SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)11/6/2004 10:38:03 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
The Corporate Mafia How excess greed turned a number of seemingly respectable bankers and businessmen into nothing more than a band of Wall Street mobsters—and your nest egg into worthless fugazis.

Maxim, May 2003

By Ian Mount

Stop whining. You’re not the only guy who’s seen his 401k statement tank in two short years. During the Internet boom and bust between March 2000 and July 2002, Americans were fleeced of a staggering $7 trillion, or 25 grand each. That means instead of golfing at 65, we’ll all be filing TPS reports for an extra three years on average.

“Main Street America has been swindled by Wall Street hucksters in pinstriped suits,” Christopher Bebel, former Securities and Exchange Commission prosecutor and an attorney with Shepherd, Smith & Bebel. “It was well known on Wall Street that analysts were issuing opinions to help bring in lucrative investment business. The SEC knew this. The brokers knew this. But the average person didn’t know this.”

Let’s follow the dirty-money trail. Wall Street’s La Cosa Nostra–esque scam was remarkably intricate. As with any organized crime syndicate, there was an elaborate hierarchy of fealty at work, which tied street-corner soldiers (brokers) and wiseguys (I-bankers) to the consiglieres (CFOs) and dapper dons (CEOs). As for the Feds, in this case regulatory agencies like the SEC, “As long as share prices were going up, no one wanted to know what was going on,” says Michael Wolff, media columnist and author of Burn Rate. “Nobody in the middle of a hot market wants to say the market shouldn’t be hot. No one wanted to step in and be the downer.” Meet the members of the Corporate Mafia, the cons who made investors an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Stockbrokers
THE SOLDIERS
The lowdown: These are the bottom feeders of the Wall Street food chain. On celluloid their jobs are portrayed as all glam and glitz. But on the Street a lot of brokers are looked upon as two-bit hustlers. Crammed into cubicles, they spend their days cold-calling suckers from Squedunk, U.S.A. hoping to make a sale. For every one they make, soldiers get a meaty commission. Starting brokers pull in $70K per year, but during the boom the shadiest ones raked in five times that much.

Con Games

The hard sell: Overly aggressive brokers, like Mafia soldiers, will say just about anything to push their goods. And during the boom these guys were relentless. Armed with glowing stock reports—which are issued by Wall Street eggheads (analysts) and tell investors whether they should buy, hold, or sell a given stock—brokers tricked clients into gobbling up or clinging onto dot-com stinkers. Says former SEC prosecutor Bebel: “And brokers were in on the scam, using the optimistic ratings to sucker poor rubes into betting it all. It was criminal.”

Just before the market kissed its ass good-bye in March 2000, only .8 percent of ratings were sells. “My broker kept foisting stocks on me with lines like, ‘This is the future. This can’t miss. It’s a strong buy,’” says Alton Richards, 68, a retired schoolteacher from Atlanta who watched his broker flush his $300,000 life savings down the crapper.

Side dealing: When the hard sell didn’t work, brokers flat-out lied to clients. And Laura Brandel, a 48-year-old lonely heart from Cliffside Park, New Jersey, says she was prey. In a bizarre deal made in 1996, Brandel claims she was charmed into handing over most of her life savings to a Salomon Smith Barney broker. In exchange the broker (his name is being kept confidential by the National Association of Securities Dealers) agreed to impregnate her. According to Brandel, the broker not only lost most of her investment but also reneged on his promise to knock her up. In January 2003, SSB settled with her for an undisclosed sum.

Public Enemy: UBS’ Hanspeter Walder
Plenty of brokers gave their marks bad advice, but Swiss-born broker-to-the-rich Hanspeter Walder was an outright crook. For one thing, this UBS money manager brazenly stole his clients’ cash by shifting money from their accounts into his own. From 1994 to 2001, he nicked $56 million from clients. (He used a chunk to buy a Tarrytown, New York hotel, The Castle.) In September 2001, as he and his wife celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary, cops busted into their home to arrest him. “We couldn’t make ends meet,” Walder later explained to the court—after all, he only raked in $300,000 per year. Sweet justice: On January 10, the same day Walder was sentenced to eight years in prison, his wife’s divorce went through. Ah, timing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investment Bankers
WISEGUYS
The lowdown: Meet the muscle of this Mafia. Investment-banking goombahs are the middlemen between the dons (CEOs) and the brokers. Bankers mastermind mergers and take stocks public, and their banks get a fat cut (two to six percent) of each deal. I-bankers moved as much as $218 billion in “merchandise” between ’99 and ’00—more than the previous five years combined. For their efforts wiseguys got seven-figure bonuses. With so much cash at stake, bankers did everything possible to keep up the racket.

