regarding shipments invoiced to Myanmar in order to ascertain where the ships delivered their cargo. Purchases c) STO Singapore appears to have purchased fuel from Shell Eastern, the Singapore Petroleum Company and Petronas. 7.31 Although the content of purchase invoices varies slightly from one supplier to another, these tend to show: the product type numbers of barrels the name of the vessel used to transport the fuel the loading date. 7.32 As part of this process, we compared the purchase invoices with bills of lading and other documentation such as manifests in order to ascertain where the fuel had been delivered.
7.33 There were payments made to Sinotex Shipping & Trading Co Ltd that differed from all other purchases in the nature of their transactions. This is set out below. Suppliers - Sinotex Shipping & Trading Co Ltd 7.34 A number of payments were made to Sinotex Shipping & Trading Co Ltd which were in round figures. 7.35 These were different to the standard freight purchases, whereby it appeared that payment is normally given for actual shipping costs were bought on the basis that the same oil was being delivered and sold to a third party. 7.36 It therefore appeared unusual to discover that payments were made on a regular basis for the oil. 7.37 Company information shows that the company is a Thai company. Its managing director is Mr Maung Aung Aung Lwin. 7.38 The company is a majority shareholder of a Myanmese company which also appears in the purchase ledger; Trade Sea Company Ltd. Suppliers - Trade Sea Company Ltd 7.39 Trade Sea Company Ltd is located in Yangon, Myanmar and was incorporated in 2002. 7.40 Senior Personnel as per its company records are Kyaw Kyaw Lin and Aaron Lwin. 7.41 It's majority shareholder is Sinetox Shipping & Trading Co Ltd.
Mocom/Myanmar
8.1 Mr Muneez, an STO Singapore director has advised us that Mocom was a large corporation based in Malaysia; Mocom Corporation Sdn Bhd, and that one of its directors is a Mr Kamal Bin Rashid. We have confirmed that Mr Rashid was a director of Mocom Corporate Sdn Bhd, as was Mr Raja Abdul Rashid Bin Raja Badiozaman, and Bilal Bin Rashid @ Maung Myo Myint Lwin (deceased). Mocom Trading Pte Ltd was incorporated on 4 February 2004, company registration number 200402297N. Authorised capital was 1,000,000, Issued and paid up ordinary shares were 4. Shareholders were registered as: Kamal Bin Rashid@myint Lwin. 14, Jalan BJ/1 Taman Bukit Jaya Bukit Antarabangsa, 68000 Ampang Malaysia, Nationality Myanmar; Raja Abdul Rahsid Bin Raja Badiozaman, 64 Taman Bukit Ampang Jalan Bukit Belacan 68000 Malaysia, Nationality Malaysia;
Fathimah Ashan, G Nagin Koimalaa Higun Male, Maldives; and Sana Mansoor, MA Manas Nikagas Higun Male Maldives
Directors were registered as: Kamal Bin Rashid Raja Abdul Rashid Bin Raja Badiozaman Fathimah Ashan Sana Mansoor Ahmed Muneez
A review of the audited financial statements for the financial year ended 30 September 2004 shows a loss of RM 156,988, and in 2003 a loss of RM186,109. Its principal activites are described as trading in car spare parts, accessories and diesel. In discussions with Mr Muneez he explained that Mocom Trading Pte Limited (Mocom Singapore) was set up as a joint venture between Mocom and STO Singapore in order to sell oil to Myanmar. We were informed that Mocom Corporation had the rights to sell oil to Myanmar through a tender process, along with three other companies, Daewoo, Petrocom and Hyundai. Daewoo shortly withdrew from selling oil to Myanmar in 2004. STO Singapore wished to sell oil to Myanmar, however as Mocom had the contract, it was agreed that STO Singapore and Mocom would form a joint venture, known as Mocom Trading Pte Ltd, incorporated in Singapore.
