NGO Leader’s Terror Designation Looks Familiar

Judge Finds Manhattan Skyscraper Owned by Iranian Front

English: 650 Fifth Avenue in New York City

English: 650 Fifth Avenue in New York City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by IPT News:

Terror Finance: Supporting our Own Demise: Part 1

by Samuel Westrop

Successive British governments continue to tolerate the existence of large charities that encourage and provide for Islamist terror groups. By failing to separate British Muslims from the Islamist charities that exploit them, we flatter and legitimize supporters of terrorism as humanitarians and community leaders. In the US, the charity Interpal is a proscribed organization: when you help terror groups build homes, you are also helping terror groups build bombs. In the UK, however, Interpal is a leading charity that provides support for terror groups. What is Interpal, and why isn’t the British government shutting it down?

For hundreds of years, London has mostly been a welcoming home for extremists who wished to destroy the very freedoms the city afforded them. It was here that 19th century nihilists such as Bakunin and Nechayev freely disseminated their violent ideas. In the 20th century, Soviet money seeped into our trade unions and lobbying groups. And now, today, London is a hub for Islamist and Arabist terror infrastructure. It is a city from which financial and logistical support sustains violent supremacist movements across the world. A few months ago, Lord Alton of Liverpool told the British parliament that he believed the Al Muntada Trust, a large London-based charity, is funding the Nigerian Al-Qaeda terrorist group Boko Haram[1]. The speakers at events previously hosted by Al Muntada have described Jews as the “descendants of apes and pigs” and have called for the execution of homosexuals and adulterous women[2]

We do not, however, just idly tolerate anti-Western groups in our midst and abroad; the harder truth is that government is often complicit with their activities, and when caught, our elected leaders simply refuse to discuss the facts. A recent report by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) revealed that British taxpayers are contributing towards the $4.5 million paid each month to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, including terrorists and mass murderers. Despite the evidence gathered by PMW, the British Foreign Office continues to deny that British money is rewarding terrorism. In a letter to Robert Halfon MP, who had voiced his concern at the findings, the International Development Minister Alan Duncan wrote: “We have investigated the matter fully and can confirm that the allegations in Palestinian Media Watch’s report are both inaccurate and misleading.”[3] Duncan did not say how the report was inaccurate, and nor did he provide any sources or facts to back up his claim. As PMW sharply responded, “the general statements made by the Minister of State in his letter, which lack any sources that contradict PMW’s findings, are wrong”. [4]

This is unfortunately not the first time the British government has just rejected the accusations rather than examine the evidence. Several years ago, a report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance revealed that £100 million in British aid to Palestinian schools was funding textbooks indoctrinating children with pro-terror and anti-Jewish propaganda[5]. Similarly, rather than properly investigate, the government simply dismissed the claims as baseless. Why do politicians and the vehicles of government knowingly allow themselves to be complicit with groups that advance pro-terror and anti-Western ideas?

Look, for example, at a large organization called Interpal. Although in the UK it is a well-established charity which has enjoyed the support of leading British politicians and cabinet members, in the United States Interpal is designated a terrorist organization. What is Interpal, and why isn’t the British Government shutting it down?

imagesCA6B4V94

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Money Jihad: How Islamists Finance Their Operations

by: Ryan Mauro

The author of the Money Jihad blogwishes to remain anonymous. The daily blog documents how Islamists finance their operations. The author previously served in military-intelligence and has been blogging about terrorism financing for three years.

The following is RadicalIslam.or’s Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with the author of the Money Jihad blog about how the Islamist terrorism continues to be lavishly funded 11 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ryan Mauro: What legal loopholes are the Islamists using to finance their operations worldwide?

Money Jihad: Saudi Arabia’s approach to terror finance is a giant loophole in and of itself.  The Islamic zakat tax, what some call “Islamic charity,” is a massive source of jihadist revenues.  The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency is supposed to approve charitable zakat transfers overseas, but it’s a fig leaf; the Saudis still fund the spread of radical Wahhabism abroad.  Also, it took Saudi Arabia’s Senior Ulema Council nine years after 9/11 to criminalize the financing of terrorism.  Whenever the Council comments on terror finance, it vigorously defends zakat in the same breath.  The Council won’t even define terrorism to include suicide bomb attacks against Israel.