Con Games

Leaning: To kiss ass with their valued corporate customers, it was routine for I-bankers to bully their brokerage arm’s stock analysts into hyping crappy stocks, particularly those sold by sketchy Internet start-ups. “I have several analyst buddies who said they were leaned on by I-bankers into giving worthless stocks a buy rating,” says Brian Blair, a former analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston. “Everyone knew analysts didn’t cross the bankers. Why would you when they controlled the purse strings?”

Kickbacks: Bankers operated another lucrative scam called laddering, which allowed an institutional investor (think 401k fund) to get in on the bottom rung of an initial public offering (IPO)—but only if he agreed to buy more of that stock later at a higher price. “It was used to artificially inflate demand for these IPO shares,” says Paul Wilcox (name has been changed), an I-banker with a small bank in New York. “Making one sale contingent on another in this way is illegal, but these guys did it and got away with it.”

Spinning: You’d call this bribery anywhere else, but on the Street it’s “spinning.” I-bankers promised CEOs (whose business they desperately wanted) dibs on shares of hot IPOs like Yahoo.com. The CEOs would buy these shares for peanuts just before they began trading publicly. As soon as the price skyrocketed—often within minutes of trading—CEOs would sell their shares (an action called “flipping”) and pocket the cash. In exchange for this favor, the CEOs would give their buddy bankers future business. “It was a win-win situation,” says M.R., a former VP at an investment bank whose clients included seedy telecoms. “The CEOs got richer, but the bankers made out proportionately, landing multibillion-dollar deals that sent their bonuses into the stratosphere.”

Public Enemy: CSFB’s Bill Brady
Honors could’ve gone to Brady’s old boss at CSFB, Frank Quattrone, but he “resigned.” Brady’s group at CSFB is being scrutinized for allegedly hawking bad analysis and demanding huge kickbacks from investors (up to 65 percent of their profits). In 1998, even as CSFB peddled stinkers like fogdog.com, Brady purchased a $6.3 million pad in San Francisco with a nine-car garage that boasts a car-turnaround system, so he never has to back out. “He’s a real slimeball,” says one former longtime coworker of Brady’s who asked for anonymity. (Can you blame him?) “He’d throw parties with call girls. I’ve done coke in the red suede elevator. I’ve seen coworkers naked in the hot tub. His parties made Caligula look like a Disney movie.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chief Financial Officers
CONSIGLIERES
The lowdown: Behind every CEO lurks a trusted advisor, a number-cruncher who handles the logistics. CFOs cooked the books just long enough for stock prices to surge and for the dons to cash out. Take the case of WorldCom’s former CEO Bernie Ebbers and his consigliere, Scott Sullivan. On the Street the wheeler-dealer pair was dubbed the Scott ’n’ Bernie Show. “Sullivan was known as the guy who could make the numbers dance,” says Patrick McGurn, vice president at Institutional Shareholder Services, an investor research company. “He could say whatever he wanted because CFOs could make up anything.”

Con Games

Illegal swapping: This balance-sheet sham was popular with consiglieres for its sheer simplicity. In 2001 telecom network companies Global Crossing and 360 Networks couldn’t hit sales targets, so management teamed up and swapped fiberoptic capacity. The deal showed $350 million in sales between the two, enabling Global Crossing to meet expectations. Roy Olofson, a finance department VP at Global, says that when he questioned the shady deal, he got sacked and was defamed by Global’s chairman, Gary Winnick. “They buried him,” says Olofson’s lawyer, Paul Murphy. “That’s what happens to honest guys in corporate America. It’s also why no one came to his defense.”

