LEGAL : View Posts

The owner and operator of two defunct Miami home health agencies was sentenced today to 80 months in prison for her role in a $74 million conspiracy to defraud the Medicare program.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office, and Special Agent in Charge Shimon R. Richmond of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Miami Regional Office made the announcement.

Sila Luis, 59, of Miami, Florida, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the Southern District of Florida. Judge Cooke also ordered the defendant to pay $45 million in restitution and to forfeit the gross proceeds traced to the offense. Luis pleaded guilty on June 28, to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

As part of her guilty plea, Luis admitted that, between January 2006 and June 2012, she and her co-conspirators agreed to, and actually did, operate LTC Professional Consultants Inc. (LTC) in order to fraudulently bill the Medicare program for home health care services, including diabetic injections, skilled nursing visits, physical therapy, and other treatments and services. Professional Home Care Solutions Inc. was another home health agency under Luis’s ownership and control that was involved in the conspiracy. Luis further admitted that she and her co-conspirators enlisted and paid patient recruiters kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries to LTC. Had Medicare known that Luis paid bribes and kickbacks to attract beneficiaries to her facilities, Medicare would not have paid any claims submitted on behalf of those beneficiaries.

Judge Cooke determined at sentencing that Luis was responsible for an intended loss of $74 million to the Medicare program.

Luis was charged along with Elsa Ruiz, 49, and Myriam Acevedo, 68, both of Miami, Florida, in an indictment returned on Oct. 3, 2012. Acevedo pleaded guilty in May 2013 to conspiracy to pay health care kickbacks and payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program. She was sentenced to 60 months in prison and ordered to pay $27 million in restitution. Ruiz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. She was sentenced to 80 months in prison and ordered to pay $45 million in restitution.

The FBI and HHS-OIG investigated this case. Trial Attorneys David Snider, Patrick Mott, and L. Rush Atkinson of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which is part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.

The United States Department of Justice today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T/DirecTV’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Inc. The $108 billion acquisition would substantially lessen competition, resulting in higher prices and less innovation for millions of Americans.

The combination of AT&T/DirecTV’s vast video distribution infrastructure and Time Warner’s popular television programming would be one of the largest mergers in American history. Time Warner’s network offerings include TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, HBO and Cinemax, and its programming includes Game of Thrones, NCAA’s March Madness, and substantial numbers of MLB and NBA regular season and playoff games.

According to the complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the combined company would use its control over Time Warner’s valuable and highly popular networks to hinder its rivals by forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year for the right to distribute those networks. The combined company would also use its increased power to slow the industry’s transition to new and exciting video distribution models that provide greater choice for consumers, resulting in fewer innovative offerings and higher bills for American families.

As AT&T itself has expressly acknowledged, distributors with control over popular programming “have the incentive and ability to use . . . that control as a weapon to hinder competition.” And, as DirecTV itself has explained, such vertically integrated programmers “can much more credibly threaten to withhold programming from rival [distributors]” and can “use such threats to demand higher prices and more favorable terms.” This merger would create just such a vertically integrated programmer and cause precisely such harms to competition.

“This merger would greatly harm American consumers. It would mean higher monthly television bills and fewer of the new, emerging innovative options that consumers are beginning to enjoy,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Department’s Antitrust Division. “AT&T/DirecTV’s combination with Time Warner is unlawful, and absent an adequate remedy that would fully prevent the harms this merger would cause, the only appropriate action for the Department of Justice is to seek an injunction from a federal judge blocking the entire transaction.”

“The merger would also enable the merged company to impede disruptive competition from online video distributors, competition that has allowed consumers greater choices at cheaper prices,” Delrahim further explained. As noted in the complaint, AT&T/DirecTV describes the traditional, big bundle pay-TV model as a “cash cow” and “the golden goose.” If permitted to merge, AT&T/DirecTV/Time Warner would have the incentive and ability to charge more for Time Warner’s popular networks and take other actions to discourage future competitors from entering the marketplace altogether. For example, the merged firm would likely use its control of Time Warner’s programming, which is important for emerging online video distributors, to hinder those innovative distributors. Indeed, a senior Time Warner executive has stated that they have leverage over an online video distributor, whose offering would be “[expletive] without Turner.” That leverage would only increase if the merger were allowed to proceed.

AT&T Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In 2016, the company posted revenues of more than $163 billion dollars, making it the largest telecommunications company in the world. AT&T is also the country’s largest Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD), with more than 25 million subscribers. It has three pay-TV offerings: (1) DirecTV, a satellite-based product with almost 21 million subscribers that it acquired through a merger in 2015; (2) U-Verse, a product which uses the local AT&T fiber optic and copper network and has almost 4 million subscribers; and (3) DirecTV Now, its new online video product with almost 800,000 subscribers. It descends from the AT&T that was established in the nineteenth century and which maintained a monopoly in the provision of local telephone services until 1982, when it agreed to divest the portions of its business relating to local telephone services to settle an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice. In 2011, AT&T attempted to purchase T-Mobile, but abandoned the transaction after the Department of Justice filed suit alleging that the merger violated the antitrust laws.

Time Warner, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York. In 2016, its posted revenue was $29.3 billion. As of 2016, according to Time Warner, its most popular networks reach over 90 million households—of the nearly 100 million households that subscribe to traditional subscription television.

Mr President, Honourable Members of the European Parliament,
When I stood before you this time last year, I had a somewhat easier speech to give.
It was plain for all to see that our Union was not in a good state.
Europe was battered and bruised by a year that shook our very foundation.
We only had two choices. Either come together around a positive European agenda or each retreat into our own corners.
Faced with this choice, I argued for unity.
I proposed a positive agenda to help create – as I said last year – a Europe that protects, empowers and defends.

Over the past twelve months, the European Parliament has helped bring this agenda to life. We continue to make progress with each passing day. Just last night you worked to find agreement on trade defence instruments and on doubling our European investment capacity.
I also want to thank the 27 leaders of our Member States. Days after my speech last year, they welcomed my agenda at their summit in Bratislava. In doing so they chose unity. They chose to rally around our common ground.

Together, we showed that Europe can deliver for its citizens when and where it matters.
Ever since, we have been slowly but surely gathering momentum.
It helped that the economic outlook swung in our favour.
We are now in the fifth year of an economic recovery that finally reaches every single Member State.
Growth in the European Union has outstripped that of the United States over the last two years. It now stands above 2% for the Union as a whole and at 2.2% for the euro area.

Unemployment is at a nine year low. Almost 8 million jobs have been created during this mandate so far. With 235 million people at work, more people are in employment in the EU than ever before.
The European Commission cannot take the credit for this alone. Though I am sure that had 8 million jobs been lost, we would have taken the blame.

But Europe’s institutions played their part in helping the wind change.
We can take credit for our European Investment Plan which has triggered €225 billion worth of investment so far. It has granted loans to over 445,000 small firms and more than 270 infrastructure projects.

We can take credit for the fact that, thanks to determined action, European banks once again have the capital firepower to lend to companies so that they can grow and create jobs.
And we can take credit for having brought public deficits down from 6.6% to 1.6%. This is thanks to an intelligent application of the Stability and Growth Pact. We ask for fiscal discipline but are careful not to kill growth. This is in fact working very well across the Union – despite the criticism.
Ten years since crisis struck, Europe’s economy is finally bouncing back.
And with it, our confidence.

Our EU27 leaders, the Parliament and the Commission are putting the Europe back in our Union. Together we are putting the Union back in our Union.
In the last year, we saw all 27 leaders walk up the Capitoline Hill in Rome, one by one, to renew their vows to each other and to our Union.
All of this leads me to believe: the wind is back in Europe’s sails.
We now have a window of opportunity but it will not stay open forever.
Let us make the most of the momentum, catch the wind in our sails.
For this we must do two things:
First, we should stay the course set out last year. We have still 16 months in which real progress can be made by Parliament, Council and Commission. We must use this time to finish what we started in Bratislava and deliver on our positive agenda.
Secondly, we should chart the direction for the future. As Mark Twain wrote, years from now we will be more disappointed by the things we did not do, than by the ones we did. Now is the time to build a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe for 2025.

STAYING COURSE

Mr President, Honourable Members,
As we look to the future, we cannot let ourselves be blown off course.
We set out to complete an Energy Union, a Security Union, a Capital Markets Union, a Banking Union and a Digital Single Market. Together, we have already come a long way.
As the Parliament testified, 80% of the proposals promised at the start of the mandate have already been put forward by the Commission. We must now work together to turn proposals into law, and law into practice.

As ever, there will be a degree of give and take. The Commission’s proposals to reform our Common Asylum System and strengthen rules on the Posting of Workers have caused controversy. Achieving a good result will need all sides to move towards each other. I want to say today: as long as the outcome is the right one for our Union and is fair to all Member States, the Commission will be open to compromise
We are now ready to put the remaining 20% of initiatives on the table by May 2018.
This morning, I sent a Letter of Intent to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani and Prime Minister Jüri Ratas outlining the priorities for the year ahead.
I will not list all our proposals here, but let me mention five which are particularly important.
Firstly, I want us to strengthen our European trade agenda.

Yes, Europe is open for business. But there must be reciprocity. We have to get what we give.
Trade is not something abstract. Trade is about jobs, creating new opportunities for Europe’s businesses big and small. Every additional €1 billion in exports supports 14,000 extra jobs in Europe.
Trade is about exporting our standards, be they social or environmental standards, data protection or food safety requirements.
Europe has always been an attractive place to do business.

With the help of the European Parliament, we have just secured a trade agreement with Canada that will provisionally apply as of next week. We have a political agreement with Japan on a new economic partnership. By the end of the year, we have a good chance of doing the same with Mexico and South American countries.