In the U.S., we need a totally different approach to regulating hawala, the traditional Islamic system money transfer system that has helped fund terrorists.  But on balance I would say that most of the terror finance shortcomings in the West involve inadequate enforcement of existing laws rather than a lack of laws.

Ryan Mauro: What laws aren’t being enforced and why?

Money Jihad:  First, the Patriot Act prohibits providing material support to terrorism such as transferring money to Hamas.  The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial revealed that Islamic organizations such as the North American Islamic Trust and the Islamic Society of North America worked closely with HLF.  The Bush administration never intended HLF to be their final prosecution, but they ran out of time to pursue HLF’s associates.  Especially now that HLF’s final appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, this would be a great time to enforce the material support provisions of the Patriot Act against HLF’s unindicted co-conspirators.

Second, the Foreign Agents Registration Act isn’t being enforced with respect to CAIR which engages in political activities in the U.S. but is funded from abroad.

Third, the nonprofit provisions of the Internal Revenue code are being abused by Islamic organizations that claim to be charities but are actually engaged in business activities.  For example, Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) is a certifier of halal foods.  It gets most of its revenues from inspecting food manufacturers that seek a halal certification label, but IFANCA claims tax-exempt status on the false basis of receiving revenues from charitable donations and grants, which is discredited by a simple review of their tax forms.  Canada does a better job than the U.S. of stripping bogus charity fronts of their tax-exempt status.

Fourth, Bank Secrecy Act and Treasury regulations require money services businesses, including hawala dealers, to register their business with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. One study showed that about 85 percent of hawala businesses simply ignore the requirement.

As to why these laws aren’t being enforced, I think it’s political.

Ryan Mauro: What methods are the Islamists using today to raise money, besides soliciting wealthy donors?

Money Jihad: Well, it’s not just about zakat from wealthy donors.  Folks like Amina Farah Ali in Minnesota, Shabaaz Hussain in London, and Irfan Naseer in Birmingham have fundraised for relatively small donations from individual Muslims to support jihad overseas.  A few thousand dollars from the West goes a long way to fund a holy warrior on the ground in Somalia.

But apart from zakat donations, there are a whole host of other Islamic taxes that receive less attention but are huge revenue stream for jihad.  Western reporters call it extortion, but the mujahideen don’t look at it that way.

Take for example two terrorist organizations with a ground game:  Al-Shabaab and the Taliban.  They have fighters on the ground and control definite territory.  Organizations like that rely to a great extent on levying Islamic taxes on the people under their jurisdiction.  The Taliban still gets money from ushr, the Islamic tax on harvests, which includes poppy yields.  Al Shabaab imposes harbor taxes, checkpoint taxes (a practice from the early days of Islam up through Ottoman times), and a zakat on the lucrative Somali charcoal trade.

Ransoms, which are also permitted against infidels by the Koran, are a major revenue source for organizations like AQIM and Abu Sayyaf.  For Hezbollah, the West focuses on their drug money, but they get a lot of money from khums, the Shia Muslim tax on individual profit.

Counterfeiting, Sharia finance, street crimes, welfare fraud — those are all being used as well in different parts of the world to fund terrorism, individual Islamists or both.

Read more at Radical Islam

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Another Important Victory: The Holy Land Foundation Trial Redux

Shariah Finance Watch:

Observers who follow such things know how important the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial has been in uncovering the spread of both violent and civilizational jihad in the USA.

For those who may not be familiar with the Holy Land Foundation trial, here is a very brief synopsis:

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. It was headquartered in Richardson, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. In 2007, federal prosecutors brought charges against the organization for funding Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations. The Holy Land Foundation’s assets were frozen by the European Union and U.S., and the charity was shut down by the U.S. government following the discovery that it was funding Hamas. The 2008 trial of the charity leaders was the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history. In 2009, the founders of the organization were given life sentences for funneling $12 million to Hamas.

Much was uncovered during the investigation associated with the prosecution, including the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated America and controlled all of the major Muslim organizations in America, to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Several such organizations and individuals were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial and it was the reported intention of the Dallas US attorney’s office to prosecute at least some of those co-conspirators before Barack Obama ascended to the presidency and Eric Holder became attorney general and shut the whole operation down.