Three-card monte: You’re in the market to buy a hot new ride, but you have crap credit? Don’t sweat it. Get a friend to take out a loan to buy the car for you and then pay him back off the books, plus a little fee for his troubles. This way nobody knows you’re on the hook. In essence that’s the way it’s said that Andrew Fastow, the notorious Enron CFO, managed to help hide more than $1 billion of the energy trader’s debt. Bonus: Fastow allegedly dealt himself $30 million between 1997 and 2001. But U.S. prosecutors have smacked him with 78 counts of fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and other charges. If convicted, Fastow faces up to 860 years in the can.

Public Enemy: Scott Sullivan of WorldCom
After WorldCom announced that Sullivan helped hide about $3.8 billion in company debt (the number later ballooned to $9 billion, forcing the company to file for the largest bankruptcy in history), massive layoffs followed, and Sullivan was arrested and indicted on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy last year. He could face up to 65 years in the slammer. Sullivan is rumored to be building a $15 million compound in Boca Raton, Florida. His lavish estate, by the way, would be protected by Florida’s Homestead Act of 1862, which prevents the government or courts from taking one’s property to pay off civil fines or debts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chief Executive Officers
THE DONS
The lowdown: CEOs are the Vito Corleones of the biz world. They’re the guys who farm out the plum jobs, order the layoffs, squeeze the competition, and rake in the serious dough (on average, $15.5 million in 2001). But that’s nothing next to their stock market scores. With their inside track, CEOs and other top execs made $66 billion in the boom.

Con Games

Free money: When you were the boss, you could lend yourself as much cash as you could carry. You could also convince the board to forgive the loan, so you wouldn’t have to pay it back. Best part: Until a few month ago, this game was totally legit. John Rigas, indicted former CEO of the cable company Adelphia, wrote himself a check for $150 million to purchase the NHL’s Buffalo Sabres. And disgraced former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers “borrowed” $408 million.

Bribery: These guys weren’t above good old graft, either. Take the now-infamous case of Citigroup CEO Sanford I. Weill and his star telecom analyst Jack Grubman. Grubman upgraded AT&T stock, then Weill allegedly tried to land Grubman’s twins a spot in a ritzy N.Y.C. preschool, via a million-dollar donation. Shortly after, Citigroup landed a big AT&T wireless deal. “The Citigroup scandal was a sordid tale of greed, with ethics ignored,” says Larry Soderquist, a professor of law at Vanderbilt University. “It was one of many that, taken together, helped destroy market confidence and trash the economy.” Once word got out on the scam, the kids were rejected.

The sting: Even as the market tanked, corporate dons kept rallying the troops and telling them not to sell stock. Meanwhile, CEOs like Enron’s Kenneth Lay were dumping stock by the boatloads. In August 2001, Lay sent a company-wide “buck up” note: “Our performance has never been stronger.” Then he locked them out of their 401k plans for two months. “We got a company e-mail saying the accounts had been frozen while they switched fund managers. It wasn’t true,” says Jim Brigham, an Austin-based former Enron computer security worker. “We watched our stock go down the tubes.” In December 2001, Enron officially declared bankruptcy, and its employees lost a whopping $1.3 billion in 401k life savings.

Public Enemy: Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski
He’s fat. He’s greedy. He weirdly resembles a pig. Koz’ corporate money trail includes receipts for a $15,000 umbrella stand and a $6,000 shower curtain. To top it off, he spent $2.1 million on a 40th-birthday party for his wife on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, with a cake with exploding breasts and an ice sculpture of Michelangelo’s David that dispensed Stoli from its slowly melting prick. The message to investors: Drink my piss.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC and Co.
THE LAW
Time to answer your final burning question: Is it safe to invest again? “Going forward, the key for investors and the media is not treating the market as sport,” says SEC spokesman John Nester. “I think people forgot that it entails risk. You need to diversify and not put your life savings in stocks alone.”

As for the rampant corruption, Eliot Spitzer, New York’s ambitious attorney general and one-man wrecking crew, is on the job. “When my office uncovered the first hard evidence of conflict of interest, many people dismissed the problem as being caused by a few rogue analysts,” says Spitzer of his investigation, which began in the summer of 2001. “But in the weeks that followed, it became clear the system was flawed.” That’s the understatement of the century. In the 94,000 pages of Merrill Lynch e-mails subpoenaed, wrongdoing was rampant. An e-mail from analyst Henry Blodget about a positive dot-com rating read: “I can’t believe what [a piece of shit] that thing is. Shame on me.”