And today, we are proposing to open trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.
I want all of these agreements to be finalised by the end of this mandate. And I want them negotiated in the fullest transparency.
Open trade must go hand in hand with
open policy making.
The European Parliament will have the final say on all trade agreements. So its Members, like members of national and regional parliaments, must be kept fully informed from day one of the negotiations. The Commission will make sure of this.
From now on, the Commission will publish in full all draft negotiating mandates we propose to the Council.

Citizens have the right to know what the Commission is proposing. Gone are the days of no transparency. Gone are the days of rumours, of incessantly questioning the Commission’s motives.
I call on the Council to do the same when it adopts the final negotiating mandates.
Let me say once and for all: we are not naïve free traders.
Europe must always defend its strategic interests.
This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening. If a foreign, state-owned, company wants to purchase a European harbour, part of our energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate. It is a political responsibility to know what is going on in our own backyard so that we can protect our collective security if needed.

Secondly, I want to make our industry stronger and more competitive.
This is particularly true for our manufacturing base and the 32 million workers that form its backbone. They make the world-class products that give us our edge, like our cars.
I am proud of our car industry. But I am shocked when consumers are knowingly and deliberately misled. I call on the car industry to come clean and make it right. Instead of looking for loopholes, they should be investing in the clean cars of the future.
The new Industrial Policy Strategy we are presenting today will help our industries stay or become the world leader in innovation, digitisation and decarbonisation.

Third: I want Europe to be the leader when it comes to the fight against climate change.
Last year, we set the global rules of the game with the Paris Agreement ratified here, in this very House. Set against the collapse of ambition in the United States, Europe will ensure we make our planet great again. It is the shared heritage of all of humanity.
The Commission will shortly present proposals to reduce the carbon emissions of our transport sector.

Fourth priority for the year ahead: we need to better protect Europeans in the digital age.
In the past three years, we have made progress in keeping Europeans safe online. New rules, put forward by the Commission, will protect our intellectual property, our cultural diversity and our personal data. We have stepped up the fight against terrorist propaganda and radicalisation online. But Europe is still not well equipped when it comes to cyber-attacks.

Cyber-attacks can be more dangerous to the stability of democracies and economies than guns and tanks. Last year alone there were more than 4,000 ransomware attacks per day and 80% of European companies experienced at least one cyber-security incident.
Cyber-attacks know no borders and no one is immune. This is why, today, the Commission is proposing new tools, including a European Cybersecurity Agency, to help defend us against such attacks.
Fifth: migration will stay on our radar.

In spite of the debate and controversy around this topic, we have managed to make solid progress – though admittedly insufficient in many areas.
We are now protecting Europe’s external borders more effectively. Over 1,700 officers from the new European Border and Coast Guard are now helping Member States’ 100,000 national border guards patrol in places like Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Spain. We have common borders but Member States that by geography are the first in line cannot be left alone to protect them. Common borders and common protection must go hand in hand.

We have managed to stem irregular flows of migrants, which were a cause of great anxiety for many. We have reduced irregular arrivals in the Eastern Mediterranean by 97% thanks our agreement with Turkey. And this summer, we managed to get more control over the Central Mediterranean route with arrivals in August down by 81% compared to the same month last year.

In doing so, we have drastically reduced the loss of life in the Mediterranean. Tragically, nearly 2,500 died this year. I will never accept that people are left to die at sea.
I cannot talk about migration without paying strong tribute to Italy for their tireless and noble work. This summer, the Commission again worked closely together with Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and his government to improve the situation, notably by training the Libyan Coast Guard. We will continue to offer strong operational and financial support to Italy. Because Italy is saving Europe’s honour in the Mediterranean.

We must also urgently improve migrants’ living conditions in Libya. I am appalled by the inhumane conditions in detention or reception centres. Europe has a collective responsibility, and the Commission will work in concert with the United Nations to put an end to this scandalous situation that cannot be made to last.

Even if it saddens me to see that solidarity is not yet equally shared across all our Member States, Europe as a whole has continued to show solidarity. Last year alone, our Member States resettled or granted asylum to over 720,000 refugees – three times as much as the United States, Canada and Australia combined. Europe, contrary to what some say, is not a fortress and must never become one. Europe is and must remain the continent of solidarity where those fleeing persecution can find refuge.
I am particularly proud of the young Europeans volunteering to give language courses to Syrian refugees or the thousands more young people who are serving in our new European Solidarity Corps. They are bringing European solidarity to life.

We now need to redouble our efforts. Before the end of the month, the Commission will present a new set of proposals with an emphasis on returns, solidarity with Africa and opening legal pathways.
When it comes to returns: people who have no right to stay in Europe must be returned to their countries of origin. When only 36% of irregular migrants are returned, it is clear we need to significantly step up our work. This is the only way Europe will be able to show solidarity with refugees in real need of protection.

Solidarity cannot be exclusively intra-European. We must also showsolidarity withAfrica. Africa is a noble and young continent, the cradle of humanity. Our €2.7 billion EU-Africa Trust Fund is creating employment opportunities across the continent. The EU budget fronted the bulk of the money, but all our Member States combined have still only contributed €150 million. The Fund is currently reaching its limits. We know the dangers of a lack of funding – in 2015 many migrants headed towards Europe when the UN’s World Food Programme ran out of funds. I call on all Member States to now match their actions with their words and ensure the Africa Trust Fund does not meet the same fate.
We will also work on opening up legal pathways. Irregular migration will only stop if there is a real alternative to perilous journeys. We are close to having resettled 22,000 refugees from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and I support UN High Commissioner Grandi’s call to resettle a further 40,000 refugees from Libya and the surrounding countries.
At the same time, legal migration is a necessity for Europe as an ageing continent. This is why the Commission made proposals to make it easier for skilled migrants to reach Europe with a Blue Card. I would like to thank the Parliament for your support and I call for an ambitious and swift agreement on this important issue.

SETTING SAIL

Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Honourable Members,
I have mentioned just a few of the initiatives we should deliver over the next 16 months. But this alone will not be enough to regain the hearts and minds of Europeans.
Now is the time to chart the direction for the future.

In March, the Commission presented our White Paper on the future of Europe, with five scenarios for what Europe could look like by 2025. These scenarios have been discussed, scrutinised and partly ripped apart. That is good – they were conceived for exactly this purpose. I wanted to launch a process in which Europeans determined their own path and their own future.
The future of Europe cannot be decided by decree. It has to be the result of democratic debate and, ultimately, broad consensus. This House contributed actively, through the three ambitious resolutions on Europe’s future and your participation in many of the more than 2,000 public events that the Commission organised since March.
Now is the time to draw first conclusions from this debate. Time to move from reflection to action. From debate to decision.
Today I would like to present you my view: my own ‘scenario six’, if you will.
This scenario is rooted in decades of first-hand experience. I have lived and worked for the European project my entire life. I have seen good times and bad.
I have sat on many different sides of the table: as a Minister, as Prime Minister, as President of the Eurogroup, and now as President of the Commission. I was there in Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon as our Union evolved and enlarged.
I have always fought for Europe. At times I have suffered with and because of Europe and even despaired for it.
Through thick and thin, I have never lost my love of Europe.
But there is rarely love without pain.
Love for Europe because Europe and the European Union have achieved something unique in this fraying world: peace within and outside of Europe. Prosperity for many if not yet for all.
This is something we have to remember during the European Year of Cultural Heritage. 2018 must be a celebration of cultural diversity.

A UNION OF VALUES

Our values are our compass.
For me, Europe is more than just a single market. More than money, more than the euro. It was always about values.
In my scenario six, there are three principles that must always anchor our Union: freedom, equality and the rule of law.

Europe is first of all a Union of freedom. Freedom from the kind of oppression and dictatorship our continent knows all too well – sadly none more than central and Eastern Europe. Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist – a freedom we too often take for granted. It was on these freedoms that our Union was built. But freedom does not fall from the sky. It must be fought for. In Europe and throughout world.

Second, Europe must be a Union of equality.
Equality between its Members, big and small, East and West, North and South.
Make no mistake, Europe extends from Vigo to Varna. From Spain to Bulgaria.
East to West: Europe must breathe with both lungs. Otherwise our continent will struggle for air.
In a Union of equals, there can be no second class citizens. It is unacceptable that in 2017 there are still children dying of diseases that should long have been eradicated in Europe. Children in Romania or Italy must have the same access to measles vaccines as other children right across Europe. No ifs, no buts. This is why we are working with all Member States to support national vaccination efforts. Avoidable deaths must not occur in Europe.

In a Union of equals, there can be no second class workers. Workers should earn the same pay for the same work in the same place. This is why the Commission proposed new rules on posting of workers. We should make sure that all EU rules on labour mobility are enforced in a fair, simple and effective way by a new European inspection and enforcement body. It seems absurd to have a Banking Authority to police banking standards, but no common Labour Authority for ensuring fairness in our single market. We will create one.

In a Union of equals, there can be no second class consumers. I will not accept that in some parts of Europe,people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical. Slovaks do not deserve less fish in their fish fingers. Hungarians less meat in their meals. Czechs less cacao in their chocolate. EU law outlaws such practices already. We must now equip national authorities with stronger powers to cut out any illegal practices wherever they exist.

Third, in Europe the strength of the law replaced the law of the strong.
The rule of law means that law and justice are upheld by an independent judiciary.
Accepting and respecting a final judgement is what it means to be part of a Union based on the rule of law. Member States gave final jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. The judgements of the Court have to be respected by all. To undermine them, or to undermine the independence of national courts, is to strip citizens of their fundamental rights.
The rule of law is not optional in the European Union. It is a must.
Our Union is not a State but it is a community of law.

A MORE UNITED UNION

Honourable Members,
These three principles must be the foundations on which we build a more united, stronger and more democratic Union.
When we talk about our future, experience tells me new Treaties and new institutions are not the answer people are looking for. They are merely a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. They might mean something to us here in Strasbourg and in Brussels. But they do not mean a lot to anyone else.
I am only interested in institutional reforms if they lead to more efficiency in our Union.
Instead of hiding behind calls for Treaty change – which is in any case inevitable – we must first change the mind-set that for some to win others must lose.

Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.
A more united Union also needs to become more inclusive.

If we want to strengthen the protection of our external borders, then we need to open the Schengen area of free movement to Bulgaria and Romania immediately. We should also allow Croatia to become a full Schengen member once it meets all the criteria.
If we want the euro to unite rather than divide our continent, then it should be more than the currency of a select group of countries. The euro is meant to be the single currency of the European Union as a whole. All but two of our Member States are required and entitled to join the euro once they fulfil all conditions.
Member States that want to join the euro must be able to do so. This is why I am proposing to create a Euro-accession Instrument, offering technical and even financial assistance.

If we want banks to operate under the same rules and under the same supervision across our continent, then we should encourage all Member States to join the Banking Union. Completing the Banking Union is a matter of urgency. We need to reduce the remaining risks in the banking systems of some of our Member States. Banking Union can only function if risk-reduction and risk-sharing go hand in hand. As everyone well knows, this can only be achieved if the conditions, as proposed by the Commission in November 2015, are met. To get access to a common deposit insurance scheme you first need to do your homework.
If we want to avoid social fragmentation and social dumping in Europe, then Member States should agree on the European Pillar of Social Rights as soon as possible and at the latest at the Gothenburg summit in November. National social systems will still remain diverse and separate for a long time. But at the very least, we should work for a European Social Standards Union in which we have a common understanding of what is socially fair.

Europe cannot work if it shuns workers.
If we want more stability in our neighbourhood, then we must maintain a credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans.
It is clear that there will be no further enlargement during the mandate of this Commission and this Parliament. No candidate is ready yet. But thereafter the European Union will be greater than 27 in number. Accession candidates must give the rule of law, justice and fundamental rights utmost priority.
This rules out EU membership for Turkey for the foreseeable future.

Turkey has been taking giant strides away from the European Union for some time.
Journalists belong in newsrooms not in prisons. They belong where freedom of expression reigns.
The call I make to those in power in Turkey is this: Let our journalists go. And not just them either. Stop insulting our Member States by comparing their leaders to fascists and Nazis. Europe is a continent of mature democracies. Insults create roadblocks. Sometimes I get the feeling Turkey is intentionally placing these roadblocks so that it can blame Europe for any breakdown in accession talks.
As for us, we will always keep our hands stretched out towards the great Turkish people and those who are ready to work with us on the basis of our values.

A STRONGER UNION

Honourable Members,
Our Union must also grow stronger.
I want a stronger single market.

When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain areas – if all Heads of State or Government agree to do so.

I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively.

I want a stronger Economic and Monetary Union.
The euro area is more resilient now than in years past. We now have the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM). I believe the ESM should now progressively graduate into a European Monetary Fund and be firmly anchored in our Union. The Commission will make concrete proposals for this in December.
We need a European Minister of Economy and Finance: a European Minister that promotes and supports structural reforms in our Member States. He or she can build on the work the Commission has been doing since 2015 with our Structural Reform Support Service. The new Minister should coordinate all EU financial instruments that can be deployed when a Member State is in a recession or hit by a fundamental crisis.

I am not calling for a new position just for the sake of it. I am calling for efficiency. The Commissioner for economic and financial affairs – ideally also a Vice-President – should assume the role of Economy and Finance Minister. He or she should also preside the Eurogroup.
The European Economy and Finance Minister must be accountable to the European Parliament.
We do not need parallel structures. We do not need a budget for the Euro area but a strong Euro area budget line within the EU budget.
I am also not fond of the idea of having a separate euro area parliament.
The Parliament of the euro area is the European Parliament.

The European Union must also be stronger in fighting terrorism. In the past three years, we have made real progress. But we still lack the means to act quickly in case of cross-border terrorist threats.
This is why I call for a European intelligence unit that ensures data concerning terrorists and foreign fighters are automatically shared among intelligence services and with the police.
I also see a strong case for tasking the new European Public Prosecutor with prosecuting cross-border terrorist crimes.

I want our Union to become a stronger global actor. In order to have more weight in the world, we must be able to take foreign policy decisions quicker. This is why I want Member States to look at which foreign policy decisions could be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. The Treaty already provides for this, if all Member States agree to do it.

And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.

Last but not least, I want our Union to have a stronger focus on things that matter, building on the work this Commission has already undertaken. We should not meddle in the everyday lives of European citizens by regulating every aspect. We should be big on the big things. We should not march in with a stream of new initiatives or seek ever growing competences. We should give back competences to Member States where it makes sense.

This is why this Commission has been big on big issues and small on the small ones, putting forward less than 25 new initiatives a year where previous Commissions proposed over 100. We have handed back powers where it makes more sense for national governments to deal with things. Thanks to the good work of Commissioner Vestager, we have delegated 90% of state aid decisions to the regional or local level.
To finish the work we started, I am setting up a Subsidiarity and Proportionality Task Force as of this month to take a very critical look at all policy areas to make sure we are only acting where the EU adds value. First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who has a proven track record on better regulation, will head this Task Force. The Timmermans Task Force, which should include Members of this Parliament as well as Members of national Parliaments, should report back in a years’ time.

A MORE DEMOCRATIC UNION

Honourable Members,
Mr President,
Our Union needs to take a democratic leap forward.
I would like to see European political parties start campaigning for the next elections much earlier than in the past. Too often Europe-wide elections have been reduced to nothing more than the sum of national campaigns. European democracy deserves better.

Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves.

I also have sympathy for the idea of having transnational lists – though I am aware this is an idea more than a few of you disagree with. Such lists would help make European Parliament elections more European and more democratic.

I also believe that, over the months to come, we should involve national Parliaments and civil society at national, regional and local level more in the work on the future of Europe. Over the last three years, Members of the Commission have visited national Parliaments more than 650 times. They also debated in more than 300 interactive Citizens’ Dialogues in more than 80 cities and towns across 27 Member States. But we can still do more. This is why I support President Macron’s idea of organising democratic conventions across Europe in 2018.

As the debate gathers pace, I will personally pay particular attention to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 2018. This is the year they will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Those who want to shape the future of our continent should well understand and honour our common history. This includes these four countries – Europe would not be whole without them.

The need to strengthen democracy also has implications for the European Commission. Today, I am sending the European Parliament a new Code of Conduct for Commissioners. The new Code first of all makes clear that Commissioners can be candidates in European Parliament elections under the same conditions as everyone else. The new Code will of course strengthen the integrity requirements for Commissioners both during and after their mandate.

If you want to strengthen European democracy, then you cannot reverse the democratic progress seen with the creation of lead candidates – ‘Spitzenkandidaten’.

I am convinced that any future President will benefit greatly from the unique experience of having campaigned in all quarters of our beautiful continent. To understand the challenges of his or her job and the diversity of our Member States, a future President should have met citizens in the townhalls of Helsinki as well as in the squares of Athens. In my personal experience of such a campaign, it makes you more humble, but also strengthens you during your mandate. And you can face the other leaders in the European Council with the confidence that you have been elected, just as they have. This is good for the balance of our Union.

More democracy means more efficiency. Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
This is nothing against my good friend Donald, with whom I have worked seamlessly together for the past three years. This is nothing against Donald or against me.
Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship.
Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens.

OUR ROADMAP

Honourable members,
The vision of a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe I am outlining today combines elements from all of the scenarios I set out in March.
But our future cannot remain a scenario, a sketch, an idea amongst others.
We have to prepare the Union of tomorrow, today.
This morning I sent a Roadmap to President Tajani, President Tusk as well as to the holders of the rotating Presidencies of the Council between now and March 2019, outlining where we should go from here.

An important element will be the plans the Commission will present in May 2018 for how the future EU budget can match our ambition and make sure we can deliver on everything we promise.
On 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. This will be a very sad and tragic moment. We will always regret it. But we have to respect the will of the British people.
On 30 March 2019, we will be a Union of 27. I suggest that we prepare for this moment well, amongst the 27 and within the EU institutions.
European Parliament elections will take place just a few weeks later, in May 2019. Europeans have a date with democracy. They need to go to the polls with a clear understanding of how the European Union will develop over the years to come.

This is why I call on President Tusk and Romania, the country holding the Presidency in the first half of 2019, to organise a Special Summit in Romania on 30 March 2019. My wish is that this summit be held in the beautiful ancient city of Sibiu, or Hermannstadt as I know it. It should be the moment we come together to take the decisions needed for a more united, stronger and democratic Europe.

My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union where we all stand by our values. Where all Member States firmly respect the rule of law. Where being a full member of the euro area, the Banking Union and the Schengen area has become the norm for all EU Member States. Where we have shored up the foundations of our Economic and Monetary Union so that we can defend our single currency in good times and bad, without having to call on external help. Where our single market will be fairer towards workers from the East and from the West. Where we managed to agree on a strong pillar of social standards. Where profits will be taxed where they were made. Where terrorists have no loopholes to exploit. Where we have agreed on a proper European Defence Union. Where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign.

If our citizens wake up to this Union on 30 March 2019, then they should be able vote in the European Parliament elections a few weeks later with the firm conviction that our Union is a place that works for them.

CONCLUSION

Honourable Members,
Europe was not made to stand still. It must never do so.
Helmut Kohl and Jacques Delors taught me that Europe only moves forward when it is bold. The single market, Schengen and the single currency were all written off as pipe dreams before they happened. And yet these three ambitious projects are now a reality.
I hear those who say we should not rock the boat now that things have started to get better.
But now is not the time to err on the side of caution.
We started to fix the roof. But we must complete the job now that the sun is shining and whilst it still is.
Because when the next clouds appear on the horizon – and they will – it will be too late.
So let’s throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the harbour.
And catch the trade winds in our sails.

