Author: Niu Ltd

  • CBI: Business Are “Hugely Frustrated” by Government Delay on Brexit Immigration Paper

    According to an influential business lobby group, the government must give clarity regarding its policy on future immigration,  following reports that it may delay publication of a fundamental policy paper on the said issue.

    The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said that businesses would be “frustrated” if the government does not present an indication of what the future policy on migration will be, adding that it will hinder investment.

    The deputy director-general of the CBI, Josh Hardie, stated: “Businesses will be hugely frustrated by rumours that the government won’t reveal their plans on staff mobility until the last minute. From tech start-ups to care homes, not knowing what staff you will be able to access will deter investment.

    “Firms need time to plan for change, and that is why many will be deeply disappointed by any delays to the White Paper.”

    The criticism on the government of the lobby group comes after the reporting of the Financial Times that ministers will not release a white paper on immigration until autumn, just a few months before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in March 2019.

    The said paper was originally scheduled to be published last summer. However, reportedly, it has been held up over a dispute regarding the inclusion of students in the figures of net migration. Previously, the Prime Minister has argued that students should remain in the said figures, while Amber Rudd, the current home secretary, believes that they should not be included.

    Immigration has been one of the most contentious issues for Prime Minister Theresa May and the Conservative party for the longest time. When PM May was still home secretary, with a direct responsibility for immigration policy, David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, vowed to cut net annual immigration to under 100,000 migrants.

    Controlling immigration was a notable theme in the EU referendum. However, business groups in the City and beyond are horrified at the prospect of making it harder to hire European workers after Brexit at a time when complaints regarding skills shortages have reached high levels.

    Today, Hardie urged the government of the United Kingdom to assure EU workers that they will be eligible to work in the United Kingdom “for the transition period at least.”

    Hardie stated: “The government should commit now that people’s rights to work won’t change over the first two years from our date of departure from the EU.”

     

    Source: news.finance.co.uk

  • All Set to Start Census 2020; Citizenship Query Still a Thorny Question

    President Donald Trump took office on a nationalist anti-immigrant agenda, linking foreigners and migration to terrorism, crime and lost jobs

     

    The United States is gearing up to conduct its next population census in 2020 but a thorny question on citizenship has ignited controversy even before it has begun.

    When the decennial national headcount gets under way, census takers may have to ask respondents if they are US citizens, which observers say would discourage some ethnic minorities from participating and undermine the accuracy of the data.

    Arturo Vargas, head of the NALEO Educational Fund, said surveys have shown as recently as September that test respondents are now experiencing “unprecedented fear of the US government.”

    President Donald Trumptook office on a nationalist anti-immigrant agenda, linking foreigners and migration to terrorism, crime and lost jobs. In his State of the Union address last month, he reiterated his pledge to cut legal immigration and beef up enforcement.

    In this heated environment, with frequent reports of immigrants tearfully torn from their families and deported, large segments of the population could refuse to participate in the census, out of fear authorities could use the information against them, critics say.

    In December, the Justice Department kicked up a storm when it asked to have a question on nationality added to the survey conducted by the Census Bureau, which is a part of the Commerce Department.

    The Justice Department argued that citizenship information would help enforce the Voting Rights Act, however that law is aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination at the ballot box.

    Only US citizensare allowed to register to vote. But Trump has long claimed that millions of illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 presidential election, without providing proof.”

    The Census Bureau is conducting a review of the DOJ request,” said Al Fontenot, associate director for Census programs.

    “We are focused on having the final list of questions submitted to the Congress by March 31st.”

    The debate over the questions and how they could affect response numbers is not just one of politics Required by the Constitution, the census determines the number of seats allotted to each state in the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the US legislature.

    Stanford sociology Professor C.

    Matthew Snipp, the survey is “essential for American democracy.”

    The population tally also impacts distribution of more than USD 675 billion in annual federal funding for schools, hospitals, roads and public services, according to the Census Bureau.

    Underreporting in some communities is a longstanding problem. Analysts estimate that the 2010 Census undercounted Latinos by 775,000 people.

    The problem could be worse this time.