Nevertheless, Holder was too late to save the Holy Land Foundation and the folks who started it.

Not surprisingly, however, the convicted defendants appealed their convictions and became somewhat of a cause celebre among the hard Left in America and the Islamic community, many of whom are members of the organizations listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the first place:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/holy-land-5-appeal-begins-palestinians-gaza-praise-charity-closed-bush/11807

It seems the Islamists wanted us to believe that all the Holy Land Foundation was involved in was good works and sending poor Palestinian Muslims to school. They went to great lengths to highlight these activities.

The problem of course is that this is simply a smokescreen and just because a charity does some “good” work doesn’t mean it doesn’t also take part in nefarious activity as well. Think of the Mafia as another example. Mafia run districts were usually very clean and free of petty crime, but that came at a brutal price.

In terms of Islamic charities, we have proof positive in Shariah that they are instructed to support a variety of activities with money. The money comes from zakat donations, the form of tithing that we have posted about so often on SFW. There are 8 destinations for zakat under Shariah. Seven of them are benign for the most part.

But number 7, as we have pointed out so often, is downright hostile and violent: “those fighting in the way of allah,” defined as those engaged in Islamic military operations who are not part of an army roster. Sounds an awful lot like irregular combatants doesn’t it? That’s because that is exactly what it is.

And that’s why the Holy Land Foundation sent at least $12 million to HAMAS and other Jihadist organizations–they were following Islamic law. As a result, the charity was shut down and its leaders deposited in jail for life.

Anyway, the appeal has gotten all the way up to the Supreme Court level. In the process, a US government bureaucrat testified on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation, with the rather disturbing revelation that one of our US government funded programs was probably guilty of the same offense as the Holy Land Foundation, since it funneled money to organizations that have been deemed to be tied to HAMAS. Of course that disgraceful government employee, Edward Abington, provided that testimony as a means of justifying the Holy Land Foundation’s activity.

We rather think that Abington’s testimony should produce an invasive, hostile audit of just where our tax dollars are going. Clearly we do not benefit from creeps like Abington directing those dollars.

http://vinienco.com/2012/10/29/holy-land-foundation-trial-continues/

In closing we are pleased to report that the Supreme Court has in fact refused the Holy Land Foundation appeal.

Chalk one up for the good guys.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F11-1390.htm

Sheikh: preventing terror finance violates rights

Money Jihad:

Sheikh Saleh bin Abdulrahman Al-Hussein, formerly the chief of the presidency of Saudi Arabia’s two holy mosques and a member of the Senior Ulema Council, has written a 1,600 word opinion piece in the Arab News defending the transfer of funds overseas through “charity” from Saudi Arabia.  Hussein asserts that such “charity” is a personal freedom and human right.

In the piece, Sheikh Saleh Hussein slams a 2003 U.S. congressional hearing, which he claims had no facts, just emotional smears, about Saudi charities involved in financing terror.  He blames that hearing, subsequent arm twisting at the United Nations, and traitorous reporting by local Gulf journalists, for giving Saudi Arabia a bad reputation as the world’s terror financial hub.

If the evidence of Saudi perfidy is all based on false or exaggerated rhetoric, can the sheikh please explain the following events?

  • Why the Saudi International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) branch in the Philippines, which was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist entity, was founded by Osama Bin Laden’s brother-in-law, Muhammad Jamal Khalifah—a senior Al Qaeda leader?
  • Why Saudi Arabia conceded that Al Haramain (a charity that operated under the control of the government of Saudi Arabia) branches in Bosnia, Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Pakistan were terrorist entities?
  • Why the former head of Al Haramain in the U.S. was convicted last year to 33 months in prison for funding jihad in Chechnya?
  • Why the founder of Saudi Arabia’s largest private bank (and the Sunni world’s largest sharia bank) was named in the infamous “Golden Chain” list of 20 financial benefactors of Al Qaeda, and why Saudi Arabia has resisted all legal attempts to access his bank’s records?
  • Why Saudi Arabia sponsors telethons to raise money for suicide bombers?
  • Why the chief of the Bangladeshi terrorist organization JMB says his funding sources include the Saudi-based Muslim World League and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth?
  • Why the Saudi government continues to award public contracts to the Bin Laden family for construction projects?