The Serious Fraud Office has today charged Barclays Plc and four individuals with conspiracy to commit fraud and the provision of unlawful financial assistance contrary to the Companies Act 1985.

The charges relate to Barclays Plc’s capital raising arrangements with Qatar Holding LLC and Challenger Universal Ltd, which took place in June and October 2008, and a US$3 billion loan facility made available to the State of Qatar acting through the Ministry of Economy and Finance in November 2008.

The SFO has brought the following charges:
Conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to the June 2008 capital raising, contrary to s1 and s2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and s1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 – Barclays Plc, John Varley, Roger Jenkins, Thomas Kalaris and Richard Boath.
Conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to the October 2008 capital raising, contrary to s1 and s2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and s1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 – Barclays Plc, John Varley and Roger Jenkins.
Unlawful financial assistance contrary to s151 of the Companies Act 1985 – Barclays Plc, John Varley and Roger Jenkins.
The defendants will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 14.00 on 3 July 2017.

The SFO announced the opening of its investigation in August 2012
John Silvester Varley (61), British, of London is the former Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Plc.

Roger Allan Jenkins (61), British, of Malibu, California, is the former Executive Chairman of Investment Banking and Investment Management in the Middle East and North Africa, Barclays Capital.

Thomas Llewellyn Kalaris (61), American, of London, is the former Chief Executive of Barclays Wealth and Investment Management (a division of Barclays Plc).

Richard William Boath (58), British, of London, is the former European Head of Financial Institutions Group.

The strict liability rule in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies.

The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will meet a number of his Gulf counterparts this week, as foreign ministers engage with allies on the tensions in the region.

Reflecting the UK’s close friendship with all of the Gulf states, this morning (Monday 12 June) he met the Qatari Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. Later this week, the Foreign Secretary will hold talks with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

In all meetings, the Foreign Secretary will urge his counterparts to take immediate steps to de-escalate the current tensions and find a rapid resolution through mediation. He will say that it is in the interests of the wider region as well as the UK that a swift solution is found. He also will express the UK’s concern that collective action by the other Gulf states is having an adverse impact on the lives of ordinary people in Qatar.

At this morning’s bilateral with Sheikh Mohammed, the Foreign Secretary urged Qatar to engage with neighbours on their concerns and do more to address support for extremist groups, building on the steps already taken.

After the meeting, the Foreign Secretary said:

I have been in touch with my counterparts across the region about the current tensions with Qatar. I have urged all sides to refrain from any further escalation and to engage in mediation efforts. In that regard I pay tribute to the work of the Amir of Kuwait.

In finding a resolution, I call on Qatar to take seriously their neighbours’ concerns. Qatar is a partner of the UK in the fight against terrorism but they urgently need to do more to address support for extremist groups, building on the steps they have already taken to tackle funding to those groups.

I am also concerned by some of the strong actions which Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain have taken against an important partner, and urge them to ease the blockade on Qatar. I call on all states to take immediate steps to de-escalate the situation and to find a rapid resolution through mediation.

Noting “credible” reports that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) fighters killed more than 231 civilians, including women and children, attempting to flee western Mosul over the past two weeks, the United Nations human rights arm underscored that attacks on civilians could amount to war crimes.

In a news release today, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – which has been documenting alleged human rights violations and abuses since the start of the military operations to retake Mosul – said that recent reports suggest a “significant escalation” in atrocities against civilians.

“Shooting children as they try to run to safety with their families – there are no words of condemnation strong enough for such despicable acts,” Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in the release.

“I call on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that those who are responsible for these horrors are held accountable and brought to justice in line with international human rights laws and standards.”

In the most gruesome incident, last Thursday (1 June), ISIL reportedly shot and killed at least 163 civilians, including women, men and children, next to a Pepsi factory in the in al-Shifa neighbourhood. Their bodies were reportedly left on the street for several days following the killings.

An undetermined number of civilians were also reported missing. Those killed and missing were fleeing clashes between ISIL and the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).

In the same neighbourhood, at least 27 people, including 14 women and five children were reportedly killed by ISIL on 26 May, and at least 41 others on 3 June.

Further in the release, referring to reports of civilian casualties due to recent air strikes in an ISIL-held area of western Mosul, OHCHR called on the ISF and their coalition partners to ensure that their operations comply fully with international humanitarian law and that all possible measures are taken to avoid the loss of civilian lives.

An air strike on 31 May in Zanjilly (an ISIL-held area of western Mosul) reportedly resulted between 50 and 80 civilian deaths, the news release added, noting that High Commissioner Zeid “urged Iraqi authorities to ensure that any allegations of human rights violations committed by the ISF are also fully investigated and those responsible held accountable.”

Good morning, everyone.　 I want to thank my friend and former colleague, Senator Shelley Moore Capito, for the introduction, and for welcoming me to West Virginia.

I’m grateful to our U.S. Attorneys here, Carol Casto and Betsy Jividen, for their hospitality and their leadership.　 I also want to thank DEA Assistant Administrator Lou Milione and Special Agent in Charge Karl Colder for being here today.

Finally, my thanks to all the law enforcement leaders, healthcare providers, educators and concerned citizens who are here for this important summit.

We’re here to discuss a deadly serious topic, the unprecedented wave of opioid and prescription drug abuse in America.　　

This crisis is hurting our whole country.　 It has hit this state especially hard, with West Virginia having the highest rate of overdose deaths in the country.　

People in Washington, D.C., use the word “crisis” to describe all kinds of problems.　 But this epidemic of opioid and prescription drug abuse is a true crisis.　 It is ravaging our communities, bringing crime and violence to our streets, and destroying the lives of too many Americans.

To combat this wave of drug abuse, we have to recognize how huge this problem is.　 And we must use all three tools that are essential to fighting drug abuse:　 law enforcement, treatment and prevention.　　

That’s what I want to talk about with you today.　　

Let’s start by looking at the scope of the problem.　 In 2015, more than 52,000 Americans died from a drug overdose.　 That means our country is losing the equivalent of a major league baseball stadium full of people every year to overdoses.　 That is simply unacceptable.　

Nearly two-thirds of those deaths were from opioids — that includes heroin as well as prescription drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine and morphine.　　

Every day, 91 Americans die from an opioid overdose.　 And each year, more Americans are dying from drug overdoses than from car crashes.　　

What’s terrifying is that these numbers may well understate the current problem, due to the recent rise of the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is vastly more potent than heroin.　 Drug traffickers are now mixing fentanyl with other drugs, resulting in a truly deadly concoction.

In just one year, largely as a result of fentanyl, overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids rose an astonishing 73 percent.　 Let me repeat that, 73 percent more overdose deaths.

But this plague not only brings death, but a whole parade of horribles.

The number of American babies born with a drug withdrawal symptom has quadrupled over the past 15 years.　 Here in West Virginia, the situation is so bad that in some hospitals, one out of every 10 babies is born dependent on opioids.　

These totally innocent infants scream inconsolably and suffer from tremors, vomiting and seizures.　 Even when the heroic efforts of doctors and nurses successfully shepherd these babies through withdrawal, they remain at risk for developmental and health problems throughout the rest of their lives.　 We have to do better, and we will.

This wave of opioid and heroin abuse also represents a crisis for law enforcement.　　

We know drugs and crime go hand-in-hand.　　

Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business.　 If you want to collect a drug debt, you can’t, and don’t, file a lawsuit in court.　 You collect it by the barrel of a gun.

The opioid and heroin epidemic is a contributor to the recent surge of violent crime in America.　　

Transnational drug cartels are working with street gangs to traffic heroin that is both cheaper and stronger than ever.　 As the market for this heroin expands, these gangs fight for territory and new customers — and innocent people get caught in the crossfire.　　　　　

Drug abusers miss work, and when they do work, they don’t work well.　 According to one estimate, American employers are losing $10 billion dollars a year from absenteeism and lost productivity due to opioid abuse.

Any way you look at it, this drug abuse epidemic is a multi-faced and massive crisis.　

It demands an all-hands-on-deck response — from government, law enforcement, health care providers, teachers, community leaders and parents.　 All of us must do our part to fight the scourge of drugs.　　　

As I mentioned before, we have three essential tools in this fight:　 enforcement, treatment and prevention.　 At the Department of Justice, our principal concern is law enforcement.　 Strong enforcement is crucial to effective drug abuse prevention and treatment.

Many people say, “We can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”　 But no one denies we need good prevention and treatment programs.　 What we must recognize is that strong law enforcement efforts are also essential.　　

Criminal enforcement is crucial to stopping the violent transnational cartels that smuggle drugs across our borders, and the thugs and gangs who bring this poison into our communities.

So what are we doing on the enforcement side of the equation?

First, under President Trump’s leadership, our nation is finally getting serious about securing our borders.　 The Department of Justice is doing its part.　 I have directed our federal prosecutors to make criminal immigration enforcement a priority, and to appoint a Border Security Coordinator in each of their offices.　 We are going after the transnational cartels and gangs like Sinaloa and MS-13 that enrich themselves by smuggling their poison and members across our porous southern border.

Second, our federal enforcement agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, are doing all they can to address the heroin and opioid crisis.

The DEA has developed what they call their 360 Strategy, and deployed it to six pilot cities, including here in Charleston.　 One part of the 360 Strategy is coordinated law enforcement actions against drug cartels and traffickers.　　

DEA’s field divisions work closely with task force partners in federal, state, and local law enforcement to identify, target and prosecute the biggest drug traffickers.　　

We are also targeting links between the cartels and drug trafficking networks across our country, including violent street gangs.

Another part of DEA’s 360 Strategy is diversion control.　 A lot of drug abuse happens because legitimate controlled substances are diverted from their lawful purposes.　　

So DEA is working with drug manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies and practitioners to prevent the non-medical abuse of prescription drugs.　　