For its crimes, Spitzer hit Wall Street where it hurts: in its wallet. By the time Spitzer was through levying fines, 10 of the largest brokerages had forked over $1.4 billion—payment for their boom-era shenanigans. Regrettably, it’s being dumped into government coffers, but will be used, in part, to educate investors about the market’s many pitfalls. But take comfort in the number of Wall Street suits that will be wearing orange jumpsuits by year’s end. Meanwhile, the SEC is substantially rewriting rules to try to protect the little guy. “The SEC laws in place now are the best ever,” says Nester. “However, no law can ever protect absolutely against someone who sets out to defraud you.” Bottom line: As long as there are crooks, keep your eyes open, because the Wall Street saga continues…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crime Pays
See how salaries stack up against the one-year payday of Oracle’s CEO, Larry Ellison. It’s OK to cry.

Joe Millionaire: $19,000
Hazmat removal worker: $28,000
Rocket scientist: $68,000
Air-traffic controller: $83,000
Orthopedic surgeon: $240,000
Dubya: $400,000
UNICEF funds for Ethiopia: $16 million
Entire cast of Friends: $108 million
GDP of Burundi (2001): $690 million
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison (2001): $706 million



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)11/11/2004 1:11:05 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19428
 
Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.


In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)11/19/2004 8:34:15 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
Citigroup Banked for Arafat as He Paid Fighters (Update1)

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., the world's biggest financial services company, invested $6.8 million for Yasser Arafat, Palestinian Authority documents show. At the same time, the late Palestinian leader was paying militants and channeling authority funds into his personal accounts.

The funds were invested through Citigroup's private bank before Arafat began turning over $799 million to the Palestinian Authority in 2002, said Andreas Martin, a Standard & Poor's analyst who helped value the assets. The bank's policies prohibit the acceptance of public figure clients without approval of the head of the private bank and company lawyers.

Citigroup's failure to conduct proper checks on its clients to prevent money laundering led Japanese regulators to close the company's private banking offices there in September. New York- based Citigroup in October fired the head of the private bank and the vice chairman who ran the company's international businesses.

``Citibank rears its ugly head again,'' said Jeremy Pope, co- director of London-based Tiri Network and former executive director of Transparency International. Both organizations advocate global standards to fight corruption.

Citigroup spokesman Jeremy Apfel in London declined to comment on Arafat. ``As a matter of policy, Citigroup does not confirm who may or may not be a customer,'' he said.

The private banking unit, which manages money for wealthy clients, has a ``know-your-customer'' policy that requires it to identify the source of an account holder's income.

Not Named

Arafat didn't hold accounts in his name, said James Prince, president of the Los Angeles-based Democracy Council, the outside governance monitor for the Palestine Investment Fund, the agency to which Arafat transferred his assets. Arafat and the Palestine Commercial Services Co., a Ramallah-based company he controlled, invested abroad by giving funds to money managers who set up accounts under other names, he said.

``Arafat didn't have any account in his name -- no bank in the world would open one,'' said Prince, who didn't know what name the Citibank account was opened under. ``There's nothing wrong legally, but it's a question of how strong are Citibank's know- your-customer policies.''

Arafat, who died last week in Paris at age 75, controlled about $1.3 billion through his positions as president of the Palestinian Authority and chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, according to Israeli intelligence estimates.

Donations, Taxes

He amassed the fortune by soliciting donations, channeling tax revenue into personal accounts and converting aid dollars into Israeli shekels at below market rates before paying Palestinian Authority workers, according to interviews with Colonel Miri Eisin, an Israeli army intelligence officer, and Mohammad Shtayyeh, managing director of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction.

Shtayyeh, whose agency administers international aid received by the Palestinian Authority, said the investments and accounts controlled by Arafat belong to all Palestinians. They were simply held by Arafat until the Palestinian Authority could build institutions capable of managing them, Shtayyeh said.

``Arafat's money is for the people,'' said Shtayyeh, who is also an economics professor at Birzeit University in the West Bank. ``Arafat is not a man who was looking to accumulate personal money.''