8.10 We were also informed that STO Singapore wished to have a joint venture set up with Mocom, as it was concerned that during the process of buying and shipping the oil to Myanmar, that the letter of credit could be revoked by Mocom Corporation thereby leaving a financial loss to STO. 8.11 However, letters of credit by their very nature are irrevocable and cannot be cancelled without the beneficiary agreeing. The following information regarding letters of credit was found on Wikipedia: 8.12 "Letters of credit can also be source of payment for a transaction, meaning that redeeming the letter of credit will pay an exporter. Letters of credit are used primarily in international trade transactions of significant value, for deals between a supplier in one country and a customer in another. The parties to a letter of credit are usually a beneficiary who is to receive the money, the issuing bank of whom the applicant is a client, and the advising bank of whom the beneficiary is a client. Almost all letters of credit are irrevocable, i.e., cannot be amended or canceled
without prior agreement of the beneficiary, the issuing bank and the confirming bank, if any". 8.13 Therefore our view is that this claim is not a valid reason for creating a joint venture company. 8.14 An example of a contract over April to July 2005 setting out the relationship between Mocom Singapore and STO Singapore is attached as Exhibit XXX. In summary, the contract explained that: STO Singapore was to supply Mocom Singapore with diesel;
As Mocom Singapore held the contract to supply the Union of Myanmar that Mocom Singapore were therefore entitled to a "commission payment" being approximately 40% of the profits made; It was confirmed that commission should be paid direct to a Singaporean bank account, which was a USD account in Mr Rashid's sole name with United Overseas Bank, Singapore. 8.15 Attached to the contract was the commission invoice from Mocom Singapore for the period April to December 2005. Therefore in the ledger, it appears that the commission is being paid to Mocom Singapore, but in fact is paid to Mr Rashid personally. 8.16 Throughout the above, it remains very unclear to us what STO Singapore's role in the process had been, given that Mocom already had the contract to sell oil to Myanmar. It would have been more profitable for Mocom to set up a trading arm in Singapore and purchased the fuel itself , benefiting from all related profits. 8.17 STO Singapore and Mocom Singapore each generated sales invoices addressed to Myanmar for each delivery showing the quantity of barrels delivered and the unit price. The content of the invoices are alike, except for the price per barrel. 8.18 We understand from Mr Muneez that the unit price shown on the Mocom Singapore invoices reflect the values supported by Letters of Credit. Our work suggests that, generally, the unit prices shown on the STO Singapore invoices were higher than those shown on the Mocom Singapore invoices. 8.19 We understand from Mr Muneez that, in order to settle the STO Singapore invoices (ie the difference), Myanmar paid round sum amounts by cheque to "top up" the account. 8.20 However, this is not documented and Mr Muneez explained that this process involved making contact with the Myanmar government in order to seek payment. 8.21 We were also informed that at the year end, the debtor ledger was "squared off" in order to balance the books. However it is unclear if the topped up amounts were paid in round sum figures (approximately $100,000 at a time) how the accounts were easily reconcilable and why they were paid in such sums.
Commission paid to Mr Rashid
9.1 Commission paid to Mr Rashid from 2001 to 2006 which were the last commission amounts paid were as follows:
Kamal Rashid Commission Payments Singapore Dollar 2002 Commission Myanmar Sales (UMEH/MPE) PL International Pte Ltd S H N G Trading Kanbawza International Pte Ltd Golden Aaron Pte Ltd Total Sales to Myanmar Commission as % of Sales Total sales % of total sales 02 144 011 18 184 646 403 55,789, 975 67,613, 418 87,000, 324 66,309, 230 14,685, 572,8 50,544, 1,112, 606,4 2,329, 1,197, 975 2003 820 203, 67,613, 418 2004 43 124,2 87,000, 324 2005 27 44,4 66,309, 230 2006 309 52, 14,685,
294,123,621 86,100,402 19% 79%
115,725,144 105,170,183 56,530,328 75% 63% 26%
What is interesting to note from the above is the decrease in commission paid to Mr Rashid from 2002 to 2006, despite the sales increasing significantly over the same period. Commission was paid to Mr Rashid in relation to four other companies above, however no sales appeared for these companies from 2003. These companies are discussed in section XXX Initially it may be considered that the decrease was due to a change in the working relationship, i.e. commission was a direct consequence of sales introduced by Mr Rashid in 2001 and 2002, but that due to a new agreement to create a joint venture, that the commission structure changed. However, as per the contract, commission was still to be paid to Mr Rashid as a result of the Myanmar sales albeit they now were invoiced through Mocom.
It is unclear why STO Singapore paid commission to Mr Rashid and on what basis. Mr Rashid is confirmed as director of Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd. Exhibit XXX shows that Mr Rashid was previously Myanmese, and changed nationality in 2009 to Malaysian. His name is stated as Kamal Bin Rashid @ Myint Lwin Oo. We believe that Myint Lwin Oo may be his Myanmese name.
9.10 Another company officer on the same document also changes nationality from Myanmese to Singapore in 2009.
Companies trading with STO Singapore 2002 2006
Kanbawza International Pte Ltd 10.1 We were unable to source this company in Singapore and believe that it is part of the Kanbawza Group based in Myanmar. 10.2 Further information is required to confirm the above, however the Kanbawza Group is owned by Aung Ko Win. 10.3 Aung Ko Win, also known as Saya Kyaung, is a longtime associate of the junta's No 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye. He also owns a soccer club, Kanbawza FC and Kanbawza Bank. Aung Thaung's son Pyi Aung is married to Maung Aye's daughter Nandar Aye. 10.4 Sales were registered in 2002 only. PL International Pte Ltd 10.5 PL International Ltd appears to be a Singaporean company 10.6 It's website states that "Metro PL International Private Limited was incorporated in Singapore in 2002 as a general commodities wholesale trading company. We have since grown and evolved into an international oil and gas trading company ". 10.7 The website is very limited and has only four pages of information with brief text. 10.8 Information is being sought as to the ultimate interested party for this company. Sales were registered in 2002 only S H NG Trading Pte Ltd 10.9 According to information sourced from PI International Ltd, the company had been inactive for over 7 years as no accounts had been filed. 10.10 Research into the ownership of S H NG Trading Pte Ltd appeared to show that the company is owned by Ms Cecila NG.