Oh, and one more question.  Sheikh Hussein concludes his commentary by invoking a verse from the eighth chapter of the Koran (“The Spoils”), a sura which addresses taking the spoils of war from conquered infidels.  If the sheikh is truly interested in defending the principle of charity toward the poor, this is a quite remarkable passage to select!

Money Jihad: Revisiting the Golden Chain, 11 years later

Money Jihad:

It was the 1990s.  Osama bin Laden was broke, busted, and disgusted.  Al Qaeda had spent its last dime, and Osama needed a bailout.  Sulaiman Al-Rajhi and 19 other millionaire and billionaire Muslims came to the rescue.  They constituted a “golden chain” of financial backers that would enable a second life for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan from which to stage the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The U.S. Senate presented the evidence against the Golden Chain once again this summer in its report about the misdeeds of the British bank HSBC.  HSBC maintained a relationship with Al-Rajhi Bank, of which Sulaiman Al-Rajhi was a founder, until 2005 despite the earlier discovery of the Golden Chain and Al-Rajhi Bank’s record of facilitating terrorist transactions.

Don’t take my word for it.  This comes from the Senate’s Jul. 17, 2012, report:

Al Qaeda List of Financial Benefactors. The al Qaeda list of financial benefactors came to light in March 2002, after a search of the Bosnian offices of the Benevolence International Foundation, a Saudi based nonprofit organization which was also designated a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department, led to seizure of a CD-ROM and computer hard drive with numerous al Qaeda documents.  One computer file contained scanned images of several hundred documents chronicling the formation of al Qaeda. One of the scanned documents contained a handwritten list of 20 individuals identified as key financial contributors to al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden apparently referred to that group of individuals as the “Golden Chain.” In a report prepared for Congress, the Congressional Research Service explained:

According to the Commission’s report, Saudi individuals and other financiers associated with the Golden Chain enabled bin Laden and Al Qaeda to replace lost financial assets and establish a base in Afghanistan following their abrupt departure from Sudan in 1996.

One of the 20 handwritten names in the Golden Chain document identifying al Qaeda’s early key financial benefactors is Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, one of Al Rajhi Bank’s key founders and most senior officials.

The Golden Chain document has been discussed in the 9-11 Commission’s report, in federal court filings, and civil lawsuits. Media reports as early as 2004 noted that the al Qaeda list included the Al Rajhi name. HSBC was clearly on notice about both the al Qaeda list and its inclusion of Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi.

What became of the Golden Chain?  As for Al-Rajhi, the most prominent individual listed, he remains at large with an estimated net worth of $6 billion, showing up on Forbes magazine cover stories and feature interviews in the Arab News.  By Al-Rajhi’s own admission, he’s working out a “meticulous scheme” for a mysterious charitable endowment to dispose of his assets.

Money Jihad – Seven ways to stop funding terror

Money Jihad:

Money Jihad has previously proposed methods to limit zakat and hawala—two major mechanisms for funding terror.  Here’s a more comprehensive set of our recommendations that would reduce terrorist financing overall:

  1. Drill, baby, drill.  The U.S. should expand offshore oil drilling, open federal lands for drilling, ease its permitting process for new refineries, encourage hydraulic fracturing methods that tap previously inaccessible energy sources underground, and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  Increasing domestic U.S. and Western Hemisphere energy production will reduce reliance on Persian Gulf oil supplies and thereby minimize the profits reaped by hostile, foreign regimes that sponsor terror.
  2. Eliminate foreign aid to Pakistan.  Pakistan uses its ISI spy service to fund the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.  Continuing to waste money on Pakistan is not only wasteful when we can least afford it, but it is suicidal.
  3. Study the true enemy and threat.  Among the most important concepts for the Western public to understand are:

    If we fail to acknowledge Islam as the animating force behind terror finance, we’ll get confused and aim at the wrong targets.  For example, we’ve spent billions of dollars complying with extensive bureaucratic requirements such as currency reports that have yielded minimal results.

