UK house of lords asked to initiate investigation to massive international financial fraud

Lord James of Blackheath spoke during a meeting of the UK House of Lords on February 16 and produced evidence of $15 trillion in what he claims are fraudulent transactions from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), which then transferred the funds to the Bank of Scotland. The Bank of Scotland then allegedly distributed the money among 20 banks throughout Europe allowing them to engage in a high-profit scheme which accumulated trillions more dollars over the course of eight years; and all off the books. Blackheath states that Alan Greenspan was an eyewitness to the initial transfers, and that Timothy Geitner signed off on claims that that the funds were backed by 750,000 tons of gold, despite the fact that this is more than four times the estimated total of gold ever mined from the Earth (approximately 150,000 – 160,000  tons, according to the most liberal estimates). Lord James has a reputable history with regards to the investigation of money laundering by terrorist organizations, and is known for having exposed the Iraqi “supergun” program. He lists three possible scenarios as to how the events transpired:

Lord James of Blackheath: There are three possible conclusions which may come from it. First, there may have been a massive piece of money-laundering committed by a major Government who should know better. Effectively, it undermined the integrity of a British bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, in doing so. The second possibility is that a major American department has an agency which has gone rogue on it because it has been wound up and has created a structure out of which it is seeking to get at least €50 billion as a pay-off. The third possibility is that this is an extraordinarily elaborate fraud, which has not been carried out, but which has been prepared to provide a threat to one Government or more if they do not make a pay-off. These three possibilities need an urgent review.

UK House of Lords Asked to Initiate Investigation Into Massive International Financial Fraud

Brian Walker
NationofChange / News Report
Published: Friday 24 February 2012
Lord James of Blackheath lays out the case for an investigation into $15 trillion in financial fraud.
Article image
Re­size Text + | – | R

Lord James of Black­heath spoke dur­ing a meet­ing of the UK House of Lords on Feb­ru­ary 16 and pro­duced ev­i­dence of $15 tril­lion in what he claims are fraud­u­lent trans­ac­tions from the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York, to Hong Kong Shang­hai Bank­ing Cor­po­ra­tion (HSBC), which then trans­ferred the funds to the Bank of Scot­land. The Bank of Scot­land then al­legedly dis­trib­uted the money among 20 banks through­out Eu­rope al­low­ing them to en­gage in a high-profit scheme which ac­cu­mu­lated tril­lions more dol­lars over the course of eight years; and all off the books. Black­heath states that Alan Greenspan was an eye­wit­ness to the ini­tial trans­fers, and that Tim­o­thy Geit­ner signed off on claims that that the funds were backed by 750,000 tons of gold, de­spite the fact that this is more than four times the es­ti­mated total of gold ever mined from the Earth (ap­prox­i­mately 150,000 – 160,000  tons, ac­cord­ing to the most lib­eral es­ti­mates). Lord James has a rep­utable his­tory with re­gards to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion of money laun­der­ing by ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tions, and is known for hav­ing ex­posed the Iraqi “su­per­gun” pro­gram. He lists three pos­si­ble sce­nar­ios as to how the events tran­spired:

Lord James of Black­heath: There are three pos­si­ble con­clu­sions which may come from it. First, there may have been a mas­sive piece of money-laun­der­ing com­mit­ted by a major Gov­ern­ment who should know bet­ter. Ef­fec­tively, it un­der­mined the in­tegrity of a British bank, the Royal Bank of Scot­land, in doing so. The sec­ond pos­si­bil­ity is that a major Amer­i­can de­part­ment has an agency which has gone rogue on it be­cause it has been wound up and has cre­ated a struc­ture out of which it is seek­ing to get at least €50 bil­lion as a pay-off. The third pos­si­bil­ity is that this is an ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily elab­o­rate fraud, which has not been car­ried out, but which has been pre­pared to pro­vide a threat to one Gov­ern­ment or more if they do not make a pay-off. These three pos­si­bil­i­ties need an ur­gent re­view.

For the reader’s con­ve­nience, a full tran­script (as pub­lished by Hansard and linked above) is printed below:

16 Feb 2012 : Col­umn 1016

5.20 pm

Lord James of Black­heath: My Lords, I hope the minute that that has taken has not come off my time. I do not wish noble Lords to get too en­cour­aged when I start with my con­clu­sions but I will not sit down when I have made them. I will then give the ev­i­dence to sup­port them and, I hope, pre­sent the rea­sons why I want sup­port for an of­fi­cial in­quiry into the mis­chief I shall un­fold this af­ter­noon. I have been en­gaged in pur­suit of this issue for nearly two years and I am no fur­ther for­ward in get­ting to the truth.