10.11 Ms Cecilia NG is the wife of a Myanmar national, Mr Tun Myint Naing, also known as Steven Law. The US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has accused Steven Law of being part of a drug empire which his father, Mr Lo Hsing Han dubbed the "Godfather of Heroin" by OFAC had set up in the early 1970s. 10.12 According to OFAC Mr Tun is also one of the wealthiest individuals in Myanmar. Mr Tun is also suggested to be linked with the Myanmar's Junta leaders. (Exhibit XXX) 10.13 Ms Ng (and Mr Law) and the company have been blacklisted by US sanctions for having ties with Myanmar. (Exhibit XXX) 10.14 Sales were registered in 2002 only. Golden Aaron Pte Ltd 10.15 Golden Aaron Pte Ltd is also owned by Ms Cecilia Ng and is also blacklisted by OFAC. (Exhibit XXX) The Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd (UMEH) 10.16 Sales were made to the above named company in 2002. 10.17 In July 2003 it was targeted by OFAC and written into the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 2003 (US) as one of the companies for which it was now illegal for US companies and citizens to trade with. Myawaddy Trading Ltd 10.18 Myawaddy Trading Ltd is a subsidiary of the The Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd. 10.19 The company is blacklisted under OFAC and it is illegal for the US or US citizens to trade with the company. 10.20 Three of the sales invoices in 2004 were Myawaddy Trading Ltd, however appeared in the accounts ledger as being sold to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise. 10.21 This adds further to the assumption that UMEH changed its name to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise Ltd, discussed below. Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise (Myanmar Petco) 10.22 Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise is the main buyer of oil according to the sales documentation from STO Singapore for 2003 to 2005, and still accounted for 26% of sales in 2006, the final year of trading with the company. 10.23 Information is being sought as to the ultimate interested party for this company. 10.24 However it should be noted that the following companies, all with very similar sounding names have been added to OFAC's SDN list: MYANMAR GEM ENTERPRISE (a.k.a. MGE; a.k.a. MYANMAR GEM ENTERPRISE)
MYANMAR PEARL ENTERPRISE (a.k.a. MPE; a.k.a. MYANMAR PEARL ENTERPRISE) MYANMAR TIMBER ENTERPRISE (a.k.a. MTE; a.k.a. MYANMAR TIMBER ENTERPRISE) 10.25 It would be reasonable to assume that the Union of Myanmar Petco effectively was a change of name for the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd and that sales continued albeit under a different name to the same interested parties. 10.26 The company's managing director is Col Kyaw Shen. The company according to company records is a state owned company responsible to the Ministry of Energy. 10.27 The Minister of Energy is Brigadier General Lun Thi. According to a number of sources including the Canadian and US government websites Brigadier-General Lun Thi, born July 18, 1940 has been the Minister of Energy since December 20, 1997. 10.28 All oil sales contracts have to be negotiated directly with the Ministry of Energy. Vietnam 10.29 We have also located one shipment which, according to the corresponding purchase invoice received from the Singapore Petroleum Company Ltd, was delivered to Vietnam. This contradicts the corresponding STO Singapore sales invoice which was addressed to STO. 10.30 The supporting documentation we have collected is included within Exhibit 27 and this refers to the delivery of 2,977.563 metric tonnes of HSFO 180 CST, which was invoiced to STO at a cost of US$881,730.84.
11.1 At the current position in time it appears that a number of oil sales made to Myanmar were not shipped to the port of discharge as per the sales invoices, but rather to the Maldvies. 11.2 This leads to possible theories, of which will need to be further investigated mainly concerning the concept of shipping fraud through the diversion of chartered vessels and where the oil cargo was delivered to after reaching the Maldives. 11.3 If the oil delivered to the Maldives was sold on the black market. This may have created a "super-profit" being the difference between the sale amount and the amount sold on the market. Following which an investigation would need to be undertaken to confirm if the sale proceeds were then returned to Myanmar to cover the original sales "cost" and the additional profit split between individuals. 11.4 Further research on the oil trade has shown that there have been numerous allegations and prosecutions for the smuggling and selling of oil on the black market, of which one means is through the diversion of oil tankers to destinations other than that shown on the original sales invoices.