Palestinian Authority Finance Minister Salam Fayyad didn't respond to e-mailed requests for comment on this story. Phone calls to the ministry weren't answered this week as Palestinians celebrated the Eid holiday marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and mourned Arafat's death.

Paying Militants

Phone numbers for Mohamed Rachid, chief executive of the Palestine Investment Fund, and Ellam Tam, the firm that handles public relations for the Palestinian Authority, also went unanswered, as did e-mail messages to both. No one answered the phone at the PLO's office in Washington.

At the same time he was investing with Citigroup, Arafat used Palestinian Authority money to pay members of his Fatah guerrilla movement, according to documents the Israeli army seized at Arafat's compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah in April 2002. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat at the time said the documents were forgeries.

In January 2002, Arafat received a letter from the West Bank chief of Fatah, Marwan Barghouti, requesting $1,000 each for a dozen fighters. ``Please allocate $350 to each,'' Arafat scribbled at the bottom of the letter. Arafat then signed his name, and sent the paper to the finance ministry for payment.

An Israeli court in June sentenced Barghouti to five consecutive life terms in prison after he was convicted of planning terrorist attacks.

PLO Funds

Arafat's funds included about $500 million held by the PLO, Eisin told Bloomberg in July 2002. Israeli officials this week declined to comment on Arafat's finances.

In addition, the Palestine Investment Fund listed $799 million of assets in its 2003 annual report, released in May. The fund was created when Arafat's money managers turned over many of his holdings to the Palestinian Authority finance ministry after international aid donors demanded more transparency in how the authority handled its money.

The fund includes a $25 million stake in Egyptian mobile- phone company Orascom Telecom Holding SAE and about $20 million in private equity stakes, according to the annual report.

Citigroup opened the account for Arafat's money managers before the fund was created in 2002, according to a valuation of the investments conducted for the Palestinian Authority by Standard & Poor's. The Citigroup account was held by Palestine Commercial Services, the valuation said.

Private Equity

The account today holds investments in three private equity funds, including an Asia fund and a real estate fund, along with some cash and shares of a Citigroup-run European mutual fund, according to the S&P valuation.

``It's an account at the private banking group within Citigroup,'' said Martin, who is based in S&P's Los Angeles office. An adviser to Palestinian Commercial Services at Jordan- based Cairo Amman Bank made investment decisions for the account, he said.

At the time the account was opened, Arafat handled Palestinian Authority finances outside the authority itself. From 1995 through 2000, he diverted $900 million of the authority's tax and business income to personal bank accounts, the International Monetary Fund said in a September 2003 report. Most of that money was invested through Palestine Commercial Services.

Before Arafat turned the money over to the finance ministry, the Palestinian Authority lacked financial accountability, said Joel Toujas-Bernate, the IMF's mission chief for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Transparency Improved

``It was not a very transparent system,'' he said. ``We can more or less trace the use of this money now.''

Citigroup Private Bank, with 90 offices in 31 countries, had net income of $551 million last year, accounting for 3 percent of Citigroup's profit, according to the company's 2003 annual report. Its clients include 127 billionaire families who keep an average of $7.1 million with the bank, according to a February presentation to investors.

The unit has been a flashpoint for criticism of the company's money-laundering controls, Pope at Tiri Network said.

``It would seem to suggest that Citibank hasn't learned very much after being burned,'' he said.

After Japanese regulators shut down Citigroup's private bank there, the company in October ousted Deryck Maughan, vice chairman for international strategy, Thomas Jones, who ran investment management, and Peter Scaturro, who ran global private banking.

Citigroup Policies

The bank strengthened its policies against handling accounts for public figures in 1998 as its dealings with such individuals attracted probes by the U.S. General Accounting Office and other Congressional investigators. Citigroup defines public figures as people who occupy senior positions in politics and applies the policy to businesses controlled by such figures, according to a Citibank Web site.

``Public figures are not part of the private bank's target market,'' John Reed, Citigroup's co-chairman at the time, said during testimony to Congress in November 1999.

In 1998, the GAO, now known as the Government Accountability Office, said Citibank's private bank bypassed safeguards against fraud and helped Raul Salinas de Gortari, brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, move as much as $100 million from Mexico to Switzerland and London through shell companies and multiple accounts.

