A under reported scandal at the UN has been going on since the arrest of Patrick Ho in November 2017. His trial is expected to take place November 5, 2018.
This scandal goes to the top at the UN. You have a big NGO (China-based China Energy Fund Committee) using UN access to purchase President's of the General Assembly.
In October 2018 court filings in the prosecution make it clear how corrupt the UN is. Ho bribed not one but two Presidents of the General Assembly, and brokered weapons not only to Chad but also Qatar.
From this week's filing:
"An email exchange in which Gadio asked the defendant:
“Do you think CEFC can intervene with the Chinese state to get an urgent, extremely confidential and significant military weapon assistance to our friend [the President of Chad] who has engaged in the battle of his life against the devils of Bokko Haram?”
To which the defendant replied, “Your important message has been forwarded. It is being given the highest level of consideration. Will inform you once I hear back.”
The defendant also sought to and did broker arms transactions unrelated to the Chad and Uganda schemes charged in this case.
For example:
In March 2015, an individual sent the defendant an email, stating, “I have the list and end user agreement. Pls advise next step.”
On the same day, the defendant replied, in pertinent part, “Find a way to pass them onto me and we can execute that right away.”
The individual replied, “Attached. We have the funding and processing mechanisms in place. If it works nice there will be much more. Also for S. Sudan.”
The attachment to this email was a document entitled “End User Certificate,” certifying that the user of the goods in question would be the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Libya. The goods listed on the document included numerous arms.
The following month, the defendant sent an email that stated in pertinent part: “It so turns out Qatar also needs urgently a list of toys from us. But for the same reason we had for Libya, we cannot sell directly to them. Is there a way you could act as an intermediary in both cases?”
The person whom the defendant emailed replied: “Qatar good chance bc there is no embargo. Libya is another case bc going against an embargo is tricky.”
The defendant responded: “Qatar needs new toys quite urgently. Their chief is coming to China and we hope to give them a piece of good news. Please confirm soonest.”
This is outrageous, that an NGO still accredited under UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was selling weapons into South South, Libya and Qatar.
And, on multiple Presidents of the General Assembly: "among the individuals whom the defendant [Patrick Ho] is charged with bribing is Sam Kutesa, the Ugandan Foreign Minister. The Government expects that the evidence will show that the corrupt relationship between the defendant and Kutesa developed between in or about September 2014 and September 2015, when Kutesa was serving as the President of the General Assembly (specifically, the PGA for the 69th session of the UN General Assembly).
The evidence, in both the form of emails and a recorded phone call, also shows that, just as he did with respect to Kutesa when he was the President of the General Assembly, the defendant sought to cultivate a business relationship with Kutesa’s predecessor, John Ashe, who served as the President of the General Assembly between in or about September 2013 and September 2014.
As he did with Kutesa, the defendant began by introducing himself to Ashe as the Secretary-General of CEFC NGO. And just as he did with Kutesa when he served as the President of the General Assembly, the defendant invited Ashe to visit CEFC NGO in Hong Kong and to speak at various events.
In mid-April 2014, Ashe traveled to Hong Kong and met with the defendant and others. After the trip, Ashe’s aide sent a letter to the defendant thanking the Chairman of CEFC NGO (who was also the Chairman of CEFC China) for the contribution of $50,000 to support the President of the General Assembly. The aide had solicited the contribution from the defendant prior to the Hong Kong trip, and the defendant had confirmed that CEFC NGO would make the contribution.
In or about early June 2014, the defendant requested that Ashe officiate over a forum that CEFC NGO was planning to hold at the UN, and also attend and officiate over a luncheon at the UN the following day. (The defendant made virtually the same request of Kutesa once he became the President of the General Assembly.)
The day before the forum (July 6, 2014), the defendant emailed two business associates of Ashe, who assisted him in raising funds, to invite them to the forum and luncheon and to request their assistance in “urging the President of the General Assembly to grace the occasion with his presence and to deliver a short remark.”
On or about the same day, the defendant and one of these associates (“Associate-1”) spoke by phone. (See Ex. A (draft transcript).) During the call, which was recorded, the defendant confirmed that he wanted Ashe to attend his event.
The following conversation then took place:
Associate-1: So the last question, so sorry if I ask too direct. . . . Have you, made some
contribution to him?
The defendant: Yeah, we already paid.
Associate-1: Oh you did? Okay.
The defendant: Well, not a whole lot but it’s—it’s okay. On a couple of occasions. But I think the major contribution will come in after we talk about what he can—what he can help us with.
Associate-1: What you—what you mean major contribution? It’s after he return uh—leave the job?
The defendant: Yes, yes.
Associate-1: Wonderful . . . okay.
The defendant: That’s not a—that’s not a problem. The problem is—uh, it’s give and take.
Associate-1: Give and take. That’s—of course. This is the—this is business, right?
The defendant: Yeah, right.
These two business associates subsequently pleaded guilty to bribing Ashe, based on conduct unrelated to the defendant and CEFC.