There are three pos­si­ble con­clu­sions which may come from it. First, there may have been a mas­sive piece of money-laun­der­ing com­mit­ted by a major Gov­ern­ment who should know bet­ter. Ef­fec­tively, it un­der­mined the in­tegrity of a British bank, the Royal Bank of Scot­land, in doing so. The sec­ond pos­si­bil­ity is that a major Amer­i­can de­part­ment has an agency which has gone rogue on it be­cause it has been wound up and has cre­ated a struc­ture out of which it is seek­ing to get at least €50 bil­lion as a pay-off. The third pos­si­bil­ity is that this is an ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily elab­o­rate fraud, which has not been car­ried out, but which has been pre­pared to pro­vide a threat to one Gov­ern­ment or more if they do not make a pay-off. These three pos­si­bil­i­ties need an ur­gent re­view.

In April and May 2009, the sit­u­a­tion started with the al­leged trans­fer of $5 tril­lion to HSBC in the United King­dom. Seven days later, an­other $5 tril­lion came to HSBC and three weeks later an­other $5 tril­lion. A total of $15 tril­lion is al­leged to have been passed into the hands of HSBC for on­ward tran­sit to the Royal Bank of Scot­land. We need to look to where this came from and the his­tory of this money. I have been try­ing to sort out the se­quence by which this money has been cre­ated and where it has come from for a long time.

It starts off ap­par­ently as the prop­erty of Yohannes Riyadi, who has some claims to be con­sid­ered the rich­est man in the world. He would be if all the money that was owed to him was paid but I have seen some ac­counts of his show­ing that he owns $36 tril­lion in a bank. It is a ridicu­lous sum of money. How­ever, $36 tril­lion would be con­sis­tent with the dy­nasty from which he comes and the fact that it had been ef­fec­tively the em­per­ors of Indo-China in times gone by. A lot of that money has been taken away from him, with his con­sent, by the Amer­i­can Trea­sury over the years for the spe­cific pur­pose of help­ing to sup­port the dol­lar.

Mr Riyadi has sent me a re­mark­able doc­u­ment dated Feb­ru­ary 2006 in which the Amer­i­can Gov­ern­ment have called him to a meet­ing with the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York, which is nei­ther the Fed­eral Re­serve nor a bank. It is a bit like “Celebrity Big Brother”. It has three names to de­scribe it and none of them is true. This as­ton­ish­ing doc­u­ment pur­ports to have been a meet­ing, which was wit­nessed by Mr Alan Greenspan, who signed for the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York of which he was chair­man, as well as chair­man of the real Fed­eral Re­serve in Wash­ing­ton. It is signed by Mr Tim­o­thy Gei­th­ner as a wit­ness on be­half of the In­ter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund. The IMF sent two wit­nesses, the other being Mr Yusuke Horiguchi. These gen­tle­men have signed as wit­nesses to the ef­fect

16 Feb 2012 : Col­umn 1017

that this deal is a proper deal. There are a lot of other sig­na­tures on the doc­u­ment. I do not have a pho­to­copy; I have an orig­i­nal ver­sion of the con­tract.

Under the con­tract, the Amer­i­can Trea­sury has ap­par­ently got the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York to offer to buy out the bonds is­sued to Mr Riyadi to re­place the cash which has been taken from him over the pre­vi­ous 10 years. It is giv­ing him $500 mil­lion as a cash pay­ment to buy out worth­less bonds. That is all in the agree­ment and it is very re­mark­able. Es­tab­lish­ing whether I have a cor­rect piece of paper is just two phone calls away-one to Mr Gei­th­ner and one to Mr Greenspan, both of whom still pros­per and live. They could eas­ily con­firm whether they signed it. Mr Riyadi, by pass­ing these bonds over, has also put at the dis­posal of the US Trea­sury the en­tire asset back­ing which he was al­leged to have for the $15 tril­lion. I have a let­ter from the Bank of In­done­sia which says that the whole thing was a pack of lies. He did not have the 750,000 tonnes of gold which was sup­posed to be back­ing it; he had only 700 tonnes. This is a piece of com­plete fab­ri­ca­tion.

 

Fi­nally, I have a let­ter from Mr Riyadi him­self, who tells me that he was put up to do this, that none of it is true, and that he has been robbed of all his money. I am quite pre­pared to recog­nise that one of the pos­si­bil­i­ties is that Mr Riyadi is him­self putting this to­gether as a forgery in order to try to win some re­cov­ery. But it gets more com­pli­cated than that be­cause each of the $5 tril­lion pay­ments that came in has been ac­knowl­edged and re­ceipted by se­nior ex­ec­u­tives at HSBC and again re­ceipted by se­nior ex­ec­u­tives at the Royal Bank of Scot­land. I have a set of re­ceipts for all of this money. Why would any bank want to file $5 tril­lion-worth-$15 tril­lion in to­tal-of re­ceipts if the money did not exist? The money was first said to have come from the Riyadi ac­count to the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York and from there it was passed to JP Mor­gan­Chase in New York for on­ward tran­sit to Lon­don. The means of send­ing it was a SWIFT note which, if it was gen­uine, ought to have been reg­is­tered with the Bank of Eng­land.When this came about, I took it to my noble friend Lord Strath­clyde and asked what we should do with it. He said, “Give it to Lord Sas­soon. He is the Trea­sury”. So I did, and my noble friend Lord Sas­soon looked at it and said im­me­di­ately, “This is rub­bish. It is far too much money. It would stick out like a sore thumb and you can­not see it in the Royal Bank of Scot­land ac­counts”. He went on to say, “The gold back­ing it is ridicu­lous. Only 1,507 tonnes of gold has been mined in the his­tory of the world, so you can­not have 750,000 tonnes”. That is true. The third thing he said was, “It is a scam”, and I agree with him. The prob­lem is that at that point we stopped look­ing, but we should have asked what the scam was in­stead of just nod­ding it off.