    If minority populations, often concentrated in Democratic-leaning urban centers, do not fully participate, this could affect the balance of power in Congress.

    “States like Texas, California, Arizona that have large Hispanic populations could lose seats in Congress if there is a very large undercount,” Snipp said.

    And NALEO’s Vargas warned that making a major last-minute change to the questionnaire would sabotage the Census Bureau’s technical efforts to improve results and analysis.

    Vargas said an imprecise census also could have economic and financial impacts.

    The change also could increase the cost, currently estimated at USD 15.6 billion, up from USD 12.9 billion in 2010, due in part to the need for follow-up visits to convince members of the public to respond.

    And businesses use the decennial survey to identify demographic trends and locate consumers and potential employees, allowing them to tailor planned investments, plan for factories and retail outlets, and convince banks to provide financing.

    In 2010, the Census counted 308.8 million Americans, an increase of 9.7 per cent from 2000. According to the latest estimates, the US population has since risen 5.8 percent to 327 million.

     

    Source: business-standard.com

  • Guest Post: Why 9 Out of 10 New Firms Fail, And Why it Won’t Be Different in the CBI Industry

     

    The CBI industry has experienced stellar growth in past years. While a few years ago there was only a handful of firms in the industry, Investment Migration Insider puts the number today at over 400. Low barriers to entry, interesting margins, and a growing number of high net worth individuals have attracted many to the business, and new companies are formed frequently.

     

    History and research tell us, however, that most new companies fail.  This is especially true during a hype phase, as we are experiencing in the CBI industry: Any outsider observing the space will recognize a “gold-rush” mentality. Similar trends could be seen in the DotCom bubble of the late 90s and the current state of frenzy in the crypto-currency realm.

     

    This is the cold hard truth every entrepreneur or investor needs to be aware of. Some statistics put the number at nine failures out of every ten startups, i.e. at 90% – or even more. The reasons for failure are many, but there are certain recurring themes:

     

    -firms run out of money (cash flow is more important than profitability)

    -the team doesn’t have the right capabilities

    -they have no clear vision or strategy

    -regulation catches up with the business

     

    While getting off the ground is hard, it seems even harder to properly fly. Verne Harnish, author of the well-known book “Scaling Up” states that only 6% of companies are ever able to hit 1 million USD in annual revenue. Why don’t companies manage to scale up? According to Harnish, the key factor is complexity: as you add employees, the complexity in organizations tends to grow exponentially, necessitating the need for more rules, procedures, etc. Overcoming complexity requires solid leadership, a strategy, and empowerment.

     

    The question remains; will it be any different in the CBI industry? And the answer should probably be: why should it be any different?

     

    The regulatory writing on the wall

     

    Perhaps most relevant to the CBI industry is the threat of industry regulation, and lack of strategy and vision for most businesses in the sector. Alongside topics such as the Panama papers, tax evasion, and refugee flows, the CBI industry attracts attention and consequently regulation.

     

    As the CBI industry becomes increasingly regulated, it is clear that only those adhering to the highest standards will have any success going forward. Since so many CBI programs require the blessing of governments, and in some cases, the blessing of other governments (i.e. the USA in the case of the Caribbean), it is clear that the barriers to entry are increasing.

     

    Solid government relations require upfront and sustained investment most smaller firms simply cannot pre-finance. At the same time, expertise is hard to copy and gives incumbents an advantage. Similar to technological advantages of larger IT companies, smaller firms in the CBI space do not have the track record required to gain the trust of governments.

     

    Additionally, many clients come to established players in the industry through referrals from prior clients. This “word of mouth” effect is particularly pronounced in circles where confidentiality, privacy, and trust are highly prized. Not being able to out-spend the competition with more effective marketing is thus an additional barrier to entry for new firms. Even if they were,  it may not work anyway as brand loyalty is often particularly important in such circles.

     

    Surviving ≠ thriving

     

    Even if they do make a dent and survive in the CBI industry, scaling-up will be even harder to do for new companies. Running a global operation at consistently high standards is no easy task for any organization, but when dealing with sensitive client data, different time zones and demanding clients, the task becomes even harder to manage.

