In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video, Q&A, HK here

UNITED NATIONS GATE, January 15 – Citing Iran sanctions of the Security Council of the United Nations, which under SG Antonio Guterres continues to accredit an NGO CEFC which offered to violate Iran sanctions, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on December 1 denounced an Iranian test-fire of a ballistic missile. Now on January 15 Pompeo has said, "In continued defiance of the international community and UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the Iranian regime fired off a space launch vehicle today.  Such vehicles incorporate technologies that are virtually identical and interchangeable with those used in ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Today’s launch furthers Iran’s ability to eventually build such a weapon.  We have been clear that we will not stand for Iran’s flagrant disregard for international norms.  The United States is working with our allies and partners to counter the entire range of the Islamic Republic’s threats, including its missile program, which threatens Europe and the Middle East." Here's what Pompeo said back in December: "The Iranian regime has just test-fired a medium range ballistic missile that is capable of carrying multiple warheads. The missile has a range that allows it to strike parts of Europe and anywhere in the Middle East.  This test violates UN Security Council resolution 2231 that bans Iran from undertaking “any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology . . .”
As we have been warning for some time, Iran’s missile testing and missile proliferation is growing.  We are accumulating risk of escalation in the region if we fail to restore deterrence.  We condemn these activities, and call upon Iran to cease immediately all activities related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons." In the UN bribery prosecution by the US against Patrick Ho of China Energy Fund Committee whose trial began with opening statements on November 26, evidence of CEFC offering to violate Iran sanctions will come in - and Inner City Press will cover it each day, Day 1 story here, YouTube here. After 6 pm on November 26, this on Iran from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: "Iranian President Rouhani has once again called for the destruction of Israel.  He referred to it as a “cancerous tumor” and a “fake regime.”  Such statements inflame tensions in the region by seemingly calling for war.  At an international conference on Islamic unity, Rouhani also encouraged Muslims worldwide to unite against the United States.  This is a dangerous and irresponsible step that will further deepen Iran’s isolation.