We have never re­solved it. Today, I have this quite fright­en­ing piece of paper, which is my jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for bring­ing it into this meet­ing. It is avail­able on the in­ter­net and I am as­ton­ished that it has not al­ready been un­earthed by the Trea­sury be­cause every alarm bell in the land should be ring­ing if it has. It is from the gen­eral audit of­fice of the Fed­eral Re­serve in Wash­ing­ton-the real Fed­eral Re­serve-and its audit

16 Feb 2012 : Col­umn 1018

re­view to the end of July 2010 on the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York. It has on it some 20 banks listed to which $16.115 tril­lion is out­stand­ing in loans. That is the sore thumb that was being looked for by my noble friend Lord Sas­soon. But more par­tic­u­larly there are two other in­ter­est­ing things. The first is that Bar­clays Bank has $868 bil­lion of loan, and the Royal Bank of Scot­land has $541 bil­lion, in which case one has to ask a ques­tion, be­cause they could have earned back in three weeks their en­tire in­debt­ed­ness and could pay off the tax­pay­ers of Britain. Why have they not done so and could we please ask them to put a cheque in the post tonight for the whole $46 bil­lion?

The next thing that is wrong with it is that every bank on this list, with­out ex­cep­tion, is an MTN-reg­is­tered bank, which means that they are reg­is­tered to use medium-term notes to move funds be­tween them­selves with an agreed profit-share for­mula, in which case these banks are in­vest­ing this money and, most ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily, not a penny of in­ter­est does the Fed­eral Bank of New York want paid on that vast amount, $16 tril­lion. Any­one who knows what the IMF rules are will im­me­di­ately smell a rat. The IMF has very strict rules for val­i­dat­ing dodgy money. There are two ways of doing it. You ei­ther pass it through a major cen­tral bank like the Bank of Eng­land, which ap­par­ently re­fused to touch this, or you put it through an MTN-trad­ing bank, which is then able to use the funds on the overnight Eu­ro­pean MTN trad­ing mar­ket where they can earn be­tween 1 per cent and 2.5 per cent profit per night. The com­pound in­ter­est on that sum is huge. If it is gen­uine, a vast profit is being made on this money some­where.

I be­lieve that this is now such an im­por­tant issue that I have put every­thing that I have got on the sub­ject on to a 104-megabyte mem­ory thumb. I want the Gov­ern­ment to take it all, put it to some suit­able in­ves­tiga­tive bu­reau and find out the truth of what is going on here, be­cause some­thing is very se­ri­ously wrong. Ei­ther we have a huge amount of tax un­col­lected on prof­its made or we have a vast amount of money fes­ter­ing away in the Eu­ro­pean bank­ing sys­tem which is not real money, in which case we need to take it back. I ask for an in­ves­ti­ga­tion and for noble Lords to sup­port my plea.

5.30 pm

Lord Lea of Cron­dall: My Lords, I am quite happy to be­lieve every­thing that the noble Lord, Lord James of Black­heath, has said. I will be very dis­ap­pointed if the noble Lord, Lord Pear­son of Ran­noch, is un­able to ex­plain how this is all a con­spir­acy by Brus­sels. Will the Min­is­ter con­firm that if you want to buy up the whole world you need a quadrillion? That is the lat­est fig­ure.

This de­bate began with a pre­sump­tion that what hap­pened on 9 De­cem­ber was some­thing of a mys­tery. It re­mains a mys­tery. In an­swer to the ques­tion posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as to why we walked away on that fate­ful night, I can only as­sume, be­cause no other ex­pla­na­tion has been of­fered, that in the mid­dle of the night David Cameron’s phone was being hacked into by Ru­pert Mur­doch. The events of that night pro­vided quite use­ful bull­dog head­lines for the

16 Feb 2012 : Col­umn 1019

fol­low­ing day’s news­pa­pers, in­clud­ing the Daily Tele­graph and the Daily Mail. The bull­dog in ques­tion, cited by the chair­man of the 1922 Com­mit­tee, was, of course, Win­ston Churchill. It is worth quot­ing against that back­ground of bull­dogs from vol­ume 3 of Churchill’s A His­tory of the Eng­lish-Speak­ing Peo­ples, which he wrote in the late 1930s al­though it was pub­lished only in 1956. He said:

“But the To­ries were now in one of their moods of vi­o­lent re­ac­tion from con­ti­nen­tal in­ter­ven­tion”.

That is where we are at the mo­ment.

What will come of any in­ves­ti­ga­tion, if one is per­formed, re­mains to be seen.
From: nationofchange.org

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

Designed by WPSHOWER

Powered by WordPress