World

Partly Sunny with Showers 14° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Stanford 'was informant for US anti-drug agents'

Authorities accused of turning a blind eye to financier's banking business

By Cahal Milmo

Sir Allen Stanford 'secured protection' against regulators

AP

Sir Allen Stanford 'secured protection' against regulators

Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan billionaire who ploughed millions of pounds into English cricket, may have been working as an informant for American anti-drug agents in return for official protection which gave him free rein to run his banking empire, it emerged yesterday.

An investigation into the financier has found that just $500m (£331m) of the claimed $7.2bn of deposits held by his Stanford International Bank, based in Antigua, has been traced by a UK-based receiver who was called in by authorities when fraud allegations were laid against Stanford in February.

The resulting $6.7bn hole in the bank's balance sheet, which leaves 28,000 depositors – including 200 Britons – with near-worthless investment certificates, raises serious concerns about the extent to which officials in America and Britain were aware of Stanford's personal finance issues and the activities of his banks long before the current economic crisis. A BBC Panorama programme, to be screened tonight, alleges that the 6ft 4in-tall businessman may have been allowed to run his banking business unfettered for up to a decade because he was passing information on to America's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about the money-laundering activities of drug baron clients from Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela.

His status as a confidential informant could have secured Stanford a degree of protection from financial regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and may explain why a SEC investigation into his dealings in 2006 was quietly dropped following a request by another American government agency.

A source close to the DEA told Panorama: "We were convinced that Stanford's bank attracted millions of narco-dollars but it was very difficult to get the evidence to nail him. The word is that Stanford has been a confidential informer for the DEA since at least 1999."

Confidential documents show the British Foreign Office and the American authorities also knew as early as 1990 that Stanford, who was once listed as the 205th most wealthy man in the United States with a personal fortune of $2.2bn, had been made personally bankrupt in 1984 after his first business, a chain of health clubs, went bust.

British authorities ceased their investigation into Stanford after he moved his operations from the volcanic island of Montserrat, a British overseas territory, to Antigua, which has been independent from the UK since 1981.

Stanford, 59, shot to prominence last year when he signed a multimillion-dollar deal to sponsor a Twenty/20 cricket tournament, culminating in a $20m match between England and an all-stars West Indian team. The billionaire was famously allowed to land his helicopter on the hallowed turf of Lords.

He vigorously denied all allegations of wrongdoing when the SEC froze his assets and accused him of orchestrating a "fraudulent, multibillion-dollar investment scheme" which effectively used the money of new investors to pay large dividends to existing depositors. The Texan has vowed to return money to all depositors and ruled out running a pyramid scheme.

The Foreign Office said it was not responsible for the investment decisions of individuals. But a spokesperson said: "The UK Government does take financial malpractice very seriously."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]drug_baron wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 06:33 am (UTC)
Oh Dear.........."Its just not Cricket"

Or is this now actually cricket !.........Mexican and Columbian Drug Barons financing Cricket , Tennis and Golf. Whatever Next ? The Vatican perhaps ?

I wonder who finances the bling, bling world of IPL Cricket; surely not the poor of India ?
IMHO
[info]thetitssayso wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 06:51 am (UTC)
He always struck me as someone a bit weird.. putting millions into cricket! I would have put the money into archery!
[info]andyfisk wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
I hope he gets what he deserves -
SEC is the puppet under the previous regime???
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
Sir Allen Stanford 'secured protection' against regulators. Is SIR an English or American?
His status as a confidential informant could have secured Stanford a degree of protection from financial regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and may explain why a SEC investigation into his dealings in 2006 was quietly dropped following a request by another American government agency. SEC is the puppet under the previous regime.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Degrees of crime, Sources of knowledge
[info]1sanchopanza wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 04:02 pm (UTC)
Let me see, this guy is a legitimate businessman who just happens to know enough about the drug industry to make his information so valuable that the DEA can get the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to look the other way while he plucks chickens? Something smells here and I don't think its the droppings of those naked chickens. So batman, how do you get so close to the cartells that you have all this information about their washing up? Oh, you say you are an international financier? That explains that. I thought there for a moment you just might be involved in the drug business in addition to all your other fine activities that prove you to be a financial genius.
My mistake.

Ooops, that still doesn't explain British indifference to either the finance angle OR the drug angle.

Sir Allen Stanford, Sir Conrad Black, seems as though the knighthood has fallen on some swords rather lately. Bit more care with those titles Dear!
Re: Degrees of crime, Sources of knowledge
[info]rexxxxxxxx wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 10:04 pm (UTC)
be careful how close to the truth you get.
British security forces armed with highly flexible anti terror laws may decide you are a threat
Who is responsible?
[info]rserranon wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC)
Now that we know this kind of news regarding irresponsible actions from the CIA and SEC for not stopping this fraud for more than 10 years, who is going to be held accountable for the losses of investors not related to drug activities? are they going to be ajother collateral victim of drug fight?
Re: Who is responsible?
[info]daylightrob wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 08:11 pm (UTC)
The US and UK governments should accept responsibility for Stanford's actions while under their protection. They should clearly identify the 28000 depositors who have lost their principal investment and, if they are legitimate claimants, reimburse them with their principal investment - not any interest
Stanford Alleged Fraud
[info]byronratliff wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
My wife and I have been clients of theStanford Group for the past five years. We have worked a lifetime, saving our money to get ourselves in financial position to one day be able to retire. This was to be the year, according to our Stanford Advisor. We have lived in the same house since 1971 and based on the Stanford retirement projection started the construction on our retirement home a few months back. We are now 40% complete on the construction . We have had to stop all activities with an outstanding construction loan balance of approximately $300,000. The bank is asking for a proposed plan to pay off the loan. With the present Stanford situation, everyting frozen there is no way to pay it off. If we can't our investments released "QUICKLY", we are facing the possibility of losing it all. At our age, it will be impossible to make back what is tied up in Stanford. We were putting money backl into the economy by hiring a contractor, subcontractors and purchasing building materials. That has stopped due to the Stanford situation and the SEC freezing of our accounts. We are now wondering how we will ever be able to retire. We are having to be very creative in our spending and looking for revenue sources to satisfy our monthly living expenses.
IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE SEC SHOULD HAVE SOME LIABILITY IN ALL THIS SINCE THEY REPORTEDLY HAD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO TAKE RECEIVERSHIP AS FAR BACVK AS 2003.
"WE NEED HELP AND NEED IT QUICKLY BEFORE WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE WORKED A LIFE TIME FOR".
Harvard Mercy
[info]decerowland wrote:
Tuesday, 12 May 2009 at 12:46 am (UTC)
Obama doesn't like bankers either. He doesn't like DEA funding. He's not from Stanford and his Harvard pals didn't get a deal or he didn't do what he was told, like investing in Italy when Joe(Buffet/Obama) told him to. GM is all better now and no one's mad about that tiny car...........
Sir Allen Standford - anti-drug operations
[info]eltoncarr wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 03:30 am (UTC)
Add politicians and international anti money-laundering operations to this story and there will be many questions that will never be answered. For example: A mojor interational anti money-laundering operation was 30 days from seizing $300 million in Venezuelan Bonds used to launder drug money among the Cali Cartel, Italian & Russian Mafia. the politicians shut the operation down prior to seizure for political reasons and because an inlaw of the Queen of the Netherlands was involved.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date