Ashe was charged with tax offenses arising from his allegedly failing to disclose bribe payments as income. He passed away before trial, and the charges against him were therefore dismissed."
source
Ho received several titles at the United Nations. In July 2014, he became a member of the Secretary-General’s high-level advisory group on sustainable transport. In March last year, he was appointed as a member of the multi stakeholder advisory group of internet governance forum, also advising the Secretary-General.
Chinese firm CEFC China Energy funds the Hong Kong-based NGO China Energy Fund Committee, which Ho led. The NGO is also based in Virginia in the US, and it had obtained “special consultative status” at the UN Economic and Social Council.
The US Department of Justice complaint did not specify the names of the relevant banks, but said some of the alleged deals were arranged in the halls of the United Nations.
In a scheme to bribe the president of Chad, Ho was accused of facilitating a total of US$400,000 (HK$3.12 million) to be wired from a Hong Kong bank account in March and July 2015, through a bank in New York, then to an account in Dubai designated by Cheikh Gadio, a former Senegalese top diplomat acting as a middleman.
CEFC China Energy is chaired by Ye Jianming, 40, a Chinese oil tycoon with a mysterious family background. Ye is also the chairman of the NGO China Energy Fund Committee.
Ye Jianming was named as the sole political consultant for Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing New People’s Party. He was also a special consultant for the Maritime Silk Road Society, which is led by the party’s lawmaker Regina Ip. Ip said on Tuesday that she was not familiar with Ye: “I only met him once or twice, I knew him because of the One Belt One Road initiative.
SeekNuShallFind ago
Update Dec 5th 2018 from DOJ
Former Head of Organization Backed by Chinese Energy Conglomerate Convicted of International Bribery, Money Laundering Offenses Schemed to Bribe the President of Chad, President and Foreign Minister of Uganda A federal jury in New York City today convicted the head of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based in Hong Kong and Virginia on seven counts for his participation in a multi-year, multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe top officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for a Chinese oil and gas company, announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman of the Southern District of New York.
Chi Ping Patrick Ho, aka “Patrick C.P. Ho,” aka “He Zhiping,” 69, of Hong Kong, China, was found guilty today after a one-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska in the Southern District of New York of one count of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), four counts of violating the FCPA, one count of conspiring to commit international money laundering and one count of committing international money laundering. Ho is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Preska on March 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
SeekNuShallFind ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/the-secretive-china-energy-giant-that-faces-scrutiny-quicktake
SeekNuShallFind ago
https://zerkzal.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/prince-or-pauper-how-ye-jianming-decided-to-buy-a-14-percent-stake-in-rosneft-and-disappeared/
SeekNuShallFind ago
LATEST REPORT
UN Bribery Case 3300 Emails For Nov 26 Trial Still No UN Audit Guterres
InnerCity Press Published on 22 Oct 2018 By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, October 22 – Four months after the arrest for UN bribery of former Senegalese foreign minister Cheik Gadio and Patrick Ho, the head of China Energy Fund Committee full funded by CEFC China Energy, his ultimate boss at CEFC Ye Jianming was brought in for questioning in China. On October 4 Ho was again denied bail.
On October 22, the new trial date was set for November 26. In a hearing Inner City Press coverage - there were no other UN correspondents there, for this UN bribery case - it emerged that the prosecution has turned over 3,300 emails to a vendor, and that each side will meet with Judge Preska "in camera" about Confidential Information, under US v Mustafa, 992 F. Supp. 2d 335.
Ho's lawyers, paid by CEFC, are arguing that the Chinese government's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) campaign, under which they says Ho's payments were made, must be considered at the delayed trial with testimony from "Professor Kirby as 'an expert in contemporary China’s business, economic, and political development with a particular focus on international activities.'"
Given the many times as UN Secretary General that Antonio Guterres, who has refused to even audit CEFC's and Ho's payments in the UN, has praised China's One Belt, One Road - might Guterres be called or offer himself as a pro-Ho defense witness at trial?
His failure to audit is also covering up UN-accredited NGO CEFC's communications with "Iranian officials, apparently so that they could discuss potential transactions involving oil or precious metals. (See Gov’t Br. at 11-12.)
The government proffers “evidence of the defendant’s interest in and willingness to broker transactions in arms.” (Gov’t Br. at 12.) Specifically, the government proffers evidence that Dr. Cheikh Gadio purported to pass to Dr. Ho a request from President Déby that CEFC Energy intervene with the Chinese government to cause it to provide arms to Déby so that he could fight Boko Haram. (Id. at 12-13.) It also proffers evidence that Dr. Ho emailed with “an individual” in March and April 2015 about selling arms to South Sudan, Qatar, and Libya."
On October 9 the prosecution requested that the trial begin later than the scheduled November 5, writing to Judge Loretta A. Preska among other things that "this past Friday, October 5, 2018, the defendant submitted a classified notice pursuant to Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”).
The defendant could have filed such notice a number of weeks ago, but waited until the very last day on which such a filing would be deemed timely under CIPA. The defendant also did not notify the Government that he intended to submit such a notice until the Court directed the parties to confer during last week’s conference.
The Government now has to draft, have approved for submission, and submit a classified response in opposition, in which it intends to request a hearing concerning the use, relevance, and admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made public by the defense during the trial, and expects, assuming appropriate authorization is provided, to request that the hearing be held in camera."