     

    At the same time, the threat of cyber attacks grows with increasing success, necessitating more investment in solid IT policies and infrastructure. Even today, we still see some firms loading their entire client and contact lists onto unsecured online mailing services to do direct mailing campaigns – practices like these do not inspire confidence in clients or serious intermediaries.

     

    Finally, there is a certain network effect apparent in the most successful CBI companies (the network effect is why services like Uber become better over time, as they attract more drivers, which attracts more passengers, which attracts more drivers, etc.). Older companies in the CBI industry have assisted more clients, thereby generating more word of mouth.

     

    Governments, on the other hand, want to partner with service providers that can deliver the most clients, and who have teams to actually implement what is being promised. Thus, the more clients a service provider can bring to a government, alongside expertise and capacity, the more likely they are to win the contract with a government. Likewise, the more government programs a company can offer, the better their chance of attracting more clients, and so on…

     

    This all goes to show that being a start-up in this industry is no easy feat and no different from other industries. The CBI industry is ripe for consolidation, with many smaller firms being regulated out of existence or partnering with larger firms. No doubt, we will see interesting times ahead.

     

     

    Source: imidaily.com

  • Trump Nominee for U.N. Migration Post Called Muslims Violent, Christians Top Priority

    The Trump administration’s nominee to coordinate billions of dollars in assistance to migrants around the world has suggested in social-media posts that Islam is an inherently violent religion and has said Christians in some cases should receive preferential treatment when resettling from hostile areas.

    In tweets, social media posts and radio appearances reviewed by The Washington Post, Ken Isaacs, a vice president of the Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse, made disparaging remarks about Muslims and denied climate change — a driving force behind migration, according to the agency the State Department has nominated him to lead.

    In June, after a terrorist attack in London, Isaac reposted and commented on a CNN International story that quoted a Catholic bishop saying “This isn’t in the name of God, this isn’t what the Muslim faith asks people to do.”

    Isaacs responded: “CNN, Bishop if you read the Quran you will know ‘this’ is exactly what the Muslim faith instructs the faithful to do.”

    Isaacs was announced Thursday as the Trump administration’s pick to become director general of the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration, or IOM. The 169-member organization has a nearly $1 billion annual operating budget and for decades has deferred to the United States, one of its top benefactors, to lead the organization.

    Trump’s pick could be at risk of being the first U.S. nominee since the late 1960s to lose an election by the group’s voting members, according to several people involved in international relief coordination.

    “I don’t know the nominee, but I’ve seen some of his statements and they reflect a troubling prejudice that is really incompatible with a position of leadership for the world’s most important international migration agency,” said Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International and a former assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama.

    “The person who leads this needs to be a symbol of the international community’s support for humanity. And that means that dark-skin people and Muslim people have the same inherent worth as any other people.”

    Isaacs was in Bangladesh on Thursday, providing diphtheria treatment to Rohingya refu­gees, when his nomination was announced.

    After The Post sent a sampling of his social media activity to the State Department, along with a request for comment, his Twitter account was made private, and the department provided a statement from Isaacs apologizing for his posts.

    “I deeply regret that my comments on social media have caused hurt and have undermined my professional record,” his statement read. “It was careless and it has caused concern among those who have expressed faith in my ability to effectively lead IOM. I pledge to hold myself to the highest standards of humanity, human dignity and equality if chosen to lead IOM.”

    In a separate statement, spokeswoman Heather Nauert at the State Department said the agency would continue to support the nomination and stressed that Isaacs has a proven record of helping diverse populations around the globe.

    “Mr. Isaacs has apologized for the comments he posted on his private social media account. We believe that was proper for him to do so. Mr. Isaacs is committed to helping refugees and has a long history of assisting those who are suffering. We believe that if chosen to lead IOM, he would treat people fairly and with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

    Isaacs’s public media posts caught the department by surprise and were not reviewed before his announced nomination, State Department officials familiar with the matter said.