The Iranian regime is no friend of America or Israel when they repeatedly call for the death of millions, including Muslims. The Iranian people know better and do not agree with their government, which has badly represented them to the world for 39 years. The people have suffered under this tyranny for far too long." In the CEFC case, Ho has tried to use CEFC's ongoing UN "Special Consultative Status" to avoid criminal charges. This and Ho's other motions were denial by Judge Preska on November 14, including a motion to exclude testimony from Cheikh Gadio, from government expert Mr. Walkout, and to exclude Ho's dealings with Sam Kutesa's predecessor as UNGA President Sam Ashe. All of this will come in at trial - and makes the failure by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to even audit CEFC's bribes in the UN more outrageous. This UN-accredited NGO offered to broker arms not only to Chad but also Qatar, Libya and South Sudan, about which Guterres and the UN purport to care so much. Ho and CEFC offered themselves as  way to evade Iran sanctions. This evidence will come in a trial; the government has agreed not to mention terrorism or US - Iran relations. A 23 minute video of Ho's UN speeches will not come in, being called "gauzy" as is the UN of Guterres who has banned Inner City Press which covers the UN's increasing corruption, from Ng Lap Seng and Ashe to CEFC, Kutesa and beyond, ongoing. We'll have more on this. Ho was trying to exclude testimony from initial co-defendant Cheikh Gadio about Chadian President Idriss Deby's reaction to the bribe. The papers were filed on November 13 and are first being reported by Inner City Press, which as it covers this second UN bribery case has been roughed up and now banned for 132 days by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who won't even audit CEFC's ongoing activities in the UN. Four months after the arrest for UN bribery of former Senegalese foreign minister Cheik Gadio and Patrick Ho, the head of China Energy Fund Committee full funded by CEFC China Energy, his ultimate boss at CEFC Ye Jianming was brought in for questioning in China. On October 4 Ho was again denied bail. Periscope video here. On October 22, the new trial date was set for November 26. On November 12 Inner City Press, banned from the UN by Secretary General Antonio Guterres amid its questions about the CEFC bribery and its connection to the Ng Lap Seng conviction, asked Guterres and his spokesmen: "November 12-4: Now that it is clear that Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act wiretaps show Sheri Yan, jailed for UN bribery in the PGA John Ashe case, communicating and planned with Patrick Ho of CEFC, please explain why SG Antonio Guterres has not even started an audit into the range CEFC's bribery and interactions in the UN, why it still has access to UN while Inner City Press which which pursued Ng Lap Seng's and Yan's bribery even into the UN Press Briefing Room (29 Jan 2016) and the Patrick Ho / CEFC case, has been denied access to anything in the UN for 131 days with no due process." Guterres' deputy spokesman Farhan Haq conducted a noon briefing Inner City Press was banned from, starting with a total of three correspondents. Video here. He and the UN have not answered since, see below. After he did not answer - but he did answer Yahoo News for a story which, inexplicably, does not mention Guterres or his failure to audit CEFC's activities at the UN. Others who have done nothign about the bribery, or about Guterres' roughing up and banning of Inner City Press, like HRW's Ken Roth and FP's Colum Lynch, belatedly retweeted the Ho / Yan corruption story. But what will they and the UN they love so much do? On November 4 Ho's attempt to "suppress all evidence obtained or derived under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" was denied, with a decision that no hearing on it was needed. The FISA information includes wiretaps of Ho and another bribing NGO the Global Sustainability Foundations's Sheri Yan or her deputy planning to pay bribes. This is described today by the Sydney Morning Herald, which while saying that UN officials who it leaves unnamed are lavishing praises on the Belt and Road which Ho now uses as a defense of his alleged bribes, fails to mention main praiser Antonio Guterres. Nor does SMH - Shaking My Head -- mention that unlike even Ban Ki-mon with Ng Lap Seng, Guterres has refused to even start an audit into Ho's (and Yang II's) bribery in the UN, but instead had roughed up and banned Inner City Press which reports on it. Ng Lap Seng paid money to a group Guterres is slated to headline a fundraiser for on December 5, a group he and his spokesman Stephane Dujarric use to support their attack on the investigative Press. We'll have more on this. Hong Kong television has broadcast a report on these alleged UN and Deby bribes, including an interview with Inner City Press which has been banned from the UN by Antonio Guterres amid its coverage of UN corruption and Guterres' refusal to even audit, has been broadcast. The Court's ruling against Ho on FISA notes that "FISA requires a finding of probable cause to believe that: (1) the target of the electronic surveillance or physical search is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." There will be at least one more court session before the trial starts; voir dire and jury instructions are being debated. The reckoning time is approaching. In a hearing Inner City Press covered - there were no other UN correspondents there, for this UN bribery case - it emerged that the prosecution has turned over 3,300 emails to a vendor, and that each side will meet with Judge Preska "in camera" about Confidential Information, under US v Mustafa, 992 F. Supp. 2d 335. Video here. We'll have more on this. Ho's lawyers, paid by CEFC, are arguing that the Chinese government's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) campaign, under which they says Ho's payments were made, must be considered at the delayed trial with testimony from "Professor Kirby as 'an expert in contemporary China’s business, economic, and political development with a particular focus on international activities.'" Given the many times as UN Secretary General that Antonio Guterres, who has refused to even audit CEFC's and Ho's payments in the UN, has praised China's One Belt, One Road - might Guterres be called or offer himself as a pro-Ho defense witness at trial? Guterres already maintains a secret banned from the UN list including "political activists," see here. His failure to audit is also covering up UN-accredited NGO CEFC's communications with "Iranian officials, apparently so that they could discuss potential transactions involving oil or precious metals. (See Gov’t Br. at 11-12.)  The government proffers “evidence of the defendant’s interest in and willingness
to broker transactions in arms.” (Gov’t Br. at 12.) Specifically, the government proffers evidence that Dr. Cheikh Gadio purported to pass to Dr. Ho a request from President Déby that CEFC Energy intervene with the Chinese government to cause it to provide arms to Déby so that he could fight Boko Haram. (Id. at 12-13.) It also proffers evidence that Dr. Ho emailed with “an individual” in March and April 2015 about selling arms to South Sudan, Qatar, and Libya." On October 9 the prosecution requested that the trial begin later than the scheduled November 5, writing to Judge Loretta A. Preska among other things that "this past Friday, October 5, 2018, the defendant submitted a classified notice pursuant to Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”). The defendant could have filed such notice a number of weeks ago, but waited until the very last day on which such a filing would be deemed timely under CIPA. The defendant also did not notify the Government that he intended to submit such a notice until the Court directed the parties to confer during last
week’s conference. The Government now has to draft, have approved for submission, and submit