We are also targeting and prosecuting dishonest medical providers who violate their oaths by running “pill mills” or otherwise diverting prescription drugs from legitimate uses.　 The DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squads, including one here in Charleston, do outstanding work on this front.

For example, last month Assistant U.S. Attorneys from this District tried a case against a doctor in Beckley on a 22-count indictment.　 Just two days into the trial, the doctor pleaded guilty to illegally distributing oxycodone.　　

He admitted that on just one day, he was paid over $20,000 dollars in cash to write 370 oxycodone prescriptions totaling over 22,000 pills — even though he didn’t see a single patient that day.　 He now faces up to 20 years in prison.

The goal of all our enforcement efforts is to take back our neighborhoods from drug traffickers and criminals, and give these communities breathing room.　　

That allows us to deploy the other tools we have to fight drug abuse:　 treatment and prevention.

Much good work is being done on this front.　 Last year when I was in the Senate, I supported the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bill enhanced prevention and treatment programs, and expanded the availability to first responders of the drug naloxone, which can reverse the effects of drug overdoses and save lives.

Many of you here today give generously of your time and talents to support drug treatment efforts.　 You are providing help and hope to people caught in the destructive trap of addiction, and our whole nation is grateful to you.

Still, while treatment programs are crucial, they address the drug abuse crisis on the back end — after people have gotten addicted, and communities and lives are devastated.　 That is why prevention is critical.　　

The best thing we can do is to keep people from ever abusing drugs in the first place.　

Our nation must once again send a clear message:　 illegal drug use is dangerous and deadly. 　We know for a fact it destroys lives — just look around you.

Education does work.　 We won’t end this epidemic in a week, or a month, or a year.　 This will be a huge undertaking, both here in West Virginia and across our great country.　 We must use all the tools we have: criminal enforcement, treatment and prevention programs.　　

And if we work together, we can and will win this fight against drug abuse.

Thank you all for being part of this fight, and for everything you do to make this state and our nation a better place.

Afghanistan is seeing a surge in returning refugees from Pakistan, Iran, and Europe. This is seriously aggravating the government’s capacity to absorb refugees in an already difficult environment of high unemployment and internally displaced people after decades of conflict.

While the Afghan government works to strengthen internal coordination and strategic planning, the international community also needs to play a vital role in providing financial and humanitarian support to avert a crisis and limit the damage to Afghanistan’s already challenging social and security conditions, and development prospects.

From trickle to flood
Aid officials estimate that more than 700,000 refugees returned to Afghanistan in 2016. Afghans—the second largest refugee group after Syrians, according to the UN’s refugee agency—are primarily returning from Pakistan, often not voluntarily. There are also returnees from Iran and to a lesser extent from Europe. Analysts project that up to 2½ million will follow over the next 18 months, which will add nearly 10 percent to Afghanistan’s population (see infographic below). To put this in perspective, this would be akin to 50 million migrants entering the European Union over a two-year period.

Many of the Afghans who lived abroad for decades are returning to a country facing conflict, insecurity, and widespread poverty. Given the difficult economic climate, prospects for returnees are generally poor. While there are also wealthier returnees, a typical returning refugee has a high risk of falling into poverty—they are typically laborers and workers in the informal economy with limited savings, or small business owners who are forced to liquidate their assets at fire sale prices.

Moreover, the prospects for absorbing returning refugees are further complicated by the existence of more than one million internally displaced people, the number of which significantly increased in 2016 as the insurgency intensified. Together with the large number of people who already live in poverty in Afghanistan, these problems will severely stretch the country’s capacity to cope.

Economics of reverse exodus
When a country receives a large influx of refugees over a short period, significant social and economic effects are likely, which are exacerbated in poorer countries like Afghanistan. On the positive side, returning refugees generally share the same culture as the local population, facilitating assimilation. In addition, increased spending, both by the private and public sectors, as well as increased output if the incoming refugees are able to find jobs, can contribute positively to economic growth both in the short and medium term.

However, increased demand for food, consumer goods, health services, and housing can put upward pressure on prices and rents, negatively affecting the poor. And the increased supply of labor is likely to raise the already very high unemployment rate and put downward pressure on wages. For instance, in the case of Lebanon—although there is little reliable data—surveys suggest that the inflow of refugees has had a significant impact on wages, particularly in the low-skill and youth sectors, where workers are most vulnerable. Equally important, the scale of the inflow has placed an undue burden on Lebanon’s already-stretched public services and infrastructure.

In Afghanistan, this raises the prospect of longer-term effects on economic and social development. For example, if basic services such as education and health cannot keep up with increased demand, some human capital—the stock of productive skills, talents, and health of the labor force—could be lost.

Robust strategy and coordination needed
The government has put in place policies for returnees and internally displaced people, that guides the implementation of the authorities’ response. Going forward, it will be critical that this strategy is implemented effectively to deal with increasing pressures on already stretched public services. These efforts should focus on the provision of basic services to meet the immediate survival needs of the returnees, cash transfers to sustain a basic living standard, assistance with job and housing search, all with a focus on urban areas, the location of choice for many refugees.

For example, Afghans with the appropriate documents were provided with a cash grant of $400 per person when they returned to Afghanistan. But, such grants have been suspended as Pakistan has extended the refugees’ stay until March 2017. Furthermore, the most vulnerable undocumented returnee families receive a one-month package of support at the border and a transportation cash grant. Internally displaced families also receive one-month support assistance.

Despite these efforts, undocumented refugees are particularly vulnerable with limited access to basic services. Given Afghanistan’s tight budgetary constraints, the international community—including bilateral and multilateral donors and aid agencies—can address these needs with financial support. To this end, the UN has appealed for $240 million in humanitarian assistance for the returning refugees (as part of the broader 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan for Afghanistan). The international community needs to rise to this challenge.

The IMF is also helping. The Fund has often provided economic policy advice and technical assistance to member countries dealing with large-scale refugee and migration issues . With regard to Afghanistan, the IMF is supporting the government’s reform program through a concessional financing arrangement, the Extended Credit Facility, approved in July 2016. This arrangement provides Afghanistan with access to $45 million over three years, and offers highly concessional lending terms, that is, very low interest rates and long maturity.

The focus is on helping the government to maintain macroeconomic stability through these difficult times, and to lay the foundation for stronger and more inclusive private sector led growth, including by supporting the government’s efforts to strengthen government institutions, improve public service delivery, and support job creation.

SAN RAMON, Calif. — A Canadian court has ruled that the fraudulent Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation cannot be enforced against Chevron Canada Limited, an indirect subsidiary. The court found that Chevron Canada Limited is a separate entity from Chevron Corporation, not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit and not a debtor to the judgment. In its decision, the court stated, “Chevron [Corporation] and Chevron Canada are separate legal entities with separate rights and obligations.” As a result, the court found that “plaintiffs’ claim cannot succeed against Chevron Canada” and dismissed the claim against it.

In a related ruling, the court also rejected an attempt by the plaintiffs to prohibit Chevron Corporation from using the extensive evidence of fraud committed by the plaintiffs as part of the company’s defense against the recognition and enforcement action in Canada.

“Once again, the plaintiffs’ attempts to enforce their fraudulent judgment have been rebuked,” said R. Hewitt Pate, vice president and general counsel, Chevron Corporation. “We are confident that any jurisdiction that examines the facts of this case and the misconduct committed by the plaintiffs will find the Ecuadorian judgment illegitimate and unenforceable.”

In its decision, the Canadian court referenced the 2014 U.S. federal court decision, which found that a judgment issued against Chevron Corporation by a court in Ecuador was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, including extortion, money laundering, wire fraud, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The U.S. court also prohibited the Ecuadorian judgment from being enforced in the United States. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2016, which stated that Donziger and his team engaged in a “parade of corrupt actions…including coercion, fraud and bribery.”

Because Chevron Corporation has no assets in Ecuador, the plaintiffs, led by American attorney Steven Donziger, are attempting to enforce the fraudulent judgment in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Argentina and Brazil. In Canada, Donziger and his team were seeking to enforce the judgment against both Chevron Corporation, which has no assets in Canada, and Chevron Canada Limited, which is not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit. Today’s decision prevents them from pursuing Chevron Canada Limited’s assets.

The Ecuadorian judgment is being questioned in other jurisdictions as well. In 2015, Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office issued a recommendation to the country’s Superior Court of Justice that the judgment not be recognized for enforcement, finding that it was “issued irregularly, especially under uncontested acts of corruption” and that recognizing it would violate Brazilian and “international public order.” Similarly, in 2016, Argentina’s public prosecutor’s office recommended that its National Court reject the effort to recognize the Ecuadorian judgment in that country.

Chevron Corporation is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies. Through its subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide, the company is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. Chevron explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and lubricants; manufactures and sells petrochemicals and additives; generates power; and develops and deploys technologies that enhance business value in every aspect of the company’s operations. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.

Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo today announced that Deutsche Bank AG and its New York branch will pay a $425 million fine and hire an independent monitor as part of a consent order entered into with the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) for violations of New York anti-money laundering laws involving a “mirror trading” scheme among the bank’s Moscow, London and New York offices that laundered $10 billion out of Russia. DFS’s investigation found that the bank missed numerous opportunities to detect, investigate and stop the scheme due to extensive compliance failures, allowing the scheme to continue for years. DFS worked closely on the investigation with the Financial Conduct Authority.

“In today’s interconnected financial network, global financial institutions must be ever vigilant in the war against money laundering and other activities that can contribute to cybercrime and international terrorism,” Superintendent Vullo said. “This Russian mirror-trading scheme occurred while the bank was on clear notice of serious and widespread compliance issues dating back a decade. The offsetting trades here lacked economic purpose and could have been used to facilitate money laundering or enable other illicit conduct, and today’s action sends a clear message that DFS will not tolerate such conduct. DFS is pleased to work with the Financial Conduct Authority on this matter. We also appreciate the bank’s forthrightness and timeliness in conducting its internal review and cooperation in our investigation.”