In November 1999, a report by the staff of the Senate's investigations subcommittee criticized Citibank's relationships with political figures ranging from the sons of Nigeria's former military leader, General Sani Abacha, to El Hadj Omar Bongo, president of Gabon.


To contact the reporter on this story:
Vernon Silver in Rome at vtsilver@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Anne Swardson at aswardson@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 19, 2004 04:23 EST



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)11/26/2004 7:41:11 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
sidetraked.com



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)11/26/2004 8:11:41 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19428
 
Annan's Son Took Payments Through 2004
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT - Special to the Sun
November 26, 2004

One of the next big chapters in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal will involve the family of the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, whose son turns out to have been receiving payments as recently as early this year from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program.

The secretary-general's son, Kojo Annan, was previously reported to have worked for a Swiss-based company called Cotecna Inspection Services SA, which from 1998-2003 held a lucrative contract with the U.N. to monitor goods arriving in Saddam Hussein's Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But investigators are now looking into new information suggesting that the younger Annan received far more money over a much longer period, even after his compensation from Cotecna had reportedly ended.

The importance of this story involves not only undisclosed conflicts of interest, but the question of the role of the secretary-general himself, at a time when talk is starting to be heard around the U.N. that it is time for him to resign, and the staff labor union is in open rebellion against "senior management."

"What other bombshells are out there being hidden from the public and U.N. member governments?" asked an investigator on Rep. Henry Hyde's International Relations Committee, which has held hearings on oil-for-food.

The younger Annan stopped working for Cotecna in late 1998, but it now turns out that he continued to receive money from Cotecna not only through 1999, as recently reported, but right up until February of this year. The timing coincides with the entire duration of Cotecna's work for the U.N. oil-for-food program. It now appears the payments to the younger Annan ended three months after the U.N., in November, 2003, closed out its role in oil-for-food and handed over the remains of the program to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

This latest bombshell involving the secretary-general's son was confirmed Wednesday by Kofi Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, in response to this reporter's query, based on information obtained elsewhere. In an email, Mr. Eckhard wrote: "I was able to reach Kojo's lawyer this morning. He confirms that Kojo Annan received payments from Cotecna as recently as February 2004. The lawyer said that these payments were part of a standard non-competition agreement, under which the decision as to whether to continue the payments or not was up to Cotecna."

Mr. Eckhard added that, according to Kojo Annan's lawyer, the information has "been reported" to the U.N.-authorized inquiry into oil-for-food, led by a former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker.

Labeled as compensation for Kojo Annan's agreeing not to compete with Cotecna's business in West Africa, the post-employment payments were in the amount of $2,500 per month, according to another source with access to the documents. If the payments were continuous over the slightly more than five-year period involved, that would have totaled more than $150,000.

Cotecna officials, who this past April received a gag letter from the U.N. Secretariat, did not respond to queries from The New York Sun about why the company continued its non-competition payments to Kojo Annan for more than five years, instead of the one year previously reported. Neither did the company answer a question about why the payments apparently stopped this past February - just after the oil-for-food scandal erupted into the headlines following allegations in a Baghdad newspaper that the program was massively corrupt. Cotecna earlier this year denied any wrongdoing, saying that Kojo Annan's portfolio involved West Africa, not the U.N. or Iraq. Kojo Annan's lawyer at the London-based firm Schillings said the younger Annan is cooperating with the Volcker inquiry, but would not comment to the press on his payments from Cotecna.

The question now is whether Mr. Volcker, whose investigative brief includes not only criminal acts such as graft, but also U.N. maladministration under oil-for-food, will look closely at the evasions and contradictions that have come from the secretary-general himself regarding the money received by his son from Cotecna.

The pattern in this scandal has been that Secretary-General Annan, until confronted by the press, has either failed to spot or failed to disclose timely information about Cotecna's paychecks for his son. The first bout came back in early 1999, two years into Kofi Annan's watch as secretary-general. Cotecna had just won the U.N. oil-for-food contract, replacing a British firm, Lloyd's Register. News broke January 24, 1999, in the Sunday Telegraph, that Kojo Annan had worked for Cotecna. The U.N. produced an internal report, shown this year to the New York Times, but never publicly released, which found no wrongdoing, but evidently failed to note that Kojo Annan was still receiving payments from Cotecna.