a classified response in opposition, in which it intends to request a hearing concerning the use, relevance, and admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made public by the defense during the trial, and expects, assuming appropriate authorization is provided, to request that the hearing be held in camera." If Ho's lawyers were slow, the US government's Voice of America is more so: it took it five days to report on the public bail hearing held in lower Manhattan on October 4. Tellingly, the report did not include VOA's long-time UN embedded reporter Margaret Besheer, nor did it mention Ho's arms brokering to South Sudan nor the name of previous and convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng. Besheer has worked with Secretary General Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric to bar Inner City Press from even entering the UN and is involved with a pro-UN correspondents group which took $50,000 from Ng then provided the venue for his photo op with the UN Secretary General. Similar quid pro quos are expected with Guterres on December 5 on 42nd Street, watch this site. Back on October 4 Ho's lawyers argued that dropping the case against Gadio - who will testify against Ho - means that Ho conspired with no one. But Gadio will say he didn't know Ho had $2 million in cash for Chad President Deby in gift boxes; he's being allowed (or made) to say that Deby didn't know either. But this ham handed bribe was converted into a bogus philanthropic gift -- consciousness of guilt, as it were. The trial date of November 5 may not be set in stone, as the defense is planning a filing under Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to use classified information. Ho has a $2.1 million account in UBS, but Judge Preska said this wasn't the main factor in denying bail. The sleight of hand on Gadio has no impact on the "Uganda scheme" with Sam Kutesa, with whom UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has dealings. Guterres still hasn't started an audit of CEFC - which was openly named in the court hearing on October 4 - in the UN. We'll have more on this. This week in court filings the prosecution make it clear how corrupt the UN is, and why it has banned Inner City Press which reports on it: Ho bribed not one but two Presidents of the General Assembly, and brokered weapons not only to Chad but also Qatar, whose Al Jazeera got the exclusive of Guterres' selection as SG and after getting spoonfed by Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric on June 19 collaborated to get Inner City Press roughed up and banned since by Guterres' corrupt UN. And STILL  Guterres, whose son does UNdisclosed business in Angola, Namibia, Sao Tomo and Cabo Verde, has not even started an audit, only roughed up the Press and banned it now for 93 days. From this week's filing: "Evidence of Transactions with Iran The evidence of the defendant’s interest in and willingness to broker transactions in or with Iran principally consists of emails, spanning a multiple-year period. To choose a few examples: In October 2014, the defendant sent his assistant an email stating, “I am going to BJ [i.e., Beijing] this Friday to see [the Chairman of CEFC NGO and CEFC China] on Sat afternoon. The documents I want to send him before hand in separate items are: . . . 7. Iranian connection (brief).”4 On the same date, the defendant sent his assistant another email, attaching a document, which stated, in pertinent part: 7) Iranian Connection . . . Iran has money in a Bank in china which s under sanction. Iran wishes to purchase precious metal with this money. The precious metal is available through a Bank in HK which cannot accept money from the Bank in China which holds the money but is under sanction. The Iranian agent is looking for a Chinese company acting as a middle man in such transactions and will pay commission. (details to be presented orally) The Iranian connection has strong urge to establish trading relationship with us in oil and products . . . . The following year, in June 2015, the defendant received an email that stated, in pertinent part: “The Iranian team will arrive in BJ . . . . See the attached.” The attachment referenced in the email was a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Presentation to Potential Partners Iran Petroleum Investments.” The next day, the defendant forwarded the email to his assistant, stating, “For writing report to [the Chairman of CEFC NGO and CEFC China].”
The following year, in June 2016, the defendant emailed another individual, blindcopying
his assistant, and stated, in pertinent part, “Will get [two executives of CEFC China] to
meet with [oil executive at company with operations in Iran] in BJ, and [another individual] also on another occasion if he comes. You can start organizing these. . . . Other matters ftf [i.e., face to face].” And also "an email exchange in which Gadio asked the defendant: “Do you think CEFC can intervene with the Chinese state to get an urgent, extremely confidential and significant military weapon assistance to our friend [the President of Chad] who has engaged in the battle of his life against the devils of Bokko Haram?,” to which the defendant replied, “Your important message has been forwarded. It is being given the highest level of consideration. Will inform you once I hear back.”
The defendant also sought to and did broker arms transactions unrelated to the Chad and
Uganda schemes charged in this case. For example: In March 2015, an individual sent the defendant an email, stating, “I have the list and end user agreement. Pls advise next step.” On the same day, the defendant replied, in pertinent part, “Find a way to pass them onto me and we can execute that right away[].” The individual replied, “Attached. [W]e have the funding and processing mechanisms in place. If it works nice there will be much more. Also for S. Sudan.” The attachment to this email was a document entitled “End User Certificate,” certifying that the user of the goods in question would be the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Libya. The goods listed on the document included numerous arms. The following month, the defendant sent an email that stated in pertinent part: “It so turns out Qatar also needs urgently a list of toys from us. But for the same reason we had for Libya, we cannot sell directly to them. Is there a way you could act as an intermediary in both cases?” The person whom the defendant emailed replied: “Qatar good chance bc there is no embargo. Libya is another case bc going against an embargo is tricky.” The defendant responded: “Qatar needs new toys quite urgently. Their chief is coming to China and we hope to give them a piece of good news. Please confirm soonest.” This is outrageous, that an NGO still accredited under Guterres was selling weapons into South South, Libya and Qatar. Resign. And, on multiple PGAs: "among the individuals whom the defendant [Patrick Ho] is charged with bribing is Sam Kutesa, the Ugandan Foreign Minister. The Government expects that the evidence will show that the corrupt relationship between the defendant and Kutesa developed between in or about September 2014 and September 2015, when Kutesa was serving as the PGA (specifically, the PGA for the 69th session of the UN General Assembly). The evidence, in both the form of emails and a recorded phone call, also shows that, just
as he did with respect to Kutesa when he was the PGA, the defendant sought to cultivate a
business relationship with Kutesa’s predecessor, John Ashe, who served as the PGA between in
or about September 2013 and September 2014. As he did with Kutesa, the defendant began by introducing himself to Ashe as the Secretary-General of CEFC NGO. And just as he did with
Kutesa when he served as the PGA, the defendant invited Ashe to visit CEFC NGO in Hong Kong and to speak at various events.
In mid-April 2014, Ashe traveled to Hong Kong and met with the defendant and others.
After the trip, Ashe’s aide sent a letter to the defendant thanking the Chairman of CEFC NGO (who was also the Chairman of CEFC China) for the contribution of $50,000 to support the PGA. The aide had solicited the contribution from the defendant prior to the Hong Kong trip, and the defendant had confirmed that CEFC NGO would make the contribution.
In or about early June 2014, the defendant requested that Ashe officiate over a forum that