In addition to today’s action, Superintendent Vullo has led DFS enforcement actions for violations of AML laws against Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., which was fined $235 million; Agricultural Bank of China, which was fined $215 million; and Mega Bank of Taiwan, which was fined $185 million.

Today’s action further highlights the importance of DFS’s new risk-based anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulation, which became effective on January 1, 2017. DFS’s regulation requires regulated institutions to maintain programs to monitor and filter transactions for potential BSA/AML violations and prevent transactions with sanctioned entities. It also requires regulated institutions to submit an annual board resolution or senior officer compliance finding confirming the steps taken to ascertain compliance with the regulation. In addition, DFS has proposed a first-in-the-nation cybersecurity regulation, which will be effective March 1, 2017, requiring DFS regulated institutions to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York’s financial services industry.

DFS found that Deutsche Bank and several of its senior managers missed key opportunities to detect, intercept and investigate a long-running mirror-trading scheme facilitated by its Moscow branch and involving New York and London branches. Operating through the equities desk at Deutsche Bank’s Moscow branch, certain companies that were clients of the Moscow equities desk issued orders to purchase Russian blue chip stocks, always paying in rubles. Shortly thereafter, sometimes on the same day, a related counterparty would sell the identical Russian blue chip stock in the same quantity and at the same price through Deutsche Bank’s London branch. The counterparties involved were always closely related, often linked by common beneficial owners, management or agents. The trades were routinely cleared through the bank’s Deutsche Bank Trust Company of the Americas (DBTCA) unit. The selling counterparty was typically registered in an offshore territory and would be paid for its shares in U.S. dollars. At least 12 entities were involved, and none of the trades demonstrated any legitimate economic rationale.

DFS’s investigation uncovered violations that included the following:

The bank has conducted its banking business in an unsafe and unsound manner, failing to maintain an effective and compliant anti-money laundering program. The bank failed to maintain and make available true and accurate books, accounts and records reflecting all transactions and actions.
When contacted by a European financial institution about contradictory information about one of the companies involved in the trading scheme, a senior compliance employee who supervised special investigations at the DBTCA never responded. In addition, the senior compliance employee did not take any steps to investigate the basis for the European Bank’s inquiry, later explaining that the employee had “too many jobs” and “had to deal with many things and had to prioritize.”
The bank’s Know Your Customer (KYC) processes were weak, functioning merely as a checklist with employees mechanically focused on ensuring documentation was collected, rather than shining a critical light on information provided by potential customers. Virtually all of the KYC files for the companies involved in the scheme were insufficient, and a Moscow employee who oversaw the illicit mirror trading was also actively involved in the onboarding and KYC documentation of companies involved in the scheme. In addition, certain staff members experienced hostility and threats on several occasions when it appeared they had not moved quickly enough to facilitate transactions.
The bank failed to accurately rate its country and client risks for money laundering throughout the relevant time period and lacked a global policy benchmarking its risk appetite, resulting in material inconsistencies and no methodology for updating the ratings. Deutsche Bank was not in line with peer banks, which rated Russia as high risk well before Deutsche Bank did in late 2014.
The bank’s anti-financial crime, AML and compliance units were ineffective and understaffed. A senior compliance staffer repeatedly stated that he had to “beg, borrow, and steal” to receive appropriate resources, leaving existing personnel scrambling to perform multiple roles. At one point, an attorney who lacked any compliance background served as the Moscow branch’s head of compliance, head of legal, and as its AML Officer – all at the same time.
Within 60 days of the consent order, the bank must engage an independent monitor, approved by DFS, to conduct a comprehensive review of the bank’s existing BSA/AML compliance programs, policies and procedures that pertain to or affect activities conducted by or through its DBTCA subsidiary and the New York branch.

Within 30 days of the selection of the independent monitor, the bank, DBTCA and the New York branch must submit to DFS for approval an engagement letter than provides for the independent monitor to review and report on, among other things:

The elements of the bank’s corporate governance that contributed to or facilitated the improper conduct and permitted it to go on;
Relevant changes or reforms to corporate governance that the bank has made since the time of the improper conduct and whether those changes or reforms are likely to significantly enhance the bank’s BSA/AML compliance going forward; and
The thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the bank’s current global BSA/AML compliance programs.
In addition, the bank must submit a written action plan to improve and enhance its current global BSA/AML compliance programs that pertain to or affect activities conducted by or through DBTCA and the New York Branch.

20 January 2017 – At least 45,000 people – mostly women and children – have arrived in Senegal from The Gambia after former President Yahya Jammeh’s decided to not step down, United Nations agencies today said warning that more people may leave if the political situation is not resolved peacefully.

“Over 75 per cent of arrivals are children, accompanied mainly by women. They are staying with family members, host families or in hotels. Some families are hosting up to 40 to 50 people and will soon need support as they may quickly run out of resources,” said Babar Baloch, spokesperson for the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

Briefing journalists in Geneva, Mr. Baloch said UNHCR and humanitarian partners are working to support authorities in Senegal, which surrounds The Gambia. The support includes distribution of food and relief items ranging from mattresses to sheets and soap.

As the situation continues, UN officials are voicing particular concern about children, and their access to health care, water, sanitation and education.

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is setting up support for about 40,000 people for three months, and is locating host communities in the border areas to provide shelter to families and potentially provide temporary schooling.

The agency is also working with partners to supply water and sanitation services to the most affected areas on the border.

“Our teams in Senegal and The Gambia are on standby to ensure that children’s needs are at the centre of any response as the situation evolves,” said Marie-Pierre Poirier, UNICEF’s Regional Director for West and Central Africa.

The UN agencies have separately voiced concern about the long-term impact of the crisis, if it is not resolved peacefully. Some families are hosting up to 50 people and will soon need support as they may run out of resources, Ms. Baloch said.

In addition to people from The Gambia fleeing, the country had hosted some 8,000 refugees who are “anxious and worried” about the political situation, the spokesperson noted.

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy joined U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch at a press conference at the U.S. Department of Justice to announce that Volkswagen AG (VW) has agreed to plead guilty to three criminal felony counts, and pay a $2.8 billion criminal penalty, as a result of the company’s long-running scheme to sell approximately 590,000 diesel vehicles in the U.S. by using a defeat device to cheat on emissions tests mandated by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and by lying and obstructing justice to further the scheme.

In separate civil resolutions of environmental, customs, and financial claims, VW has agreed to pay $1.5 billion. This includes EPA’s claim for civil penalties against Volkswagen in connection with Volkswagen’s importation and sale of these vehicles, as well as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims for customs fraud. In addition, the EPA agreement requires injunctive relief to prevent future violations. The agreements also resolve alleged violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act.

“When Volkswagen broke the law, EPA stepped in to hold them accountable and address the pollution they caused,” said EPA Administrator McCarthy. “EPA’s fundamental and indispensable role becomes all too clear when companies evade laws that protect our health. The American public depends on a strong and active EPA to deliver clean air protections, and that is exactly what we have done.”

“Volkswagen’s attempts to dodge emissions standards and import falsely certified vehicles into the country represent an egregious violation of our nation’s environmental, consumer protection, and financial laws,” said Attorney General Lynch. “Today’s actions reflect the Justice Department’s steadfast commitment to defending consumers, protecting our environment and our financial system, and holding individuals and companies accountable for corporate wrongdoing. In the days ahead, we will continue to examine Volkswagen’s attempts to mislead consumers and deceive the government. And we will continue to pursue the individuals responsible for orchestrating this damaging conspiracy.”

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit to require Google Inc. to provide requested compensation data and documents for the multinational company’s Mountain View headquarters as part of a routine compliance evaluation.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs asked the technology giant to submit information in September 2015 about its equal opportunity program and to provide supporting documents as part of a scheduled compliance review. As a federal contractor, Google must agree to permit the federal government to inspect and copy records and information relevant to its compliance with the equal employment laws administered by OFCCP.

Filed with the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, the lawsuit seeks to enforce Google’s obligations to provide OFCCP with compensation data, documents and requested information to complete its audit. Federal contractors are scheduled for routine audits through a neutral selection process. The lawsuit seeks an order requiring Google to cooperate fully with the scheduled compliance review and to meet the requirements of all laws enforced by the agency. If the company fails to comply, the department asks the court to cancel all of Google’s current government contracts and to debar the company from entering into future contracts.      
  
“Like other federal contractors, Google has a legal obligation to provide relevant information requested in the course of a routine compliance evaluation,” said OFCCP Acting Director Thomas M. Dowd. “Despite many opportunities to produce this information voluntarily, Google has refused to do so. We filed this lawsuit so we can obtain the information we need to complete our evaluation.” 

OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These laws, as amended, make it illegal for contractors and subcontractors doing business with the federal government to discriminate in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. In addition, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they have inquired about, discussed or disclosed their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations. For more information, please call OFCCP’s toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

General Cable Corporation, a Kentucky-based manufacturer and distributor of cable and wire, entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay a $20 million penalty, reflecting a 50 percent reduction off the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range, to resolve the government’s investigation into improper payments to government officials in Angola, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Thailand to corruptly gain business in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Criminal Division and Assistant Director Stephen Richardson of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.

“General Cable paid bribes to officials in multiple countries in a scheme that involved a high-level executive of the company and resulted in profits of more than $50 million worldwide,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “But General Cable also voluntarily self-disclosed this misconduct to the government, fully cooperated and remediated. This resolution demonstrates the very real upside to coming in and cooperating with federal prosecutors and investigators. It also reflects our ongoing commitment to transparency.”

“In 2015, International Corruption Squads across the country were formed to address the national and international implications of foreign corruption,” said Assistant Director Richardson. “This settlement is an example of the exceptional efforts of those dedicated squads and investigators. The FBI looks forward to continuing to work with our law enforcement partners to address corruption, no matter how big or small.”