About that same time, in February 1999, a U.N. spokesman, John Mills, told the press that Secretary-General Annan had had no knowledge of Cotecna being hired by the U.N., that Cotecna's bid for the job was the lowest "by a significant margin," and that, "This contract was treated at every stage as a routine commercial matter and in line with the rules and regulations of the United Nations" - a statement later contradicted by one of the U.N.'s own secret internal audits, which leaked this past spring.

In March of this year, with the U.N. oil-for-food scandal by then on the boil, the U.N. was questioned again by the press about Kojo Annan's relations with Cotecna. The answer at that stage from the secretary-general's office was that the younger Annan had worked on Cotecna's staff from December 1995 through February 1998, and a few weeks later became a consultant for Cotecna, resigning in early December of 1998, about three weeks before Cotecna won the U.N. contract. This was offered by Secretary-General Annan's office as evidence that the younger Annan had severed his ties with Cotecna before the company got the U.N. job. A source familiar with the documents now says that Kojo's consultancy with Cotecna expired the same day the company got the U.N. contract, December 31, 1998.

Outside investigations in recent months have added to the timeline, raising yet more questions. In September of this year, The Wall Street Journal reported that even after Kojo Annan's Cotecna consultancy ended in 1998,he continued to receive payments from Cotecna through the end of 1999, as well as having use over that same period of a company credit card. This report is confirmed by a letter, seen by this reporter, written January 11, 1999, by Cotecna CEO Robert Massey, beginning "Dear Mr. Annan" and outlining the terms of a $2,500 per month "compensatory indemnity" in return for Kojo Annan's agreement to "refrain from any similar consultancy or employment."

Now comes this latest information that Kojo Annan continued to receive payments until February 26 of this year - more than five years longer than the U.N. initially implied, four years longer than the U.N. confirmed to the press this September, and for the entire duration of Cotecna's U.N. oil-for-food contracts.

So far, the secretary-general has refused requests from Congress for inter views with U.N. staff, or access to the U.N.'s 55 internal audits of the oil-for food program. One of those internal audits, which leaked this past May, noted serious irregularities with the U.N.'s handling of the Cotecna contract, including an "inappropriate" upward revision of Cotecna's lowball $4.87 million bid, just four days after Cotecna and the U.N. signed the deal.

At every turn, the saga of the secretary-general's family ties to Cotecna raises questions about Kofi Annan's handling of potential conflicts of interest. Even if Mr. Annan cannot be held

responsible for the decisions of his son, his job does entail responsibility for the actions of the U.N. Secretariat. As the oil-for-food scandal has unfolded, it has become clear that U.N. secrecy and lack of accountability evolved, in effect, into complicity with Saddam's scams and influence-buying. By now, between congressional and other investigations, there are allegations that Saddam, on Mr. Annan's watch, under U.N. sanctions and oil-for-food supervision, scammed and smuggled some $17.3 billion in oil money meant for relief, using some of that money to fund terrorism, import weapons, and buy influence with Security Council members France, Russia, and China.

On top of that, only now is it learned that for fully more than eight years, from 1995-2004, the secretary-general's son was in one way or another on the payroll of Cotecna, which for almost five of those years held a crucial oil-for-food inspection contract with the U.N. Secretariat. All this, said the investigator for Mr. Hyde's congressional committee, is good reason why "the U.N. Secretariat should move swiftly to lift the gag order on U.N. employees and contractors and publicly release its oil-for-food program files."



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)12/1/2004 1:20:49 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
.Annan should quit over Iraq fraud, says head of US inquiry
By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York
December 2, 2004

The US senator leading an investigation into the United Nations Iraqi oil-for-food program has called on the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to resign.

In an article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Norm Coleman, a Republican, said that Mr Annan should go because "the most extensive fraud in the history of the UN occurred on his watch".

He said the "full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments" that allegedly took place under the oil-for-food program would not become public knowledge "as long as Mr Annan remains in charge".

Mr Annan's second and final five-year term as Secretary-General is due to expire in December 2006. He has recently come under fire from US investigators, who say the UN's oil-for-food program was the greatest financial swindle in history.