CEFC NGO was planning to hold at the UN, and also attend and officiate over a luncheon at the UN the following day. (The defendant made virtually the same request of Kutesa once he
became the PGA.) The day before the forum (July 6, 2014), the defendant emailed two business associates of Ashe, who assisted him in raising funds, to invite them to the forum and luncheon and to request their assistance in “urg[ing] the PGA to grace the occasion with his presence and to deliver a short remark.”
On or about the same day, the defendant and one of these associates (“Associate-1”)
spoke by phone. (See Ex. A (draft transcript).) During the call, which was recorded, the
defendant confirmed that he wanted Ashe to attend his event. The following conversation then took place:
Associate-1: So the last question, so sorry if I ask too direct. . . . [H]ave you, made some
contribution to him . . . ?
The defendant: Yeah, we already paid.
Associate-1: Oh you did? OkayThe defendant: Well, not a whole lot but it’s—it’s okay. On a couple of occasions. But I
think the major contribution will come in after we talk about what he can—what he can
help us with.
Associate-1: What you—what you mean major contribution? It’s after he return uh—
leave the job?
The defendant: Yes, yes.
. . .
Associate-1: Wonderful . . . okay.
The defendant: That’s not a—that’s not a problem. The problem is—uh, it’s give and
take.
Associate-1: Give and take. That’s—of course. This is the—this is business, right?
The defendant: Yeah, right.
 2 These two business associates subsequently pleaded guilty to bribing Ashe, based on
conduct unrelated to the defendant and CEFC. Ashe was charged with tax offenses arising from
his allegedly failing to disclose bribe payments as income. He passed away before trial, and the
charges against him were therefore dismissed." We'll have more on this. On July 19, the lawyers for Patrick Ho, led by Benjamin Rosenberg of Dechert LLP, argued before U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that count after count of the indicts should be dismissed. Edward Kim of Krieger Kim & Lewin LLP tried to get Ho's emails and text messages suppressed, without success. On August 9, Ho's appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to get out on bail was again denied. Now the prosecution, opposing yet another Ho bail application, has written: "Gadio has been meeting with the Government for some time and he is expected to testify at trial pursuant to a recently executed non-prosecution agreement.  And far from weakening the case, Gadio’s testimony will provide substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt. As the defendant is well-aware from a written disclosure made by the Government more than four months ago, Gadio is expected to testify, in sum and among other things, that (i) the defendant provided $2 million in cash, concealed within a gift box, to the President of Chad in connection with a business meeting in Chad in or about December 2014, (ii) the President refused to accept this obvious bribe, which Gadio understood was connected to the defendant’s interest in business opportunities in Chad, and (iii) the defendant thereafter drafted a letter to the President, purporting to pledge this $2 million to charitable causes, but the defendant appeared to have no interest in doing charitable works in Chad, and indeed, the defendant never asked Gadio about the status of the purported “donation” or made any other reference to the subject. (See Def. Ltr. Ex. A.) This expected testimony considerably strengthens the Government’s proof beyond the
already-strong case reflected in the detailed Complaint. The Complaint explained that, following a December 2014 business meeting in Chad, the defendant drafted a letter pledging a $2 million so-called “donation” to “the people of Chad at [the President of Chad’s] personal disposal to support [his] social and other programs as [he] see[s] fit.” (Compl. ¶ 28(a).) The Complaint did not, however, explain whether—and at what point—any money was actually paid. Gadio’s expected testimony makes clear that, in fact, the defendant provided $2 million in cash directly to the President, concealed within a gift box, and that the pledge letter was drafted after the bribe had already been offered. Thus, the evidence of the defendant’s intent to bribe the President of Chad is, on the whole, much more robust in light of Gadio’s expected testimony." On September 24, a letter from May was disclosed: UN accredited executive of an NGO still in ECOSOC handed Deby of Chad $2 million in a box, for oil. This is the UN, which won't even audit this scandal. Guterres is corruption - and on September 26 even banned Inner City Press which reports on this from a human rights event. We'll have more on this. On September 15, the day after Ho's co-defendant Cheik Gadio had the case against him dropped by Prosecutor Douglas Zolkind, who ask worked to convict Ng Lap Seng using testimony of apparently still free Francis Lorenzo. Sean Hecker, a lawyer for Mr. Gadio said that “Dr. Gadio looks forward to continuing to cooperate with U.S. authorities." But when Agence France Presse reported it, as picked up in the media in Nigeria, it was "Gadio Is Cleared." Is that how they report, for example, Manafort? It is, you see, a serious UN bribery case, even as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres not only does not start an audit of who else has been bribed by CEFC and Ho, but audaciously ousts, roughs up and imposes a ban on -- extended on August 17 to life or at least #UNGA73 when representatives of China and Chad, Uganda and Senegal will be in the UN -- the only media, Inner City Press, which asks him about it. Instead his team solicits the same trolls army as before, to monitor and leak files to try to post-facto justify Guterres' censorship. This is corruption, to the heart of the UN. The trial of the still incarcerated Ho begins in November. Somewhere, one imagines, UN PGA Sam Kutesa worries, Chadian head of state Idriss Deby less so. And the UN of Antonio Guterres, implicated, doesn't even audit who at the UN took CEFC's money, preferring instead to rough up, oust and ban the Press which asks. Fox News story here, GAP blogs I and II, Independent here.  On July 19 first Rosenberg argued that under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, if Patrick Ho is a "domestic concern" some counts of the indictment must be dropped. The prosecution called the argument absurd -- Ho is a national of China and a resident of Hong Kong who acted for the "Energy NGO" China Energy Fund Committee in allegedly bribing UN President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa, as well as Chad's President Idriss Deby - and the judge agreed. Next they argued that even a series of transfers from HSBC in Hong Kong to HSBC in New York to Mashreq Bank in NY to Mashreq Bank in Dubai did not fall under the money laundering statute. The judge, citing the the Daccarett case and Julius Baer cases from DC, disagreed. Periscope video here. The motions to dismiss were denied, and Inner City Press left the court to deal with the UN, where Guterres even has Inner City Press banned from covering his July 20 meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Pompeo's press remarks with Nikki Haley, UNwisely held inside the UN. We'll have more on this. Inner City Press made this connection: the president of ECOSOC is Marie Chatardová, Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the UN. Her president, in Prague Castle, is Miloš Zeman -- who, like Uganda's Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa when he was UN President of the General Assembly, made Ye Jianming an official adviser. (Inner City Press' CEFC investigative covered has been picked up in the Czech media, for example here.) Now on April 17, Zeman is set to meet this week with another Chinese state owned firm, CITIC and its chairman, Chang Zhenming. CITIC is reportedly seeking to buy a stake in CEFC's Czech-based unit CEFC Europe. So Inner City Press asks, would CITIC buy its way into China Energy Fund Group's consultative status with ECOSOC, presided over by the Czech Republic? The Czech Mission to the UN, and ECOSOC's supposed spokesperson Paul Simon, have yet to answer any of Inner City Press' written questions. This is today's UN, under Antonio Guterres.