According to General Cable’s admissions, some parent-level and subsidiary-level employees, including executives, knew that some of its foreign subsidiaries used third-party agents and distributors to make corrupt payments to foreign officials in order to obtain and retain business. In one case the foreign subsidiary made corrupt payments directly to foreign officials. The corrupt conduct began in 2002. In 2011, when employees from a General Cable subsidiary expressed concerns to regional and parent-level executives that commission payments were being used for improper purposes, including potentially bribery, General Cable nevertheless failed to implement and maintain a system of internal accounting controls designed to detect and prevent such corruption and otherwise illegal payments.

According to admissions by General Cable made in connection with the resolution, these payments were discussed openly in email messages. For example, in June 2012, a sales agent in Bangladesh emailed an executive and other employees of General Cable’s subsidiary in Thailand and said that a portion of the money that the Thailand subsidiary paid the sales agent would “be shared by decision makers in [the] customer, concerned higher ups in [the] Ministry[,] and some top executives at [the] bidder.” In May 2013, the executive, who had become an executive at General Cable in December 2012, approved a payment to the Bangladeshi sales agent. In addition, in 2011, the same executive, who was at that time working at General Cable’s Thailand subsidiary, informed a General Cable executive that payments to a distributor in Thailand were being used for corrupt purposes. General Cable did not investigate those payments, which continued to be made.

Between 2002 and 2013, General Cable subsidiaries paid approximately $13 million to third-party agents and distributors, a portion of which was used to make unlawful payments to obtain business, ultimately netting the company approximately $51 million in profits.

General Cable entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $20,469,694.80 to resolve the matter. As part of the agreement, General Cable has agreed to continue to cooperate with the department in any ongoing investigations and prosecutions relating to the conduct, including of individuals, to enhance its compliance program and to report to the department on the implementation of its enhanced compliance program.

The department reached this resolution based on a number of factors, including that General Cable voluntarily and timely disclosed the conduct at issue, fully cooperated in the investigation and fully remediated. General Cable’s cooperation included conducting a thorough internal investigation; making regular factual presentations and proactively providing updates to the Fraud Section; voluntarily making foreign-based employees available for interviews in the United States; producing documents, including translations, to the Fraud Section from foreign countries in ways that did not implicate foreign data privacy laws; collecting, analyzing and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Fraud Section; identifying, investigating and disclosing conduct to the Fraud Section that was outside the scope of its initial voluntary self-disclosure; and, by the conclusion of the investigation, providing to the Fraud Section all relevant facts known to it, including information about individuals and third parties involved in the misconduct. General Cable also took extensive remedial measures, including taking employment action against 13 employees who participated in the misconduct, resulting in their departure from the company, and terminating its relationships with 47 third-party agents and distributors who participated in the misconduct. Based on these actions and other considerations, the company received a non-prosecution agreement and an aggregate discount of 50 percent off of the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range.

In related proceedings, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a cease and desist order against General Cable, whereby General Cable agreed to pay approximately $55 million in disgorgement to the SEC, including prejudgment interest. Thus, the combined penalties and disgorgement paid by General Cable is approximately $75.75 million. The Fraud Section appreciates the cooperation and assistance provided by the SEC in this matter.

The FBI’s International Corruption Squad in Washington, D.C., investigated the case. The department appreciates the cooperation and assistance provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Kentucky in this matter. Trial Attorneys Christopher Cestaro and Lorinda Laryea of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section prosecuted the case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided substantial assistance in this matter.

On his first day at the helm of the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres today pledged to make 2017 a year for peace.

“On this New Year’s Day, I ask all of you to join me in making one shared New Year’s resolution: Let us resolve to put peace first,” said Mr. Guterres in an appeal for peace.

He said one question weighs heavy on his heart. “That is: how can we help the millions of people caught up in conflict, suffering massively in wars with no end in sight?”

“Peace must be our goal and our guide,” he said, urging all citizens, governments and leaders to strive to overcome differences.

“I appeal to you all to join me in committing to peace, today and every day. Let us make 2017 a year for peace,” he added.

Having been formally appointed by the UN General Assembly on 13 October 2016, Mr. Guterres, aged 67, will serve for a five-year period from today to 31 December 2021. He was Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015.

PHILADELPHIA, – The firm of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP represents the families of three toddlers who were killed by IKEA furniture tip-overs. Curren Collas, age 2, was crushed to death by the tip-over of a six-drawer MALM dresser in the bedroom of his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Camden Ellis was the victim of the tip-over of a three-drawer MALM dresser in the bedroom of his home in Snohomish, Washington. Despite intensive efforts to save him, life support was discontinued on June 15, 2014, a few days after Camden’s second birthday. Ted McGee was asphyxiated when a six-drawer MALM dresser toppled over on him in his bedroom in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Like the other boys, Ted was just 2 years of age.

The families of Curren, Camden and Ted retained Alan M. Feldman, Esquire of the Feldman Shepherd firm. Together with his partners Daniel J. Mann and Edward S. Goldis, lawsuits were commenced against IKEA – the manufacturer of the MALM dressers – asserting that the unsafe design of the dressers rendered them inherently unstable and easily tipped over. The lawsuits further contended that IKEA had consistently refused to meet voluntary national safety standards for stability of chests and dressers, which other American furniture companies had embraced. The evidence developed in the cases showed that IKEA was aware of other deaths and injuries arising from furniture tip-overs that failed to meet minimum safety standards, but nevertheless refused to re-design its furniture products to be more stable and tip-resistant. It was not until after the death of Ted McGee that IKEA finally agreed to stop the sale of its defective furniture and recall the MALM and other models of chests and dressers which failed to meet minimum standards for safety and stability. The recall, affecting 29 million furniture units, was issued on June 28, 2016.

Following a two-day mediation before retired Federal Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh of JAMS, a nationally recognized mediator for complex civil cases, the parties announced an agreement today to settle all three wrongful death claims for the sum of $50 million, to be evenly divided among the three families. In addition, as part of the settlement IKEA has further agreed as follows:

IKEA will donate $50,000 to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in memory of Curren Collas, $50,000 to a children’s hospital in Washington State in memory of Camden Ellis, and $50,000 to a children’s hospital in Minnesota in memory of Ted McGee.
IKEA will donate $100,000 to Shane’s Foundation NFP, an organization devoted to children’s safety with a focus on furniture tip-over prevention and education.
IKEA agrees to only sell chests and dressers in the United States that meet or exceed the performance requirements of ASTM F2057-14, the national voluntary safety standard for clothing storage units.
IKEA will increase funding for its “Secure It” program to raise awareness of the risk of tip-overs, to include national television advertisements, internet and digital communications and in-store warnings.
Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP has recovered some of the largest verdicts and settlements in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and several other states across the country. The firm represents plaintiffs in significant personal injury and complex civil litigation including civil rights, medical malpractice, birth injury, motor vehicle accidents, defective products, unsafe workplaces, and insurer misconduct claims.

The United States Department of Justice today filed a civil complaint in the Eastern District of New York against Barclays Bank PLC and several of its United States affiliates (together, Barclays), alleging that Barclays engaged in a fraudulent scheme to sell residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) supported by defective and misrepresented mortgage loans. As alleged in the complaint, from 2005 to 2007, Barclays personnel repeatedly misrepresented the characteristics of the loans backing securities they sold to investors throughout the world, who incurred billions of dollars in losses as a result of the fraudulent scheme. The suit also names as defendants two former Barclays executives: Paul K. Menefee, of Austin, Texas, who served as Barclays’ head banker on its subprime RMBS securitizations, and John T. Carroll, of Port Washington, New York, who served as Barclays’ head trader for subprime loan acquisitions.

The detailed allegations in the complaint describe Barclays’, Menefee’s, and Carroll’s misconduct in connection with RMBS securitizations Barclays underwrote between 2005 and 2007. The complaint alleges violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), based on mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and other misconduct. FIRREA authorizes the Attorney General to seek civil penalties up to the amount of the gain to the violator or the losses suffered by persons other than the violator.

“Financial institutions like Barclays occupy a position of vital public trust,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “Ordinary Americans depend on their assurances of transparency and legitimacy, and entrust these banks with their valuable savings. As alleged in this complaint, Barclays jeopardized billions of dollars of wealth through practices that were plainly irresponsible and dishonest. With this filing, we are sending a clear message that the Department of Justice will not tolerate the defrauding of investors and the American people.”

“The widespread fraud that investment banks like Barclays committed in the packaging and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities injured tens of thousands of investors and significantly contributed to the Financial Crisis of 2008,” said Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer. “Millions of homeowners were left with homes they could not afford, leaving entire neighborhoods devastated. The government’s complaint alleges that Barclays fraudulently sold investors RMBS full of mortgages it knew were likely to fail, all while telling investors that the mortgages backing the securities were sound. Today’s complaint makes clear that the Department of Justice will continue to hold financial institutions, and the individuals who work for them, fully accountable for harming investors and the American public.”

“What is now often referred to as the ‘Great Recession’ started with the bursting of the housing bubble, followed by an enormous drop in U.S. home values, hundreds of bank failures, significant turbulence in financial markets, trillions of dollars of losses to investors, and, most devastatingly, a huge wave of home foreclosures,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “All of these injuries, and more, were caused at least in part by the type of misconduct alleged in this lawsuit. We will continue holding both banks and their executives responsible for their role in contributing to this unfortunate period in our history.”