    During the administration of President George W. Bush, Isaacs served as the U.S. Agency for International Development’s director of foreign disaster assistance. The agency led U.S. relief efforts after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and a massive earthquake in Pakistan in 2005.

    As a vice president at Samaritan’s Purse, an organization led by the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, Isaacs has in the years since coordinated the group’s international relief efforts. In 2014, Isaacs was an outspoken advocate for the United States and Europe to lend more aid to Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia to stop the spread of a deadly outbreak of Ebola.

    In 2015, Isaacs visited a mostly Syrian refu­gee camp in Greece, writing in a post on Facebook that “On multiple occasions I wiped tears away listening to their stories. I was happy for them and glad to be a part of meeting their needs and showing them the unconditional love of Christ as we help them in five countries.”

    But in that same post, Isaacs expressed more controversial views, going on to pen what he called an “evening rant.” Isaacs ridiculed Obama for wanting to accept large numbers of Syrian refugees as a “foolish and delusional” attempt to “show cultural enlightenment.”

    Isaacs wrote that he had spent two hours in the refu­gee camp and that his visit had been long enough to conclude that there were dangers lurking in the groups of refugees.

    “I know what a fighter looks like, how they carry themselves, how they group, and how there is tension in the air around them. Clearly the non-Syrian camp was 75% single males and while many rural refugees were there; there were also many men who have known violence,” Isaacs wrote. “I feel most of the refugees are fine people but there are real security risks and this can’t be swept under the rug.”

    In other social-media posts, Isaacs divided refugees along religious lines and said Christians in at least one instance should receive preferential treatment.

    In a series of tweets criticizing Obama’s position on Syrian refu­gee relief in the fall of 2015, Isaacs wrote: “Refugees are 2 grps. Some may go back and some can’t return. Christians can never return. They must be 1st priority.”

    Later that day, Isaacs wrote in another tweet: “If Islam is a religion of peace, let’s see 2 million Muslims in National Mall marching against jihad & stand for America! I haven’t seen it!”

    Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a frequent critic of the Trump administration, said that “this type of nomination coming from the Trump administration is a symptom of its deep hostility toward immigrants, migrants and Muslims.”

    Hooper said Isaacs’s professed views should be disqualifying: “It is imperative these positions maintain neutrality with regard to religion, national origin and . . . frankly have some sympathy for those who are migrating for no choice of their own but the economic and social pressures they are under.”

    The election to lead the IOM is scheduled for June. A nominee must receive the support of two-thirds of its voting members.

    Isaacs’s views on climate change and dwindling natural resources, factors the United Nations has cited increasingly as contributing to international migration, may also cause consternation abroad. Writing on Facebook in reference to the Paris climate accord in 2015, Isaacs called a connection between national security and climate change “a joke.”

    “The meeting in Paris next week is not going to be a rebuke to ISIS. It is going to be a dinner joke, a laughing stock, and a diversion of all the real issues.”

    In an undated radio interview with the Christian radio program “First Person” with Wayne Shepherd, audio of which is available online, Isaacs said he sees young people as overly focused on social justice.

    “I guess I’m an older guy, but I see rights as coming from God and not from governments. And any time that a government gives a right — let’s say that it was decreed by law that everybody has a right to clean water, everybody has a right to a house — who’s going to pay for that?” Isaacs said.

    “It doesn’t matter what it says on paper, what matters is what people are expected and allowed to do based on the rights given to them by God. You know, sadly, clean water’s not a human right. It is something we all want to aspire to see people to get, but it’s not a right, it’s not guaranteed anywhere, and you have to work for it.”

    In 2010, the U.N. General Assembly explicitly recognized a human right to water and sanitation, calling the two “essential to the realisation of all human rights.”

     

    Source: washingtonpost.com

  • Business Calls for Clarity on Immigration Plans

     

    The CBI has commented on reports that the Government may delay publication of its White Paper on immigration.

     

    Business calls for clarity on immigration plans

    Josh Hardie, CBI Deputy Director-General, said:

    “Businesses will be hugely frustrated by rumours that the Government won’t reveal their plans on staff mobility until the last minute. From tech start-ups to care homes, not knowing what staff you will be able to access will deter investment.