  4. Launch a new offensive against Muslim American charities and entities that fund terrorism.  Pick a few of the highest profile ones and make an example of them by prosecuting their leaders and dressing them in orange jumpsuits.  Prosecute Islamic Relief USA under the laws against providing material support for terrorism.  Prosecute the Council on American-Islamic Relations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.  Strip the halal food certifier IFANCA and the mosque deed financier North American Islamic Trust of their tax-exempt status.
  5. Tax hawala. Terrorists use the traditional Islamic money transfer system known as hawala to exchange money without being monitored.  Hawala dealers in the U.S. are required to register with FinCEN, a financial regulator, but about 85 percent of hawaladars ignore the requirement.  Imposing a simple one percent tax on hawala remittances would help put hawala under the jurisdiction of tax authorities rather than financial regulators who focus more attention on large banks than on small money services businesses.  A one percent tax would be a mild, positive step in beginning to track the transactions to countries that intend us harm.
  6. Designate ISI and Muslim World League as terrorist entities.  Pakistan funds jihadists through its ISI intelligence agency.  Saudi Arabia funds Hamas, Al Qaeda, and other Wahhabi movements abroad through the Muslim World League (MWL) which is comprised of eight subdivisions including the notorious International Islamic Relief Organization and the World Assembly for Muslim Youth.  The U.S. should declare the ISI and MWL to be foreign terrorist organizations in the same fashion that the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps has been designated.
  7. Stop paying ransoms to jihadists.  Enforce U.N. Resolution 1904 which prohibits paying ransoms to terrorists or broker a new treaty banning the payment by governments or insurance companies of ransoms to specified terrorist groups.  Al Qaeda affiliates, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf other jihadist organizations have made millions of dollars in the kidnap-for-ransom business.  Discourage recreational travel by Westerners to locations such as Somalia, Yemen, and the southern Philippines.

Any one of these proposals alone could help reduce terrorist revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other analysts have proposed improving and standardizing financial regulations, adopting conditions-based aid rather than open-ended foreign aid through the use of millennium challenge accounts, encouraging divestment and terror-free investing, promoting alternative energy sources, enacting harsher sanctions against Iran, a putting a greater focus on the prosecution of white collar financial crimes.

Ultimately, you have to examine the biggest sources of revenue for jihad, then look at what actions would be likeliest to reduce those revenue streams.

American Hamas Operative Sues Treasury Over Designation

Muhammad Salah is shown in this July 2007 file photo.

IPT News:

Attorneys for a Chicago man believed to be the only American citizen designated as terrorist sued the U.S. Treasury Department this week, saying he’s been virtually unable to hold a job or engage in everyday transactions as a result.

Muhammad Salah was designated a terrorist in August 1995, months after an executive order by President Bill Clinton named Hamas a terrorist group and prohibited transactions with the group. Salah was in an Israeli prison at the time after pleading guilty to a Hamas support charge.

He returned to Illinois after his release in 1997, but with limited exceptions has been unable to open a bank account, buy groceries or gifts for his family because of the Clinton order’s ban on transactions with a designated terrorist, the lawsuit said.

“There is no endpoint to the designation and its restrictions,” the lawsuit said. It argues the designation was never court-tested, violating Salah’s due process rights and essentially punishing him without a trial.

He is joined in the suit by the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the American Friends Services Committee, a Quaker organization.

The groups say they would like to champion Salah’s plight, but fear crossing restrictions on providing support to a terrorist that are spelled out in the executive order.

The ADC took up for two other Hamas supporters in July, issuing a release complaining about the deportation of two brothers from Texas. The brothers turned out to be Basman and Bayan Elashi. Each is a convicted felon tied to a Dallas-based Hamas support network. Salah is an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, listed among people Hamas deputy political leader Mousa Abu Marzook “utilized as a financial conduit on behalf and/or for the benefit of HAMAS.”

Salah was indicted on racketeering charges in 2004, but convicted only of lying in a civil suit related to Hamas financing. U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve said jurors did think Salah was connected to Hamas and she didn’t buy his claims that his confession to Israeli officials had been coerced.

Prosecutors say Salah continued serving for Hamas after the designation “including directing and financing travel to Israel and the West Bank in or about October 1999 of a Chicago-based associate.”

 

Action Alert: send your email urging the Comptroller of Currency to revoke HSBC’s bank charter

Florida Family Association

US Homeland Security Senate Subcommittee reports that HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) is transferring funds to terrorists groups, Iran and drug cartels.

