tv [untitled] May 15, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm EDT
where assets ended up in international institutions, financial and otherwise, and now you are working on retrieving that money. is there any policy in place to prevent this thing from happening in the future? >> look, the -- the kleptocracy issue is one that we have been working on for years. frankly, it goes back to my prior tenure at treasury where we were working on issues of kleptocracy. the -- the most effective way to combat that, that we so currently have in our tool kit, is the effort to enhance the overall standards in the financial community so that financial institutions know who
they're dealing with, they know the sources of funds. they know where the money is coming from. so that financial institutions can take the appropriate precautions to avoid becoming repositories for the stolen patrimony of various countries. that depends, of course, on the willingness of financial institutions to do that. and to not be the, you know, the places where the leaders who are stealing money from their own people can put their funds. and that's a -- that is an issue that, that is -- frankly, a difficult diplomatic issue to deal with. to get to generate the agreement that this should not be allowed to take place. there are u.n. conventions in place that address this issue, and we are -- you know, we
pursue the return of assets, as you noted, when, you know, when we are asked to do so and when we have the information available to us to try assist on that. so it remains something that, you know, we are forcused on. yeah. i am -- i don't know. sometimes too candid in ak mo acknowledging. it's a hard problem, and it's a hard problem, because it depends on the willingness of both financial institutions and the financial sectors in which they reside to say that they don't want to deal in these -- in these assets. >> that's good news as well. world bank has a stolen asset recovery efforts. the star initiative. we had the 2006 -- so there's attention to it. you're right. this is a work in progress. yes, sir? up near front. sorry.
>> thank you. natural inve international investor. you probably heard of jason charmin who just publish add study where he tried to very quickly do a database of several thousand opens -- opening several thousand corporate accounts around the world. he discovered, his conclusion, that the united states was one of the easiest places to open shell companies. pointed to states like delaware, wyoming where 2,000 shell companies existed and in one house alone. so my question for you is, we love to point the finger at a lot of nations around the world. what can we do about tightening some of the standards that make it more difficult for people to not only set up these companies but move funds in and out of them here? >> yeah. so no disrespect to mr. charmin, i'm not familiar with his study, but your point is -- well taken,
and the u.s. has been in our mutual identification, having a weakness on this particular issue. in particular on the identification of beneficial ownership in the company formation process. we are supportive of legislative initiatives that are moving through congress, congress has a bill, for instance that would require the identification of beneficial ownership during the company formation process. we're also working -- we've issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking where we have sort of asked the question in the regulatory sphere of whether financial institutions ought to collect beneficial ownership information during the account formation process.
the account opening process. this is -- this is an issue t t that, you know that we're spending a lot of time focused on. i think we recognize it as a weakness in our current anti-money laundering, counterterrorist financing, regulatory structure. it impedes law enforcement investigations, because, you know, they go to try and find out who's the owner of a particular company and you can't penetrate behind. so, yes. it's an issue and an issue we're trying to address i. just want to commend dave and his office for the work they've done. they've really led on this and a mutual friend of our and employee, chip ponse, has spearheaded a lot of this over the years. i want to commend david and clip for that work. ma'am, right here in the third row. i think we'll have time for just one or two more.
>> hi there. you mentioned at the beginning that when dhs was formed and other changes after 9/11 you lost the law enforcement kpafrt at the treasury department and obviously have substantial intelligence capability. >> right. >> how do you coordinate with the law enforcement agencies for intelligence-driven activities? what's sort of the coordination mechanism and how's that working? >> yeah. so we did lose the -- the agencies themselves. they're no longer a part of treasury, but, you know, one of the things that changed in the period that i was away was the coordination and collaboration among the law enforcement community on both the intelligence and the investigative side. and so, you know, juan noted the lebanese canadian bank example, where a treasury action where we worked extraordinarily closely with the dea, but in developing
the case. you know, on both, you know -- particularly on the intelligence side, but also in sort of developing the legal case that we pursued. so we have, you know, our coordination, whether it's with dea, fbi, secret service, is very good. we have liaisons for many of the agencies who are resident at the treasury department, and, you know, there's, i think, a very healthy and robust exchange of both law enforcement information and, you know, as appropriate intelligence information. >> and just at fair point. treasury did keep its criminal investigators from the internal revenue service who by the way led the effort to hunt saddam hussein's assets in '03-04 in part because they are the law enforcement we had to direct. very good.