    “Firms need time to plan for change and that is why many will be deeply disappointed by any delays to the White Paper.

    “It is perfectly possible to be clear on people’s rights to work in the UK, for the transition period at least.

    “The Government should commit now that people’s rights to work won’t change over the first two years from our date of departure from the EU.”

     

    Source: cbi.org.uk

  • Leading Brexiteer Activist ‘buys EU passport via Malta’

    A New Zealand-born backer of a think tank advocating a hard Brexit has obtained an EU passport through Malta, it has been reported.

    Christopher Chandler, founder of Legatum, which backs leaving the single market and the customs union, has become a citizen of the Mediterranean island.

    Critics branded the move double standards as the passport would give him the right to live and work in any European country. A hard Brexit is expected to leave Britons without that same privilege.

    The names of Mr Chandler and family members appear on a list of individuals who became naturalised citizens of Malta in 2016, the Financial Times reported.

    Mark Stoleson, chief executive of Legatum, also appears on the list.

    Maltese MEP Roberta Metsola said it was “surreal” that a Brexit backer had applied for an EU passport.

    Others, including Malta-based actor Alan Montanaro, criticised the reported development. “He wants to get everyone out while he creeps back in,” he wrote on Twitter.

    Mr Chandler made his fortune in the “wild capitalism” days in Russia in the 1990s, when state-run companies were privatised. His former company, Sovereign Global, was the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia by 1994.

    Dubai-based Legatum has denied being linked to the Russian Government after it was reported last year to be behind a letter from Boris Johnson and Michael Gove to Theresa May urging a tougher stance on Brexit. The letter was said to have been influenced by the Kremlin.

    The status of its charitable arm, Legatum Institute Foundation, has come under scrutiny after it was reported that it provided £3.9m in funding to the think tank.

    After the 2016 Brexit vote, Legatum hired Eurosceptics, including Matthew Elliott, a co-founder of Vote Leave, to explore UK-US trade deals.

    Malta’s “citizenship by investment” programme has been accused of being a gateway for foreign investors to secure the benefits of an EU passport. Applicants can gain a passport in return for a €650,000 (£571,900) contribution to the national development fund and the purchase or lease of property, and investments of at least €150,000 in stocks and bonds.

    Members of the European Parliament have called for the Malta scheme to be scrapped.

    The list reportedly includes Boris Mints, a Russian entrepreneur and philanthropist, and Arkady Volozh, the founder of Yandex, Russia’s biggest search engine.

    A spokesperson for the Legatum Group said: “In July and August 2015 Christopher Chandler and Mark Stoleson, partners of the Legatum Group, applied for Maltese citizenship as part of a highly-regulated, EU-sanctioned scheme. Like many entrepreneurs who have complex international business careers, they decided that this would provide helpful flexibility for their travel and investment arrangements. Citizenship was approved after a thorough due diligence process by the Maltese government two years ago in December 2015.

    “The decision to apply for Maltese citizenship by Mr Chandler and Mr Stoleson had nothing to do with Brexit. It pre-dated the passing of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and was long before the referendum result in June 2016.

    “Since neither Mr Stoleson nor Mr Chandler are British citizens, Brexit makes no difference to their arrangements.”

     

    Source: independent.co.uk

  • FBI Anti-Bribery Official To Leave for Consulting Firm

    Exiger, the global regulatory, financial crime, risk and compliance company, announced the appointment of George “Ren” McEachern as Managing Director in the company’s Global Investigations Group. A decorated investigator widely recognized as one of the world’s leading anti-bribery authorities, Mr. McEachern is based in Exiger’s Washington, D.C. Metro office.

    Mr. McEachern will focus primarily on leading anti-bribery investigations and assisting multinational corporations and financial institutions with regulatory risk management. He joined Exiger from the FBI, where he was a Supervisory Special Agent heading the Washington Field Office International Corruption Squad with a focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), international money laundering, kleptocracy and antitrust investigations. Mr. McEachern was one of the architects of the FBI’s new global strategy on international corruption, which began in 2015, and included the creation of specialized FBI teams located in New York, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles.