US Senator Carl Levin’s assessment “If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.”
  US Homeland Security Senate Subcommittee reports that HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) is transferring funds to terrorists groups, Iran and drug cartels.

Click here to send your email urging the Comptroller of Currency to revoke HSBC’s bank charter.

Will Thomas Curry, President Obama’s March 2012 appointee as the new Comptroller of Currency (OCC), follow the bipartisan US Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee’s report recommending revocation of HSBC’s charter to operate as a bank in the United States?  Or will the OCC continue to permit HSBC to facilitate the transfer of funds to terrorist organizations, Iran and drug cartels?  HSBC is the abbreviation for Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.

The United States Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report on July 16, 2012 which stated in part:

  • In 2010, HSBC was cited by its federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), for multiple severe AML deficiencies, including a failure to monitor $60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity; a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially suspicious activity; and a failure to conduct AML due diligence before opening accounts for HSBC affiliates.  Subcommittee investigators found that the OCC had failed to take a single enforcement action against the bank, formal or informal, over the previous six years, despite ample evidence of AML problems.
  • Circumventing OFAC Safeguards.  Foreign HSBC banks actively circumvented U.S. safeguards at HUBS designed to block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.  In one case examined by the Subcommittee, two HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19.4 billion through their HBUS accounts over seven years without disclosing the transactions’ links to Iran.
  • Servicing High Risk Affiliates.  HSBC’s U.S. bank, HBUS, offered correspondent banking services to HSBC Bank Mexico, and treated it as a low risk client, despite its location in a country facing money laundering and drug trafficking challenges, high risk clients like casas de cambio, high risk products like U.S. dollar accounts in the Cayman Islands, a secrecy jurisdiction, and weak AML controls.  The Mexican affiliate transported $7 billion in physical U.S. dollars to HBUS from 2007 to 2008, outstripping other Mexican banks, even one twice its size, raising red flags that the volume of dollars included proceeds from illegal drug sales in the United States.

Bloomberg reported on July 25, 2012 HSBC Fined $27.5 Million in Mexican Money-Laundering Probe.  HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Europe’s biggest bank, said its Mexican unit paid a $27.5 million fine to the nation’s regulators for non-compliance with money-laundering systems and controls.  The infringements relate to the late reporting of 1,729 unusual transactions and the failure to report 39 others, the London-based bank said in a statement today.  Click here to read the full report at Bloomberg.

Additionally, HSBC operates under strict Sharia supervision.  HSBC Amanah web site HSBCAmanah.com provides “Islamic Financial Solutions” with “Full Sharia Supervision.” HSBC which has extensive operations in the United States “is one of the Western world’s leaders in Sharia-Compliant Finance and was recently fined after having been revealed to have been a facilitator for terrorism financing, money laundering and narco-terrorism” according to Shariahfinancewatch.org

The United States Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee rebuked the OCC for their failure to act “In an age of international terrorism, drug violence in our streets and on our borders, and organized crime, stopping illicit money flows that support those atrocities is a national security imperative,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., subcommittee Chairman. “HSBC used its U.S. bank as a gateway into the U.S. financial system for some HSBC affiliates around the world to provide U.S. dollar services to clients while playing fast and loose with U.S. banking rules.  Due to poor AML controls, HBUS exposed the United States to Mexican drug money, suspicious travelers cheques, bearer share corporations, and rogue jurisdictions.  The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML system for years.  If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.”

If you bank with HSBC you are supporting one of the largest financial institutions in the world that support Sharia and transfer funds for terrorists.   There will be more alerts on this issue.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Thomas Curry, Comptroller of Currency (OCC) with the US Department of Treasury and his staff, to revoke the HSBC USA bank charter.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button.  You may now change the wording in the subject line or message of the email prepared for this action item.

Please click here to send your email urging Thomas Curry, Comptroller of Currency (OCC) and his staff, to revoke the HSBC USA bank charter.

Please forward this article to friends who you know would be interested in this information.

Contact information:

Thomas Curry, Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219

thomas.curry@occ.treas.gov Comptroller of Currency

sally.belshaw@occ.treas.gov Deputy Comptroller Large Banks

michael.Brosnan@occ.treas.gov Senior Deputy Comptroller Large Bank Supervision

william.haas@occ.treas.gov Deputy Comptroller Midsize Bank Supervision

carlos.hernandez@occ.treas.gov Director for International Bank Supervision

regs.comments@occ.treas.govRegulation Comments

Email Subject Line:

HSBC currency violations warrant revocation of bank charter according to US Senate subcommittee.

