STANFORD (DEA-CIA drug criminal) PONZI SCHEME linked to CIA DRUGS, BUSH CRIME FAMILY, RCMP WARRANT FOR FBI AGENT

Stanford drug informer role claim

By John Sweeney

BBC Panorama reporter



Sir Allen Stanford denies any wrongdoing at his Antiguan bank



Evidence has emerged that the Texan who bankrolled English cricket may have been a US government informer.

Sir Allen Stanford, who is accused of bank fraud, is the subject of an investigation by the BBC's Panorama.

Sources told Panorama that if he was a paid anti-drug agency informer, that could explain why a 2006 probe into his financial dealings was quietly dropped.

__________________

TOMMY:


Guess how STANFORD GOT RICH ON DRUG MONEY, DEA INFORMANT?


MIKE LEVINE at EXPERT WITNESS RADIO SHOW will tell you about DEA HQ AND DOJ HQ AND FBI HQ AND CIA HQ all being complicit in COCAINE--HEROIN SMUGGLING with money laundering into GOP AND DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS.

WHY NO OVERSIGHT?


Because the US SEN AND HOUSE are all complicit in RICO FELONY DRUG CRIMES ALONG WITH BOB MUELLER, GOSS, HAYDEN, DUMSFIELD, BUSH CRIME FAMILY, CLINTON CRIME FAMILY, MOSSAD ECSTASY RINGS...etc.


FAILURE IN THE DRUG WAR, IS SUCCESS?
__________________________________




Sir Allen vigorously denies allegations of financial wrongdoing, despite a massive shortfall in his bank's assets.

But the British receiver of his failed Stanford International Bank - based in Antigua - told Panorama that the books clearly show the deficit.




Secret documents



Of the $7.2bn (£4.8bn) in deposits claimed by the bank, only $500m (£331m) has been traced.


The UK government does take financial malpractice very seriously and issues regular advice on countries and jurisdictions where there may be serious deficiencies in regulation


The $6.7bn (£4.4bn) black hole in Sir Allen's off-shore bank affects 28,000 depositors - 200 of whom are British, who have collectively lost $80m (£53m) - and raises serious questions for the British Foreign Office and the American authorities.

Secret documents seen by Panorama show both governments knew in 1990 that the Texan was a former bankrupt and his first bank was suspected of involvement with Latin American money-launderers.

In 1999, both the British and the Americans were aware of the facts surrounding a cheque for $3.1m (£2.05m) that Sir Allen paid to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

It was drug money originally paid in to Stanford International Bank by agents acting for a feared Mexican drug lord known as the 'Lord of the Heavens'.

The cheque was proof that Stanford International Bank had been used to launder Mexican drug money - whether or not Sir Allen knew it at the time.




Drug lords



On 17 February of this year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Sir Allen of running a multi-billion dollar Ponzi fraud - when cash from new depositors is used to pay dividends to old depositors - civil charges he has denied.

Two and a half months after the SEC filing, the Texan has not yet faced criminal charges.
___________________

TOMMY:


How much did ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER get paid...to...uh...look the other way?

____________________



He was initially investigated by the SEC for running a possible Ponzi fraud in the summer of 2006, but by the winter of that year the inquiry was stopped.




Panorama understands that the decision was taken because of a request by another government agency.

Panorama is aware of strong evidence that Sir Allen was a confidential agent of the DEA as far back as 1999 - the year he made out the $3.1m cheque to the DEA.

Sources close to the DEA believe he worked with the agency, turning over details of money-laundering from Latin American clients from Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela and Ecuador, effectively guaranteeing himself a decade's worth of "protection" from the authorities, especially the SEC.

"We were convinced that Stanford's bank attracted millions of narco-dollars, but it was very difficult to get the evidence to nail him," sources told Panorama. "The word is that Stanford has been a confidential informer for the DEA since '99."

Financial experts believe that many of the depositors in Sir Allen's off-shore bank were ordinary investors attracted by high interest rates, but that its base in the Caribbean also attracted drug money.