    “Ren has been at the epicenter of some of the largest and most complex global FCPA investigations in recent memory, giving him a deep, practical understanding of the lens through which the DOJ and the SEC view bribery and corruption issues and compliance programs,” said Richard Plansky, Exiger Americas Regional Leader and Global Head of Investigations. “This unique perspective will be invaluable to our clients, providing them with the expert insight and cutting-edge technology they need to investigate critical anti-bribery issues and develop the sustainable anti-bribery and corruption compliance programs that are critical to navigating today’s uncertain regulatory environment.”

    Throughout his 12-year career with the FBI, Mr. McEachern has worked closely with the banking industry, leveraging suspicious activity reports (SARs) and internal bank investigations to follow complex money movements throughout the global financial system. He has managed international corruption investigations in the Americas, Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, bringing together law enforcement, compliance professionals, and global financial authorities in a united front to identify and stop sources of corruption.

    “Effective compliance is proactive compliance. Exiger understands this and distinguishes itself by pairing proven domain experts with breakthrough artificial intelligence technologies that allow companies to get out in front of potential problems before they can proliferate,” said Mr. McEachern. “Exiger is leading the development of real-world investigative solutions that encompass the latest technologies and analytics to address both compliance and business growth imperatives.”

    Mr. McEachern will leverage this unique experience to provide strategic, technology-enabled investigative and compliance solutions to help Exiger clients manage bribery- and corruption-related risk.

     

    Source: exiger.com

  • CIP 2017: Almost $300m in Direct Revenue, Investments

    Almost $300 million was raised in direct revenue and investment capital from the Citizenship by Investment Programme (CIP) last year, according to Prime Minister Gaston Browne.

    The figures were spelt out in the budget speech he presented in the parliament on Thursday. “In 2017, the Citizenship by Investment Unit, processed a total of 321 applications, which should yield an estimated $64 million in direct revenue to the central government and capital injection of $198.7 million into hotels, residential developments and other business interests,” the PM reported.

    Browne noted the challenges the programme encountered, particularly the loss of visa-free access to Canada which saw applications drop. In response, the government slashed processing fees, and according to the PM, the move has begun to pay off.

    “We have witnessed an increase in the number of applications received by the Citizenship by Investment Unit in November and December, returning monthly submissions closer to preJune 2017 levels.

    In 2018, we intend to optimise our favourability as a premier investment jurisdiction,” Browne said. Of the $169 million budgeted for non-tax revenue this year, $95 million represents receipts from the CIP’s National Development Fund, while $30 million represents surplus funds from the Citizenship by Investment Unit operating account, the PM said.

    He stated that some 1,269 applications have been received and processed through the CIP’s three investment options from the inception of the programme to December 31, 2017.

    Browne recently acknowledged that the programme was unlikely to return to the heights it reached in 2015, when his government was still relatively new and had adopted an aggressive marketing strategy

     

    Source: antiguaobserver.com

  • Coming U.S. List of Oligarchs Linked to Putin Alarms Russia’s Rich

    It was all but ignored last year when it was wrapped into a sanctions law punishing Russian aggressions. But in recent weeks, a requirement that the United States identify Russian oligarchs in a public list has set off a cavalcade of anxious lobbying across Washington by those who fear their links to the Kremlin will jeopardize their financial well-being.

    The Trump administration is set to release the list on Monday in a report that — to the surprise of many — serves as a new tool to punish wealthy backers of the world’s autocrats, simply by naming them.

    It is unclear how the administration will define who is considered an oligarch, and appearing on the list does not carry immediate penalties.

    But it will reveal the financial details of Russian elites and many of their family members. More worryingly, lobbyists and experts say, it could make them vulnerable to future sanctions through their associations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

    The list “has caused more concern among wealthy Russians in Moscow, London and Geneva than there has been since sanctions were imposed on Russia post-Ukraine,” said Michael Caputo, a former campaign adviser to President Trump who is now a communications consultant to Russian businesses and citizens.