Email Content:

I was alarmed to read the United States Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations July 16, 2012 report which found that “HSBC and its U.S. affiliate exposed the U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls.”

It is difficult to comprehend why “The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML system for years” as pointed out by Senator Carl Levin.

In is perplexing that “Foreign HSBC banks actively circumvented U.S. safeguards at HUBS designed to block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes” without swift response from OCC.

I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Levin’s assessment that “If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.”

HSBC’s multitudes of violations which threaten the health, safety and welfare of all Americans have gone on far too long.  I urge you to revoke HSBC’s bank charter.

******

Please forward this article to family and friends who are concerned about terrorism.

FACEBOOK.  We added the Facebook Like key so that you can share this article with friends.  Simply click the FLike key at the top of this page. The article will post to the top of your Facebook WALL page.  Click on the SHARE or RESHARE link for that article in your Wall page to share with friends.

Regulator: British Bank Laundered Billions for Iran Through New York

by IPT News  •  Aug 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm

AFLC Attorneys Argued Before Federal Appellate Court Today that AIG Bailout Violates the Constitution

AFLC:

This morning, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, Co-Founders and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the AIG bailout.  The case, Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by Yerushalmi and Muise, who are representing Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq.  The three-judge panel that heard the case included Senior Judge Alan E. Norris, a Reagan appointee; Judge Eric L. Clay, a Clinton appointee; and Judge Richard Allen Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee.  The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

At the time of the government bailout, which began in September 2008 and is ongoing, AIG was — and still is — the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products.  Sharia is Islamic law, which demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy.  It also provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by Muslim terrorists.  As alleged in the lawsuit, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam — and, more troubling, sharia.

Yerushalmi commented: “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts.  It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s sharia businesses — all of which don’t just sell sharia products to the Muslim world, but actively promote sharia as the best, most ethical way of life.  Indeed, the sharia authorities relied upon by AIG’s Sharia Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad — and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West.”

Read more…

From the Slaughterhouse to Hamas

Gates of Vienna:

The issue of halal slaughter has been much in the news lately in Quebec. Quebecers have discovered that a lot of the meat sold in Quebec is halal, even though it may not be labeled as such. Just how much unmarked halal meat passes over supermarket checkout counters has become a topic of debate.

Then there is the question of where all the money goes. In order to have its meat certified halal, a slaughterhouse must pay a fee to an official certification outfit. All halal certification in Canada is controlled by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). The franchise is lucrative, and MAC rakes in a lot of cash, thanks to the halal racket.

It turns out that a large chunk of money makes its way through the zakat process into the pockets of Islamic terrorist organizations. In the following video, Marc Lebuis of Point de Bascule talks to Michael Coren about the results of his site’s investigation into the money trail from the halal slaughterhouses to Hamas.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The accompanying article at Pointe de Bascule is lengthy and rich in detail. Here’s the introductory section:

Muslim Association of Canada: a contributor to Hamas fund collector controls halal certification in Quebec

[…]

Part 1 — Presentation and General Conclusions

In her March 13 report broadcast on Dumont le midi TV show, journalist Caroline Lacroix revealed that Olymel pays thousands of dollars to the “Association des viandes halal that is controlled by Abou-Baker-Assedique mosque” located at 371 Jean-Talon E. in Montreal for the halal certification of its chickens.

During his March 23 TV show that took place after the halal issue was addressed at the Quebec National Assembly, Mario Dumont highlighted that all political parties in Quebec City had been very careful not to bring up the financial aspect of the issue:

Mario Dumont — video 04:19: Nobody discussed the money issue. What does it fund? Where does the money go? Are we financing mosques without knowing it? It seems that this issue is even more taboo. Everybody is very careful not to talk about it.

Point de Bascule spent the last few days at finding an answer to Mario Dumont’s legitimate question. Who is pulling the strings behind this Aboubakerseddik Mosque on Jean-Talon Street that receives commissions from companies like Olymel, that get their chickens halal certified, as we have learned on March 13?