The DEA declined to comment on the allegation that he had been one of their informers, and the English Cricket Board said they had investigated Sir Allen fully and that he had fulfilled his contract.

A Foreign Office spokesman said:


"The UK government does take financial malpractice very seriously and issues regular advice on countries and jurisdictions where there may be serious deficiencies in regulation. It is for companies and the financial professionals they employ to act on this advice with all due diligence."



Sir Allen Stanford has bitterly denied that he is a fraudster, saying: "It's no Ponzi."

On the concerns about money-laundering, in one recent interview, he said:


"The Mexican drug cartel? Absolutely not. Never would. That is something absolutely foreign to everything in my body."


_____________________________________________

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/why_would_laura_pendergest-holt_take_the_fall_for.php


Why Would Laura Pendergest-Holt Take The Fall For Allen Stanford's Ponzi?

By Moe Tkacik - May 12, 2009, 4:19PM



Suspected Ponzi schemer Sir Allen Stanford's chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt was indicted in Houston this morning for obstructing and conspiring to obstruct the federal investigation into Stanford's sham money manager. Aside from a new allegation that Pendergest transferred $4.3 million of bank funds into the bank's operating account after speaking to the SEC, the charges don't appear much different from those laid out in a criminal complaint filed against the photogenic 35-year-old overseer of Stanford's "Tier 2" investments in February. (That's not for lack of rifling through her underwear drawer, according to a motion filed by her lawyer.)

That complaint depicted Pendergest-Holt's role in the Stanford enterprise as less mastermind than a case of (yes we realize this is a lame joke but) "Who Framed Jessica Rabbit?"

It described in detail how Stanford lawyer Thomas Sjoblom -- who was identified in the complaint as Attorney A -- deflected the SEC's January requests to get testimony from Stanford and his fearsome chief financial officer James Davis by explaining the two did not "micro-manage" the firm's investments, and turning investigators instead to Pendergest-Holt and Stanford International Bank President Juan Rodriguez.


Sjoblom then admitted in an email that it could be a problem that Pendergest-Holt knew nothing about the company's "Tier 3 investments" -- the secret part of Stanford's scheme, where 80% of his investments had been located, according to the SEC -- and arranged for her to be briefed on Tier 3 before she testified, explaining that the SEC only wanted to hear from executives familiar with the "entire investment portfolio."


Within three weeks of Sjoblom explaining this to her -- during a meeting at the Stanford Aviation airport hangar in Miami, Florida -- Davis had briefed Pendergest-Holt and Rodriguez on Tier 3, Rodriguez had resigned in horror, Pendergest-Holt had botched her testimony with all manner of rookie lies and evasions, and Sjoblom had quit the case altogether. A former SEC enforcement lawyer named Jacob Frenkel told the Daily Journal the complaint was "a printed invitation to Ms. Pendergest-Holt to get on the government's train or be run over by it."



So why didn't she board the train?



Media coverage of Pendergest-Holt's role at Stanford generally depicts her as something of a Stepford executive. Having grown up in the same tiny Mississippi town (Baldwyn) attending the same tiny Baptist church as Davis, she was "groomed" for a position at the firm from the age of 15 by the man she called a "visionary mentor," according to the New York Times.


She began at Stanford straight out of a master's program in 1997 and enjoyed the requisite "meteoric rise," replete, a story in this month's Texas Monthly says, with the attendant designer clothes, $700 bottles of wine, corporate jet trips between Baldwyn and her Stanford office in Memphis, and "temper tantrums" when her expenses were questioned. And few media outlets fail to mention her looks. When one Wall Street Journal blog snippily called out a Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal profile for one too many uses of words like "striking" and "statuesque" the editor contacted the blogger and said he'd approved all the descriptive passages because "people kept bringing it up" to his reporter and it "seemed like part of the larger story."


And perhaps it is, though it doesn't get us much closer to the mystery of why Pendergest-Holt didn't cooperate with the investigation.

She has since sued Sjoblom for malpractice, so why not the "visionary mentor" who hired him?


We'll stay on the case...