Earlier, Zeman sent two officials to Chinese to inquire into the status or, or help, Ye Jianming: chancellor Vratislav Mynár and economic advisor Martin Nejedlý flew to Shanghai on March 13, along with CEFC  European division head Jaroslav Tvrdik, and have now returned. They said Ye “is being investigated for a suspicion of breaking the law,” after meeting CEFC President Chan Chauto. CEFC’s Czech-based unit CEFC Europe said: “CEFC Europe has been informed about the planned change in the shareholder structure in which Mr Ye Jienming will no longer be active as a shareholder nor in the company’s leadership. NOW might Zeman's Representative Chatardová belatedly take action in the UN ECOSOC of which she is President? 

 Inner City Press has repeatedly written to the Czech Mission to the UN, to the attention of
Marie Chatardová as President of ECOSOC, asking how China Energy Fund Committee given all of the above can remain in special consultative status with ECOSOC. The Czech Mission has not answered, including when the question is raised at the UN's televised noon briefing, as Inner City Press asked again on March 19, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: Deputy SG Amina J. Mohammed is going to the Czech Republic about ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council].  So, I was going to and may still ask Brenden [Varma] this, but I wanted to ask you this.  It has arisen that the China Energy Fund Committee, the ultimate owner in Shanghai has purportedly been brought in for questioning, and it turns out he was not only an adviser to Sam Kutesa as PGA [President of the General Assembly], but also an adviser of the Czech Republic President.  The Czech Republic has sent people to sort of look into his situation, but the Czech Republic also has the presidency of ECOSOC.  So, noting that I haven't gotten any answer from the Czech Mission, my question is…