11.5 The International Maritime Organisation estimates that 80,000 barrels of oil a day go missing through theft, diverting of oil lines and through fraud in shipping, helped by corrupt government officials and businessmen. 11.6 We should consider undertaking the following: 11.7 Confirm basis for round figure payments to the following: Glencore Capt Shahid
11.8 for which there are no invoices but requests from STO to pay from STO Singapore accounts. 11.9 Ascertain where the tankers delivering fuel invoiced to Myanmar travelled to. National research are looking into this, but we may wish to consider: 11.10 Obtain information from the ports authority in the Maldives re shipments delivered there 11.11 Obtain information from the ships' owners to establish where the ships travelled to and confirm ownership of the vessels. We hope to find out from Lloyds Shipping Register who owns the ships. 11.12 Ascertain where the shipment apparently delivered to Vietnam was delivered. 11.13 Obtain copies of the cheques/paying in slips used to settle debts between STO Singapore and Myanmar. We should consider obtaining copies of the cheques from Standard Chartered to determine where cheques used to pay STO Singapore by Myanmar in were obtained from. 11.14 Consider disclosure order for individuals mentioned in the report from Singapore Monetary Authority. 11.15 Consider and analyse any breaches of UN sanctions in the trading of oil with Myanmar and any criminal consequences for individuals who commit the same.
Business (General)
Documents Similar To sto Report Aug 31_lite
lukesh_sap
Jara Sadar
krdinesh0704
Bronwen Elizabeth Madden
essaki
Frederick Xavier Lim
Rahul Agarwal
Hamdan Hassin
shuklanitie
adine dy
Jatin Pahuja
Nurani Tia
gochi ayen
sudeep1434
Constantin Strat
Beth Afan
Anonymous rNqW9p3
1-347294429732_2019-03-14_1.pdf
SiddiqueJoiya
Fagal
Restricting Modification on Invoice Form
Veeramani Iyer
Format of Purchase Order
sbpathi
bharath_9585
Putri Nur Chalifah
Ricardo Baeza
GR 187701
remstar990
https://www.scribd.com/document/346214992/Tcodes-List-S4HANA
Anonymous LwDMNd
Fa 102012
artnstitches
More From wickerette
List of Contract Law Cases
Uksc 2014 0218 Judgment
Example Oscola Bibliography
Kiriaki Pappa
Ila Careers Guide
Evidence Lecture 1
UG_Law_brochure 2016 WEB.pdf
Answer Key Leaases
What Are Publicity Rights
Beef Stoganoff With Rice and Salad
The law Comission Facing the Future Cover page
Green Curry and Rice
Are Courts the Best Arbitrator of Rights Based on the Criterion of Democracy
Resources for Euthanasia
Japan Country Overview
Malaysian Studies notes History
Polciy on Gender Quotas
Pols lecture notes
Country Profile United Kingdom
Key Issues Reviewing Counter Terrorism Legislation
Midsomer Ballad
Wto Structure
International law Territory Overheads
Mid East LEcture
The Essential Rumi.pdf
PolyushkoPolye
Popular in Business (General)
Sustainability Report final for e-book.pdf
Saket Lalpura
- Bajaj Auto
Sunny Verma
Open Access Regulations & Operationalization
shaunak_vaidya5724
Understanding Social Innovation
edumiranley
(European Advertising Academy) George Christodoulides, Anastasia Stathopoulou, Martin Eisend (Eds.)-Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VII)_ Bridging the Gap Between Advertising Academia and Pract
Asian Capital Market Development Integration
Marius Angara
Analysis of factors affecting performance of family owned businesses in abia state, Nigeria
IOSRjournal
Kone Report
Siddhartha Durairajan
Tutorial3_Q
faris_hattar
09 annex 9
Estudiantes por Derecho
Economic Objectives of the Government
sainimanish170gmailc
ghoroob
sap lap basics
Vishnu Raj
StickK
Shivam Garg
151007_LSPR-CC01-s75.pdf
elearninglspr
CementIndustry.pdf
ACCT 346 Final Exam
DeVryHelp
Tasleem Ghumro
Case Study Marketing Ppt Bec Bagalkot Mba
Babasab Patil (Karrisatte)
Project Aniwag
snsdean
PPP CABINET MEMO OF 23 APRIL 2008.pdf
felixmuyove
NH Sterr and Eder
vatimetro2012
Holistic Analysis
Marjan Ugrin
Mansoor Shahzad
SOCAP 10th Anniversary Booklet
Social Capital Markets
OV_2019_0508_sec_definitive_is_2019_final.pdf
Lhei Lanado
arjun_niroula
Oracle Banking Loans
Shivya Gupta
Remaking Singapore
Widya Wardani