>> let me reinforce that so i don't get in trouble when i get back to the office. the side of irs, we work with, you know, all the time, and there's a new head of irs, ci, who just started two weeks ago or so. and you know, one of the first things that he did was come over to the treasury department, meet with me, meet with my team, and we spent an hour talking about different ways that we can coordinate our activities. so it's a -- you know, it's a -- it's still a very close relationship, even though -- irs, i still in treasurer rained the other law enforcement agencies are not. >> the gentleman in the far back, who's been very patient and enthusiastic. [ laughter ] >> my name's terry murphy. i'm with, associated with csis but my day job, expert control in sanctions board and i'd like to follow-up on the immediate question, and give you, if i y
may, a very brief quote from a notice about your regulations. this came out yesterday. here what it says. headline, news, u.s. sanctions against iran and syria have dramatic extraterritorial implications. frp law firm, not mine, and it's signed by former under secretary of congress for expert industry and security. so that's not an overstatement. i'd like to just mention and then stop, the british we used to resist extraterritorial actions with great intensity now have a new law on -- on corrupt practices that's probably much more extraterritorial than ourself except for this one. so i wonder if you would take that as an opportunity opine on the breadth of these sanctions interventions, extraterritorial actions, not just of our
government but of folks like the brits, canadian, the europeans? >> so i haven't seen that, that notice. i assume it's referring to the new foreign sanction evaders executive order? >> signed by mario mancuso, et cetera. homeland -- >> right. right. what we are doing, i think, as a, you know, my old job was, i was a lawyer. so i -- i always have to sort of correct the record when people say it's extraterritory. what we're doing is extraterritorial. it's not. what we do is we regulate u.s. financial institutions, regulate u.s. businesses and define with whom they are able to do business. we don't have any jurisdiction to tell any foreign company or foreign bank what it can or cannot do. we tell our own banks, our own businesses whom they can deal with. so i think as a technical
matter, there is no extraterritorial reality in any of the authorities that we have been developing, including the new executive order. that being said, there's no question what we're trying to do is to influence the conduct of entities operating overseas. and, look, i make no apology for that. if you look at the legislation adopted in july 2010 that essentially says to foreign banks, if you're doing business with banks in iran that we have defrg nadefg designated per rif raters, you can't do business with u.s. ins stungss. we are institutions.
we are embarked on an effort to put financial pressure on iran by, you know, by encouraging foreign financial institutions not to transact with these defg nate the proliferators, defrg nated terror supporters in iran. we can do that. we have the capacity to the do that by essentially saying, if want access to the u.s. market, you need to conduct yourselves in a way that we think is consistent with isolating these entities. you know, there's a very, very important objective here. it's one that is shared broadly around the world, which is to address the concerns with iran's nuclear program. that's what the legislation was about. the foreign sanctions evaders executive order is specifically
focused on iran and syria. you know, to -- two problems that have widespread international agreement in terms of the need to get, to have them addressed, and you know, we are, you know -- on the one hand, we are often praised for being innovative and creative in how we are using our authorities. you know. it has this -- this impact internationally, because it's designed to have that. and i think it's -- you know, the ultimate test is whether we're going to be successful in helping to achieve our national security and foreign policy objectives through the use of these tools. and you know, i think the early returns are that we're having a good impact. >> david, with that, let me
thank you. the scope of our discussion today. including thing wes didn't get to the that we could have. new technologies. over use of treasury authorities. other thing, demonstrate clearly not only the treasury is at the center of these debates but that you are and i'm thankful for that. thankful for your time. i'd ask you all to join me in thanking david. [ applause ] thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. hope you enjoyed the program. hope top see you again soon. oregon and neb ebb are ho n
are holding primaries. nebraska has 32 delegates. voters are registering preferences. nebraska dell kits to the republican national convention will are determined at the state's convention on july 14th. nebraska voters today also picking the republican candidate hoon will fate bob kerrey in the state senate race. coverage later at results of c-span.org/campaign20712. and ex-editor of it chief executive news international, ba rec ka brooks will face charges over a phone hacking scant. in a statement, particulars cro observer obstruction of charges. hiding evidence related to hacking. those are the first laid since police launched a new inquiry into phone hacking in january of last year. she testified last week before british inquiry. you can see all of that online at c-span.org.