Spokesman:  I think those are questions that you should address to the Presidency of ECOSOC.

Inner City Press: I guess but my question is an overall UN question.  Is there… is there any… it seems like it might be a conflict of interest if your President has a business relationship with an NGO to be in charge of the committee that is either… how do we get an answer if…?

Spokesman:  That is a question for the… that’s a question for Member States.  Member States elect the Presidency of ECOSOC.  They elect the bureau.  Those are Member State questions.  I struggle to answer the questions directed to the Secretary-General.  I think Member States need to answer other questions."  But again, the Czech Mission has not answered repeated written questions. For example:

"Hello - this concerned ECOSOC, reiterating Inner City Press' question from November 28: yesterday in US Federal Court, China Energy Fund Committee was described as a front for bribes paid to former PGA Kutesa and others.

See, e.g.,  HlidacipPes.org, Czech Republic: “Global corruption scandal. The CEFC scrap, which the Czech Republic does not notice much, though it should” [citing Inner City Press' UN corruption coverage]

The US has executed search warrants on this NGO's offices. But it is still saying it is in "special consultative status" with ECOSOC.

What action has been taken by ECOSOC and/or its NGO Committee? How is the months-long inaction consistent with the principles of the UN and ECOSOC?

I asked again yesterday at the UN noon briefing, but am told the Secretariat has or will take no role. So I am asking you again. Please confirm receipt. Thank you in advance."

  The Czech Mission, like Antonio Guterres' Secretariat's spokesperson for ECOSOC, has refused to answer. As to the Czech Republic, the reason for inaction and stonewalling of the Press may now be clear - alongside Antonio Guterres' Secretariat. We'll have more on this.

