Jun
9
If Wishes Were Horses, Then Borhani Would Ride
Posted by Clif Burns at 12:27 pm on June 9, 2009
Category: Iran Sanctions
ABOVE: Hamid Borhani
Chairmain, Bank Saderat
Back in March, I reported that Ali Divandari, Chairman of Iran’s Bank Mellat, suggested that the privatization of that bank might lead to the end of U.S. sanctions against it. Now Divandari’s colleague, Hamid Borhani, Chariman of Iran’s Bank Saderat, another sanctioned bank, takes this wishful thinking one step further. In an interview this weekend with Dow Jones Newswires, Borhani said that once the privatization of Bank Saderat is complete, he’s coming to the United States to meet with OFAC. Not so fast, Kemosabe!
Even in the alternate universe where Borhani would be given a visa and where he would have unblocked funds to finance his trip, privatization won’t erase the reasons that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctioned Bank Saderat. When OFAC announced its imposition of sanctions on Bank Saderat, it stated:
Bank Saderat … is used by the Government of Iran to transfer money to terrorist organizations, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A notable example of this is a Hizballah-controlled organization that has received $50 million directly from Iran through Bank Saderat since 2001.
Privatization won’t erase that.
In the interview, Borhani said that he had written three letters to OFAC, none of which (not surprisingly) had been answered, and that this is why he wanted to travel to DC to parley with OFAC. Although Borhani didn’t reveal the contents of these letters in the interview, their contents can be easily determined through earlier news stories, such as this one:
US claims that Saderat funded radical groups were baseless, he said. The London-based Bank Saderat, which holds strategic investments, and the bank’s five branches in Lebanon had never transferred money to militant groups, as the US alleges.
He challenged Washington to reveal its documents and reply to the three letters he had sent to the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control along with documents, in one case exceeding 1,000 pages.
It wouldn’t be idle speculation for me to suggest that Borhani wants to see the documents relied on by OFAC to see who exactly dropped the dime on him. And sending 1,000 pages of documents, that was a nice touch. “Here, OFAC, look at this one. It’s another document on which there is no evidence that our London branch made that transfer. And, look, 999 more without such evidence.” Sending the Tehran phone book to OFAC would have been equally persuasive since none of its pages has any evidence of the transfer either.
I have to think that Borhani is not being serious here and that this is all just political theater for the benefit of the bank’s remaining customers.
Permalink
Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
7 Comments:
this guy is a retard, and has no clue or idea or sense, what so ever. there are individuals like you that deserve to be punished, punished for wafeling, bull crap.
I am really puzzled Mr Burns. OFAC has made an alegation
Accused party Sent 3 letters explaining that they have
checked everything and can not find any wrong doing. So they ask for any proof, but no proof is given and allegation is left and some actions are made against the accused with no proof. Is this fair and just.
Forget your feeling about Iran and look at this objectively. If some officials make an accusation against you with no proof would you take it, accept it and call it just and fair? I do not think so.
So, guilty as charged because OFAC says so! How cheeky of Hamid Borhani to request evidence! Whatever next? Do you realise what you are saying?That evidence is unnecessary? That if OFAC (i.e. the US administration) says something it must be true? I seem to remember the Bush administration denying that it was torturing its suspects (sorry I should have said ‘conducting enhanced interrogation’). Do you ever wonder why, under Bush and his cohorts, the US veered between hate object and global laughing stock? If you want a clue, just re-read your article, and REFLECT!
The comments above from “Saam” and “S. Levey” both come from an IP address allocated to Bank Saderat’s London Branch. Interesting, isn’t it, that the commenters would decline to mention where they were from and their own interest in the matter?
Both commenters also demonstrate some reading comprehension difficulties. I’m not saying that the Saderat London Branch funneled money to terrorists, just that I don’t think it’s likely that OFAC is going to listen to its arguments to this effect, particularly the ones that Borhani has forwarded in these press accounts. Whether or not that is a good thing, I’ll let my readers decide.
I have said on multiple occasions that I oppose unilateral comprehensive sanctions against Iran in favor of targeted sanctions on designated entities, so-called smart sanctions. The process of designation, however, will necessarily rely in some instances on foreign intelligence activities which will preclude OFAC from fully disclosing its reasons and will make it difficult for the validity of the designation to be evaluated by outsiders. It would also make it difficult to give traditional due process to the designees, even if foreign companies had such rights in economic sanctions matters.
Of course, it is more than a little ironic that anyone from Iran would talk about due process in this banking matter. Perhaps the name Roxana Saberi might ring a bell with them. Not to mention Atefah Sahaaleh
I always appreciate how thorough you are, Clif.
Hamid Borhani wants to meet with OFAC’s officials to discuss the possible removal of U.S. sanctions against Saderat? Too bad he didn’t think to attend OFAC’s FIRST-EVER International Trade Symposium
last month. 🙂
Regards,
Kelly Yip
Apologies for the late comment.
Clif Burns wrote: “The process of designation, however, will necessarily rely in some instances on foreign intelligence activities which will preclude OFAC from fully disclosing its reasons and will make it difficult for the validity of the designation to be evaluated by outsiders. It would also make it difficult to give traditional due process to the designees, even if foreign companies had such rights in economic sanctions matters.”
OK, up to a point.
But whether it’s funds transfers to terrorist groups, counterfeiting, profits from drug trafficking or some other alleged illicit financial transaction by Iran, North Korea or Syria has OFAC, FinCEN, the Secret Service, Stuart Levey’s office or anyone else at Treasury ever made any evidence public? If yes what, when and how can the public access it? There does not seem to be anyting that goes beyond allegations (in Treasury Congressional testimony, in regulations published in the Federal Register covering things like the Patriot Act blacklisting of the Macau bank Banco Delta Asia, etc.) generally based on anonymous intelligence sources or mere assertion.