    “I’ve never heard this level of chatter,” Mr. Caputo said. “That low rolling thunder you hear is dozens of Russian oligarchs lawyering up with top American legal talent.”

    The name-and-shame report is part of the law that Mr. Trump approved, with caveats, in August. It expanded sanctions against Russia by penalizing those who do substantial business with the Russian military or intelligence sectors.

    On Friday, the Trump administration announced sanctions against 21 individuals, including Russia’s deputy energy minister, Andrey Cherezov, as well as nine business entities.

    Much of official Washington had paid little heed when the provision with the law was passed, expecting the list to be shelved and forgotten as soon as it was released, as such reports often are. The recent lobbying push — including a procession seeking assurances from the White House, the State Department and Congress — has raised the report’s profile and made it, against all expectations, significant.

    Russia and sanctions experts say they have been inundated by inquiries about the report, which is being written at the Treasury and State Departments.

    Political appointees in the Trump administration, spooked by the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election that is being led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, have given the report a broad scope. It has been up to government career employees to create a catalog that is widely expected to be credible and complete, said more than a dozen people with knowledge of the report.

    “I was in London about a month ago, and a British government official told me he’s even being lobbied about it,” said Peter Harrell, a former sanctions official at the State Department.

    A Treasury Department spokesman said that the oligarchs’ list was expected to be produced by Monday’s deadline, along with a separate report also required by the law about the possible consequences of penalizing Russia’s sovereign debt.

    The oligarchs’ report must include “indices of corruption,” as well as the net worth and known sources of income of both the primary person listed and of their spouses, children, parents and siblings. Any United States assets, like real estate, must be listed, too.

    Some names are likely to be made public, while others may be included in a classified appendix, officials said. Some observers fear that the administration, which opposed the legislation, will decide to make most of the report classified.

    “I think people may be underwhelmed by what gets made public,” said Elizabeth Rosenberg, a top sanctions official in the Obama administration.

    As the foreign attention over the report has built, senators have taken notice. Four Republican senators named two oligarchs last week that they said they wanted included. And four Democratic lawmakers said the list could be used to quickly widen sanctions, should Russia interfere in elections scheduled this year in the United States and elsewhere.

    “I understand that the report has created consternation among some who don’t want to be on the list or be seen as associated with the Putin regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland. “I hope that this report will lead some to reconsider the wisdom of associating with the Putin regime.”

    For months, sanctions experts in the United States responded to inquiries about the oligarchs’ list with a mixture of disbelief and disdain. With no penalties associated with being listed, they told people to stop worrying.

    That did not happen.

    Daniel Fried, a top White House adviser on Russia to both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, said the surprising unease among Russians had given the list unexpected power.

    “In their anxiety, I sense leverage and opportunity to make a point, and that point is that Putin’s aggression has consequences against Russia’s elite,” Mr. Fried said.

    Lobbyists who represent wealthy Russians said in multiple interviews that their clients’ concerns were twofold: that the American government might one day use the list to impose sanctions, and that banks and other global financial institutions would stop serving them because of that possible risk. None would speak publicly.

    The lobbyists also voiced fears that the report could empower Mr. Putin by pushing oligarchs even more firmly into his orbit — the opposite of what Congress intended.

    A registry of foreign agents to Russia, compiled by the Justice Department, includes many of Washington’s most powerful legal, communications and lobbying firms, including Sidley Austin, Venable, APCO and White & Case. A review of those records, by the Center for Responsive Politics, found 279 registrations of Russian agents in the United States.

    Andrey Borodin, a wealthy Russian fugitive and former president of the Bank of Moscow, hired BGR Group to lobby on his behalf. Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi, and Maya Seiden, a former State Department official, were listed on the registry as representing Mr. Borodin for BGR over “visa issues.” Ms. Seiden declined to comment on her work for Mr. Borodin.

    Adam M. Smith, a Washington lawyer and former sanctions adviser for the Treasury Department, said the uncertainty about what would be done with the list was unusual.

    “This has literally never been done before, and it represents an extraordinary outsourcing of our foreign policy,” Mr. Smith said. “It’s one thing to tell banks that this person is sanctioned. It’s another entirely to say, ‘Hey, this person is on a list. Figure out yourself what to do with them.’”