Nor was the UN even mentioned in the New York Times' story about CEFC - Kutesa was, but not that he was PGA. This is propaganda. This comes while the UN, embroiled in a second corruption case involving Ng Lap Seng whose assistant Jeffrey Yim was sentenced to seven months in prison on February 28 (Inner City Press coverage here), has yet to even remove CEFC from its "special consultative status" to the UN Economic and Social Council. Now with the Chinese government taking action, for whatever its reason, will the UN belatedly move? Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric on March 1, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: this China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) case, the head of the whole organization in China has been called in for questioning, Mr. Ye Jianming.  And I wanted to know, because it seems like since that indictment in November, China Energy Fund Committee has remained with special consultative status… Spokesman:  We've… I've answered that question already.  That is an issue… the Member States… a Member State committee grants that special consultative status to the NGO.  That Member State committee needs to act if they want to withdraw that status. Inner City Press: António Guterres is the head of the UN system.  Does he have… does he have… has he taken note that there are two separate developing UN corruption cases involving briberies taking place at the UN and what’s his response…? Spokesman:  We're very much aware of the issue and our legal counsel… our legal office is cooperating on these cases with the national authorities." We'll have more on this claim. Tellingly, Reuters which barely covers the UN corruption cases - in fact, it has a board seat on the UN Correspondents Association which accepted $50,000 from Ng Lap Seng's South South News - "reports" on the question of  Ye Jianming and CEFC's business in the Czech Republic, Russia (last year's deal for a 14 percent stake in  Rosneft PJSC for $9 billion) and Kazakhstan without even MENTIONING the indictment of Ho of CEFC, and the clear reference to Ye Jianming in the indictment, in connection with Sam Kutesa and the Uganda scheme. We'll have more on this. Ho was denied bail on February 5, in a lengthy oral order that found the weight of evidence against him substantial. On November 20, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York issued an indictment against the head of the UN ECOSOC accredited China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) Patrick Ho and former Senegal foreign minister Cheikh Gadio, accused together of bribing Chad's President Idriss Deby -- as well as, for Ho, of bribing former UN President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa, now as then the foreign minister of Uganda, since 2005, allegedly for the benefit of President Yoweri Museveni. On February 5, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman why CEFC is still in "special consultative status" with ECOSOC, transcript here (video here) and below, than ran to the courthouse. There, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest asked Prosecutor Daniel C. Richenthal to describe the weight of the evidence. "How strong is your case?" she asked, to some laughter. Very strong, he said, adding that Ho has been emailing the "Shanghai-based Energy Company" (that would be CEFC China Energy) from MCC detention, to launch a public relations campaign. It may be backfiring: Judge Forrest in her ruling denying bail noted that if Chinese government press is describing the case as political, it would make fleeing and remaining in China all the easier. Richenthal said that Ho could travel to other places - he listed Chad, Uganda, Iran and Russia. The continued home detention of UN bribery convictee was raised by Richenthal and Judge Forrest, and not favorably. Gadio was alluded to as not yet indicted - he'd said to be talking about a plea - and Judge Forrest emphasized November 5 as the trial date. She said there was leave to re-apply for bail but said such an application should include what Ho's lawyer Mr Kim called the "context" of the payments. Kim said they including country-wide charitable and military aid. From a Chinese energy company? From the UN's February 5 transcript: Inner City Press: Patrick Ho, who is the head of the China Energy Fund Committee, is arguing again for bail today.  And the US, in opposing it, put it in writing that they've executed a search warrant at China Energy Fund Committee, the NGO's (non-governmental organization) offices in Virginia.  It seems the China Energy Fund Committee is still in special consultative status with ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) even as its offices are being raided and… and its head is in jail.  What are the procedures for… for…? Spokesman:  As far as I'm aware… you know, the consultative status of ECOSOC, as opposed to the DPI (Department of Public Information) status, is one that is managed by the Member States.  There is a committee of ECOSOC that is made up of Member States.  They give… they grant or deny consultative status to various NGOs.  I think we'll have to look… you can contact ECOSOC to see what the exact rules are, but my assumption would be that, if Member States grant, only Member States can take away." So, Guterres is doing nothing. On February 6, after another non-response by ECOSOC's chair, Inner City Press asked Guterres' and Dujarric's Deputy Farhan Haq, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press:  yesterday, the… Patrick Ho, the head of the China Energy Fund Committee here, was denied bail.  And in the… in the hearing, basically, the prosecution said and the judge said that she found weight to be given to the evidence that basically the NGO [non-governmental organization] was a front for bribery to Sam Kutesa and others.  So, given that… how this trial is going, I'm wondering, again, Stéphane [Dujarric] had said that the Secretariat plays no role in sort of following through and making sure that China Energy Fund Committee can't continue to say it's a… in special consultative status with ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council].  I've written to the ECOSOC chair now twice, 28 November 2017 and today, but I don't have anything back.  Is there any spokesperson for ECOSOC that can at least say what the process is? Deputy Spokesman:  There is a spokesperson for the President of the Economic and Social [Council], and I can give you that contact afterwards. Inner City Press: Because… because Brenden… oh.  Yeah.  Anyways, I'd written before to that same individual, and there was no response.  I'm just… guess I'm wondering, what is their… what is the… does the Secretary-General… given that trial that's now moving forward and what's coming out in it, does he believe in the same way that he has… asserting himself as to agencies on other issues, that he should maybe get involved to ensure that there's not a… a named briber saying that they're in consultative status with the UN? Deputy Spokesman:  "Well, UN bodies themselves have been dealing with the problems created by the China Energy Fund Committee in their own ways, but what you're talking about is consultative status that's granted by Member States through the Economic and Social Council, and that decision would have to be taken by Member States." Then Inner City Press emailed the alluded to spokesman, one Paul Simon. Hours later, nothing. In advance of the February 5, the prosecution in writing asserted that "since the Complaint was signed and Ho was arrested, the evidence of his guilt has only become stronger, as the Government has interviewed witnesses, executed search warrants (including for the Virginia office of the Energy NGO), and obtained documents from third parties." Tellingly, this Energy NGO, China Energy Fund Committee, is *still* in special consultative status with the UN's Economic and Social Council - and Guterres met with Uganda's Museveni, who is in the complaint, at the same AU summit where Guterres met Sudan's Omar al Bashir, without issuing any read-out. The prosecution's letter cites the "President of the UN General Assembly (the “Ugandan Foreign Minister”). Ho also provided the Ugandan Foreign Minister, as well as the President of Uganda (who is the Ugandan Foreign Minister’s relative), with gifts and promises of future benefits, including offering to let both officials share in the profits of a potential joint venture in Uganda involving the Energy Company and the officials’ family businesses." On January 27, after belatedly dropping CEFC from the UN Global Compact, Guterres in Addis Ababa met Museveni, with Kutesa himself in Addis as well. Museveni tweeted a photo and read out -- "Met UN Secretary General @antonioguterres on the sidelines of the 30th AU Ordinary Summit in Addis Ababa. We discussed regional peace, UN reforms and support for refugees." Meanwhile, consistent his declining transparency, Guterres did not issue any read out. Did the UN bribery scandal come up? Or get further covered up? As Inner City Press pursues this story and others, Guterres and his "Global Communicator" Alison Smale, seen January 26 in South Carolina praising a Chinese airline while mis-allocating funds meant for Kiswahili radio, keep Inner City Press more restricted in the UN than no-show state media. This is censorship for corruption.