>> read hag become over the last 200 years the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country, because it's makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what the few once held close. the president can quote mark twain, because he's read "huck finn "and the postman were can understand the reference because he's read "huck finn" too. so that the big lies of democ s demagoguery, still possible, require more stealth and clever nrz. with careful reading of books and newspapers and now material on the internet, their flaws are revealed to ordinary people like us. it wasn't for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books. anna quinlan won an pulitzer prize for columns on a wide range of personal and political topics's in. a knew weeks talk to the best-selling author on book tv. sunday june 3rd on c-span2's
in-depth. get a head start watching other comments online at the c-span video libraries on her life in journalism, all archived and semp about at c-span.org/videolibrary. another house committee is looking into the situation of the blind chinese activist chen guangcheng, a house subcommittees wants to know what's happening. he is awaiting the completion of paperwork before he travels to the united states. the hearing today begins at 1:00 eastern. live coverage. mr. cheng calmed into a different committee two weeks ago just after he left the u.s. embassy. going to sheep that to yow that thousand as we await for today's hearing to begin.
[ speaking in foreign language ] >> and- >> translator: i want to make the request to have my freedom of travel made, freedom of travel guaranteed, because i'm n not -- i can't find the translation. i'm sort of -- he wants -- he said he does not have any -- oh, he wants to come to the u.s. for some time of rest. he has not had any rest in the
>> translator: i really fear for my other family members' livings and we have installed seven video cameras and even with the electric fence. and now he wanted to -- he said those security officers in my house are basically said we want to see what else guangcheng can do. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: so the thing i most concerned right now is the
safety of my mother, my brothers, and i really want to know what's going on with them. thank you very much. >> chen, thank you very much. as i indicated a moment ago, you have a panel of people who have testified on your behalf who deeply care about you, your family as well oz those who helped you including who we are all grittily concerned about her whereabouts and her well being. your nephew and others who again one person who just spoke, mrs. wang and spoke about her efforts to see you and how she was mistreated repeatedly including strip searches. i think the word is getting out and there are a number of members of the national and international press here that
your case is the test, the test of chinese commitment to protect you, which they've given. we're very dubious about those assurances. it's also the test of the united states as to whether or not human rights really do matter. so your plea that the secretary of state who did not meet with you in the embassy go to your hospital room and meet with you as you and your family and your supporters immediate to be on a plane coming to the united states as you put it for that rest that you so richly deserve. [ speaking in foreign language ]
>> translator: thank him. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: thank him very much for trying to try to visit me. i want to also emphasize that after i was found missing from my home, immediately my daughter's education opportunity was terminated. she was not allowed to go to school anymore.
[ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: so i do thank all the villagers helping me. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: i want to thank all of you for your care and for your love. >> chen, we are all praying for you and we will be unceasing in our efforts to secure your freedom. [ speaking in foreign language ]
>> translator: thank you. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> thank you. i want to thank bob fu for setting up that phone call. and that just absolutely underscores why we're here and why we will be unceasing if i could go to some final questions. mr. wolf, did you ask your questions? mr. horowitz, you made an excellent point about the willingness to negotiate and to be the last person standing, so to speak. your afl-cio analogy was a great one. i actually met with the pentecostal seven in 1982 when
they were holed up in the russian-u.s. embassy to the soviet union in moscow and we did stand steadfastly by them and time was not the issue. i thought your point was extraordinarily well taken if you wanted to elaborate that. my hope is and i know the press have all left, but i think it's very important that the president of the united states, i would appreciate your views on this, speak out from the perch of the white house. obviously as the leader of the free world, it's amazing to me that when asked about guangcheng he said he had no comment. during the horrible days of aparthe apartheid, if any president, reagan bush were to be asked about tremendous individuals they would launch into a defense of those brave men and women and yet no comment from the
president. your thoughts on that, if i could. the hurry up offense, time is on our side. we could have worked this pain stakingly before allowing chen to leave the -- leave the embassy. anl finally let me say when chang was in moscow, i met with him in the early 90s when the chinese wanted olympics 2000. he was such a high value political prisoner they thought if they just gave him up, they would get the olympics. when that didn't happen, they re-arrested him. while he was out i had dinner with him. he made a at the same time that he repeated