    In putting together a multifaceted lobbying campaign about the report, the oligarchs have collectively caused the very problem they had hoped to avoid — government scrutiny.

    “If they’re that sophisticated, shouldn’t they also be aware this report is relatively small potatoes?” Ms. Rosenberg asked.

    Much of the reason for the Russians’ anxiety, though, is the widely held view in Moscow that events in Washington have become wholly irrational. Few understand what they see as the American obsession with Russian hacking efforts and suspected collusion with Mr. Trump, Mr. Caputo said.

    “From the Russian perspective, there is no rhyme or reason to anything going on in Washington right now,” Mr. Caputo said. “They’re worried Russian banks will go under and people will lose everything, and that’s because what America will do right now is absolutely unpredictable.”

    Source: nytimes.com

  • Brexit: Britons Take EU Rights Bid to Dutch Court

    Five UK nationals are going to court in the Netherlands in a campaign to keep their EU citizenship after Brexit.

    They want a Dutch judge to press the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify their rights.

    The ECJ, if it decides to make a ruling, could guarantee such rights as freedom of movement after the UK leaves the European Union.

    An ECJ decision would affect all British nationals living in the European Union.

    The European court could rule that all member states must guarantee the rights of Brits in the respective states where they reside – under European law.

    About 42,500 British nationals live in the Netherlands.

    The interim deal thrashed out between the UK and Brussels in December does outline some of the rights British citizens in Europe will keep after Brexit, such as the ability to live and work on the continent.

    But some vital questions, like free movement, still swirl around.

    ‘We’ve been forgotten’

    Some of the group of five say they have been disheartened by the confusion and speculation about what their life will be like after Brexit.

    “Just because the UK voted to leave, it shouldn’t be able to force citizens to give up their rights,” says Stephen Huyton, one of the Brits taking the court action on Wednesday.

    The Netherlands does not currently allow foreigners to have dual nationality, in most cases.

    Presentational grey line

    What does EU citizenship mean?

    EU citizenship is described in Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and includes the rights to:

    • Travel and live anywhere in the EU
    • Vote and stand as a candidate in European and local elections in another EU country
    • Get diplomatic protection and consular help from any other EU country in another part of the world

    Mr Huyton, the European director of a US firm, has been living in the Netherlands for 24 years and has three children, with the youngest at university in the UK.

    Like other Brits who have been living outside the UK for more than 15 years, he was not eligible to vote in the EU referendum.

    “My children are confronted by choices I don’t think are fair or reasonable,” he says.

    “In the Brexit breakup, it feels as though they’re just making up the rules as they go along. We feel as though we’ve been forgotten, so at least now people are noticing us.”

    The Dutch judge has the power to ask the ECJ for clarity on a point of law. It is then up to the ECJ to decide whether it needs to provide this.

    Many Brexit supporters resent the ECJ’s power to overrule British court decisions on citizens’ rights.

    ‘Politically awkward’

    Laywer Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm told the BBC his aim in the Dutch case was to establish the grounds under which Brits could lose their European citizenship.

    “Can it be taken away from them?”

    He added: “Theresa May said, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ now we are trying to work out on behalf of these people, what that actually means.

    “We know how important it is to so many people.”

    British barrister Jolyon Maugham QC, who is funding the legal action and has been behind other Brexit challenges, said the case raised “a profoundly important question”, which would affect not only Brits living abroad.

    “If the case is successful, all of us will continue to benefit from EU citizenship rights after Brexit.”

    But this could be “politically awkward” for the remaining 27 member states.

    “It would take out of their hands the question of what rights UK citizens would enjoy after Brexit.

    “Those rights would no longer be a matter of political gift – EU law would continue to guarantee EU citizenship rights to those who are UK citizens at the date of Brexit. It would, potentially, weaken their position at the negotiating table.”

    This is a small case relating to one specific group.

    But if their action is successful, they hope it will benefit some of the 1.2 million British nationals across the continent.

     

    Source: bbc.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Skip to content