Inner City Press has covered the Ho / Gadio, Kutesa / Museveni case and repeatedly asked the UN Spokesman why Secretary General Antonio Guterres has not even started an audit based on the indictment, including of how CEFC got its UN status and even remains in the UN Global Compact espousing anti-corruption goals. On January 16, Inner City Press put the question directly to Antonio Guterres, video here, UN transcript here, and below. Guterres said "I will look into it... We don't want the Compact to have companies that do not abide by the set of principles." But a week passed, and nothing. On January 24, Inner City Press asked again. And on January 25, Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced, Matthew you've asked once or twice, the Global Compact has suspended China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC China Energy). But, Inner City Press notes, China Energy Fund Committee is *still* in special consultative status with UN ECOSOC. And there has been no audit of the other connections. We'll have more on this. From the UN's January 16 transcript: Q: Matthew Lee, Inner City Press, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, hoping for more question and answer in 2018, as you said. In November, there there was an indictment announced in Federal Court downtown of the head of an ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council)-accredited NGO for bribing, allegedly bribing, the President of the General Assembly, Sam Kutesa, to benefit the China Energy Fund Committee. And I wanted to ask you, that remains still in the Global Compact, and there hasn't been even an audit or anything created. Why haven't you started an audit in that case? Why is the beneficiary of what's described as bribery in the UN still in the Global Compact? And how do your reforms preclude or make impossible this type of bribery that's now happened twice under John Ashe, may he rest in peace, and under Sam Kutesa?  SG Guterres: "In relation to other cases, I would like to say that I'm not aware of presence in the Compact or whatever. I will have to look into it. I will look into it. What is clear for me is that we don't want the Compact to have companies that do not abide by the set of principles that were defined in the constitution of the Compact. There is a code of conduct that is there, and that should be respected. So, I don't know exactly what happened in the compact in that regard. I will look into that." We'll see. Ho's lawyers said in court filing he would be asking to be released on bail in connection with his arraignment on January 8, and his argument included that he is the head of "UN recognized" NGO similar, Ho's brief argued, to the American Bar Association, the Salvation Army and the World Jewish Congress.

But when Ho pleaded not guilty to the eight counts against him on January 8, his lawyers did not in fact pursue bail, and declined to comment after. (Sidewalk stakeout photo here, h/t) So, Ho remains in jail. His lawyers' filing, dated January 5, says Ho is "the leader of a non-governmental organization recognized by the United Nations....After leaving government service, Dr. Ho became the Deputy Chairman and Secretary General of the China Energy Fund Committee (“CEFC”), a Hong Kong based non governmental organization that has Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Other organizations with Special Consultative Status include the American Bar Association, the Salvation Army, and the World Jewish Congress." The proposal was for Ho to be released on $10 million bond secured by $2 million in cash, into home detention in Manhattan with electronic monitoring.

We'll have more on this.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for