Here are the main conclusions that we can draw at this time:

1.   The mosque is part of a cultural centre. The centre also acts as an organization providing halal certification under a different name. We are dealing with one enterprise involved in two activities: management of recreation and culture and meat inspection.
2.   The certification agency is controlled by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), the main Muslim Brotherhood organization in Canada. MAC owns the building where the certification agency and the cultural centre are based and the administrators of the certification agency are former MAC directors or they have publicly endorsed MAC’s positions in the past.
3.   For the last ten years, MAC has been an important contributor to IRFAN-Canada, the Hamas fund collector in the country. Hamas is involved in a program aiming not only at the elimination of the state of Israel but also at the destruction of Western civilization. In a speech given on October 2011, its leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar stated that “This (Western) civilization will not be able to withstand the great and glorious Islam.” The Canada Revenue Agency revoked IRFAN-Canada’s charity status in April 2011 after having concluded that it financed the terrorist organization Hamas.
4.   MAC’s halal program is part of a global Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy. In 2010 in Islamabad, a leader of the Islamist organization, the mufti of Bosnia, Mustafa Ceric, urged Muslims “to conquer the world through Halal movement.”

Before having been able to analyse all legal implications related to the halal issue, Point de Bascule would like to make two proposals as a starter:

1.   All products for which commissions are being paid to imams for halal certification should be properly identified.
2.   No public money should be spent to buy products that will be served in schools, in daycare centres, in military bases, in prisons and in other public institutions if these products have been certified by imams who belong to organizations that received money or gave money to terrorist organizations’ fund collectors or if they are involved in a project aiming at destroying Western civilization from within.

It would be beneficial that private certification agencies be set up to guaranty that the products that they approve come from animals who have been desensitized before being slaughtered and that no profit coming from the sale of their certified products will go to the financing of Islamic jihad…

Read the rest at Point de Bascule.

How to Stop Putting Gas in the Islamist Tank

 

By Clifford D. May in The National Review Online:

Islamists are a diverse lot. Some are what diplomats like to call “violent extremists.” They want to kill you. Others are less eager to shed blood, more confident that by mastering electoral politics, manipulating international organizations, and designing effective public-relations campaigns, they can achieve their objectives. What are those objectives? Islamism implies a commitment to the imperative of Islamic power. Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, articulated the basic idea succinctly:

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.

If those championing Islamism were only stateless terrorist groups and tin-pot dictators, their geostrategic significance would be minimal. But the regime that rules Iran is dedicated to waging what it calls a global Islamic revolution. And in Saudi Arabia, the state religion is Wahhabism, a strain of Islam that preaches the inferiority of infidels and the rejection of Muslims who do not share Wahhabi ideals.

These regimes float atop an ocean of oil, a commodity that is valuable thanks to those the Islamists despise. It was the Western mind that figured out how to pump oil out of the ground and refine it into a variety of fuels, including those used in internal-combustion engines, another history-bending Western invention.

Imagine you are one of the rulers of Iran or Saudi Arabia: Fabulous wealth is yours due to no intellectual or physical labors on your part. If you invest that wealth wisely, you’ll make even more, but if not, so what? Wealth will flow to you every single day as surely as rivers run to the sea. To sell rugs, olives, or computers requires salesmanship. But oil sells itself: Those who depend on it for their cars, ships, and planes have no other options. Well, theoretically, they do: They could take it by force. But you need not worry about that because, as you are well aware, modern Western ethics prohibit such behavior.

If there were even one oil-rich, Muslim-majority nation solidly committed to liberal democratic values, to freedom of religion and speech, to tolerance and minority rights, the challenges of the 21st century would not be so formidable. But there is no such nation. 

Almost 80 percent of global oil reserves are controlled by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a cartel, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Most OPEC countries are autocracies. Many are hostile toward America and other free nations. From the income produced by OPEC oil comes most of the money used to train and arm terrorists around the world, and to build nuclear-weapons facilities in Iran. 

That makes the price of oil and the West’s dependence on it national-security problems of the first order. What can be done? Robert C. McFarlane, who served as then-president Reagan’s national-security adviser, wrote last week that we can and should be producing more of our own oil, but “that is not enough. To outmaneuver OPEC we need to eliminate oil’s monopoly as the only transportation fuel.”

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.