“Investors who bought RMBS from Barclays, and who suffered catastrophic losses as a result, included individuals and institutions that form the backbone of our community,” said Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “Credit unions, pension plans, charitable and religious organizations, university endowments, and financial institutions, among others, including many in this District, invested tens of billions of dollars in securities that Barclays repeatedly assured them were safe investments. Instead of ensuring that their representations to investors were accurate and transparent, so that investors could make properly informed investment decisions, Barclays and its employees repeatedly misled investors and kept to themselves critical information about the loans in the deals. Time and again, they knowingly chose to put investors at risk of harm in pursuit of additional profits. Barclays must be held accountable for its rampant fraud in marketing and selling these RMBS, and so must the individuals at the heart of the fraudulent scheme.”

“As the complaint alleges, Barclays knowingly sold investors RMBS backed by loans it knew were made to borrowers who were not creditworthy and which were supported by house appraisals it knew were inflated,” said Steven Perez, Special Agent in Charge at the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of the Inspector General (FHFA-OIG). “The massive losses caused by the fraudulent behavior alleged in the complaint deeply affected not only banks and other financial institutions, including Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, but also the American taxpayer. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold those who have engaged in misconduct fully accountable for their actions.”

As alleged in the complaint, from 2005 through 2007, Barclays, through Menefee and Carroll among others, fraudulently sold tens of billions of dollars of RMBS, and repeatedly misled investors about the quality of the mortgages backing those deals. The alleged scheme involved no fewer than 36 RMBS deals, securitizing over $31 billion worth of subprime and Alt-A mortgage loans. The complaint alleges that in publicly-filed offering documents and in direct communications with investors and rating agencies, Barclays systematically and intentionally misrepresented key characteristics of the loans it included in these RMBS deals.

The United States alleges that in selling certificates in these deals, Barclays assured investors that it had excluded “unacceptable” loans and that the loans in the deals had been underwritten under loan origination guidelines intended to ensure the borrowers’ ability to pay. The complaint alleges Barclays represented to investors that property appraisals were reliable and that the properties were worth enough to avoid loss in the event of default. Barclays told investors that it conducted “robust,” “thorough,” and “comprehensive” due diligence on the loan pools it securitized, and that it did not securitize non-compliant, delinquent, or “scratch and dent” loans.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were false. In reality, the complaint alleges, Barclays’ due diligence on these RMBS deals was a sham. When it did not skip due diligence altogether, Barclays routinely ignored or kept to itself due diligence results that showed the bank that a considerable percentage of the loans in the deals did not conform to the representations it made to investors. According to the complaint, Barclays sought to maximize the number of loans it securitized, regardless of how poor the quality of the loans.

The United States alleges that Barclays securitized thousands of loans (worth billions of dollars) that its due diligence vendors graded as materially defective, as well as hundreds more that were delinquent or in default at the time of securitization. Its vendors told it that large percentages of the loans they reviewed violated the lenders’ underwriting guidelines or the relevant law, or involved borrowers who lacked the ability to repay. Its vendors also told Barclays that the appraised values of significant percentages of the mortgaged properties were overstated and that thousands of those properties were underwater when they were securitized – meaning the properties were worth less than the loans on the properties. The complaint alleges that Barclays employees, including Menefee and Carroll, ignored or knowingly overrode these findings, waiving thousands of bad loans into the deals. On a number of occasions, Barclays even recycled into its deals defective loans it had kicked out of previous deals, without conducting any additional due diligence on the loans.

In general, the borrowers whose loans backed these deals were significantly less creditworthy than Barclays represented, and these loans defaulted at exceptionally high rates early in the life of the deals. In addition, as alleged in the complaint, mortgaged properties were systematically worth less than what Barclays represented to investors. The deals were dismal failures, as more than half of the underlying residential mortgages defaulted, resulting in billions of dollars in losses to investors. Even investors in AAA-rated tranches of these securities, which were rated as safe as investments in U.S. Treasury bonds, suffered or will suffer significant losses.

Menefee and Carroll were central to Barclays’ allegedly fraudulent scheme. Menefee was the head banker in charge of due diligence and securitization on all of Barclays’ subprime deals, and he decided which loans would be subject to due diligence, as well as which loans would be removed from loan pool purchases. Carroll was the head trader on all of Barclays’ principal subprime deals, and he determined which subprime loan pools Barclays would bid on, at what price, and on what terms. As alleged in the complaint, both men made representations about the characteristics of the loans backing the securities that they knew were false when they made them.

In charge of the case for the government are F. Franklin Amanat, Senior Counsel at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, along with Katharine E.G. Brooker, Evan P. Lestelle, and Josephine M. Vella, all Assistant United States Attorneys in Brooklyn.

Deutsche Bank AG (XETRA: DBKGn.DE / NYSE: DB) has reached a settlement in principle with the Department of Justice in the United States (“DoJ”) regarding civil claims that the DoJ considered in connection with the bank’s issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and related securitization activities between 2005 and 2007. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of US dollar 3.1 billion and to provide US dollar 4.1 billion in consumer relief in the United States. The consumer relief is expected to be primarily in the form of loan modifications and other assistance to homeowners and borrowers, and other similar initiatives to be determined, and delivered over a period of at least five years.

The settlement is subject to the negotiation of definitive documentation, and there can be no assurance that the U.S. Department of Justice and the bank will agree on the final documentation.
In connection with the resolution of this matter, Deutsche Bank expects to record pre-tax charges of approximately US dollar 1.17 billion in the financial results for the fourth quarter as a consequence of the civil monetary penalty. The financial consequences, if any, of the consumer relief are subject to the final terms of the settlement, and are not currently expected to have a material impact on 2016 financial results. The bank will publish its preliminary results for the 2016 financial year as scheduled on February 2, 2017.
About Deutsche Bank

Deutsche Bank provides commercial and investment banking, retail banking, transaction banking and asset and wealth management products and services to corporations, governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized businesses, and private individuals. Deutsche Bank is Germany’s leading bank, with a strong position in Europe and a significant presence in the Americas and Asia Pacific.

Deutsche Bank AG (XETRA: DBKGn.DE / NYSE: DB) confirms that it has commenced negotiations with the Department of Justice in the United States (“DoJ”) with a view to seeking to settle civil claims that the DoJ may consider in connection with the bank’s issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and related securitization activities between 2005 and 2007.

The bank confirms market speculation of an opening position by the DoJ of USD 14 billion and that the DoJ has invited the bank as the next step to submit a counter proposal.

Deutsche Bank has no intent to settle these potential civil claims anywhere near the number cited. The negotiations are only just beginning. The bank expects that they will lead to an outcome similar to those of peer banks which have settled at materially lower amounts.

About Deutsche Bank
Deutsche Bank provides commercial and investment banking, retail banking, transaction banking and asset and wealth management products and services to corporations, governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized businesses, and private individuals. Deutsche Bank is Germany’s leading bank, with a strong position in Europe and a significant presence in the Americas and Asia Pacific.

WASHINGTON— The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today assessed a $35 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and ordered the bank to make restitution to customers who were harmed by the bank’s unsafe or unsound sales practices.

The sales practices the OCC found to be unsafe or unsound included the unauthorized opening of deposit or credit card accounts and the transfer of funds from authorized, existing accounts to unauthorized accounts. The $35 million civil money penalty reflects a number of factors, including the bank’s failure to develop and implement an effective enterprise risk management program to detect and prevent the unsafe or unsound sales practices, and the scope and duration of the practices. The penalty will be paid to the U.S. Treasury.

Customers eligible for restitution include those who were financially harmed as a result of the unsafe or unsound sales practices. The OCC order also requires the bank to take corrective action to establish an enterprise-wide sales practices risk management and oversight program to detect and prevent unsafe or unsound sales practices.

The OCC is taking this action in coordination with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Los Angeles City Attorney. Restitution payments made by the bank to customers pursuant to the OCC’s order will also satisfy identical obligations required by the CFPB and the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Wells Fargo Issues Statement on Agreements Related to Sales Practices:

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC), reached agreements with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, regarding allegations that some of its retail customers received products and services they did not request.

The amount of the settlements, which Wells Fargo had fully accrued for at June 30, 2016, totaled $185 million, plus $5 million in customer remediation.

The company issued the following statement related to today’s news:

“Wells Fargo reached these agreements consistent with our commitment to customers and in the interest of putting this matter behind us. Wells Fargo is committed to putting our customers’ interests first 100 percent of the time, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.

Our commitment to addressing the concerns covered by these agreements has included:
An extensive review by a third party consulting firm going back into 2011, which we completed prior to these settlements. The review included consumer and small business retail banking deposit accounts and unsecured credit cards opened during the period reviewed.
As a result of this review, $2.6 million has been refunded to customers for any fees associated with products customers received that they may not have requested. Accounts refunded represented a fraction of one percent of the accounts reviewed, and refunds averaged $25.
Disciplinary actions, including terminations of managers and team members who acted counter to our values.
Investments in enhanced team-member training and monitoring and controls.
Strengthened performance measures that are tied to customer satisfaction, loyalty and ethics.
Sending customers a confirming email within one hour of opening any deposit account, and sending an application acknowledgement and decision status letter after submitting an application for a credit card.”
In addition, as noted in a message emailed to all Wells Fargo team members today, the company said “Our entire culture is centered on doing what is right for our customers. However, at Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility, and we take action. Today’s agreements are consistent with these beliefs.” Customers can visit wellsfargo.com/commitment to view their accounts, and for information about this announcement.

About Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is a diversified, community-based financial services company with $1.9 trillion in assets. Founded in 1852 and headquartered in San Francisco, Wells Fargo provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through more than 8,600 locations, 13,000 ATMs, the internet (wellsfargo.com) and mobile banking, and has offices in 36 countries and territories to support customers who conduct business in the global economy. With approximately 268,000 team members, Wells Fargo serves one in three households in the United States. Wells Fargo & Company was ranked No. 27 on Fortune’s 2016 rankings of America’s largest corporations. Wells Fargo’s vision is to satisfy our customers’ financial needs and help them succeed financially. Wells Fargo perspectives are also available at Wells Fargo Blogs and Wells Fargo Stories.