The Senate's bipartisan subcommittee on investigations, chaired by Senator Coleman, says Saddam Hussein made $US20 billion ($26 billion) from the scheme, which was meant to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Advertisement"We have gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head," Senator Coleman said. "Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets."

This week, Mr Annan was forced to defend his son, Kojo, who took $US30,000 a year for five years in secret payments from a Swiss company named Cotecna, which was hired by the UN to monitor Iraq's imports under the oil-for-food program.

Mr Annan said he did not know his son was receiving the payments, and he was "disappointed and surprised" to hear about it.

"Annan was at the helm of the UN for all but a few days of the oil-for-food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the UN's utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses," Senator Coleman wrote.

However, the leading Democrat on the Senate committee, Carl Levin, said he saw "no evidence of impropriety whatsoever on the part of Kofi Annan". He agrees the program was corrupt.

Critics of the investigation into the scheme say the US is using it to deflect attention from the continuing violence in Iraq, and from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Annan became Secretary-General after the US vetoed a second term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali. In voting for Mr Annan, the US described him as someone it could "work with".

However, in the weeks before the US election, Mr Annan undiplomatically described the war in Iraq as illegal.

He further angered the Bush Administration by refusing to commit large numbers of UN staff to Iraq.

Mr Annan has asked a former US central banker, Paul Volcker, to head the UN's own investigation into the oil-for-food program, but that inquiry has been criticised because it is funded by the UN, under Mr Annan's leadership.



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)12/3/2004 12:52:42 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
Smart Video, Hamouth to spar in Court of Appeal

2004-12-02 14:00 ET - Street Wire

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

Smart Video Technologies Inc., an OTC Bulletin Board company that provides Internet video content, such as training material, has won permission to appeal a B.C. Supreme Court libel decision won by West Vancouver promoter Rene Hamouth. The ruling is the latest round in a legal battle between Mr. Hamouth and Smart Video. Mr. Hamouth says Smart Video's lawyer libelled him by sending a letter to his broker alleging improper trading.

Smart Video's predecessor, ASPI Europe Inc., according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was run by Howe Street promoters Philip Garratt and his younger associate, Patrick McGrath. Mr. Garratt served as chief executive officer and Mr. McGrath served as secretary in 2000.

Mr. Hamouth's claim

Mr. Hamouth, in a three-page statement of claim dated June 29, 2004, said Smart Video's lawyer, Florida-based Edwards & Angell, sent the allegedly libelous letter to his broker, Vancouver firm First Associates Investments Inc., on March 29, 2004.

Edwards & Angell said Mr. Hamouth "appears to be violating the SEC's rules regarding the total amount of shares he may sell in any given three-month period." The letter said Mr. Hamouth is limited to selling no more than 1 per cent of Smart Video's shares in any given three months, because he owned over 10 per cent of Smart Video's shares.

The letter did not specifically state Mr. Hamouth was violating the SEC's rules, only that he appeared to be violating the rules.

Mr. Hamouth said the law firm, acting in concert with Smart Video and the company's president, Richard E. Bennett, conspired to prevent him from selling his Smart Video shares. He said he was not violating the SEC's trading rules and he was not subject to any limits on how many shares he could sell.

Mr. Hamouth alleges that the letter meant he "is dishonest and conducts his business in a dishonest and illegal manner."

Smart Video's defence

Smart Video and Edwards and Angell, in separate statements of defence, denied Mr. Hamouth's allegations. They claim Mr. Hamouth was restricted in the number of shares he could sell and they had a duty to inform his broker.

Smart Video and its lawyer specifically denied Mr. Hamouth's allegation that they intended to hamper his ability to trade his shares.

Edwards and Angell claimed Mr. Hamouth could not sue them for the letter because it was issued with the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against Mr. Hamouth. (If this is found to be the case, the lawyers state their letter would be protected by a defence known as absolute privilege.)

Smart Video, for its part, said it is protected by another defence, known as qualified privilege. It said it had a duty to inform First Associates of an apparent violation of the securities rules, and First Associates had an interest in receiving the information.

Smart Video also said that even if the letter is found to be defamatory, the information it contained is true (another defence for libel). The company claimed it learned that Mr. Hamouth appeared to be violating the SEC's rules, so it sent a letter stating just that.

In any event, Smart Video argued that little damage was done, because the letter was not broadly published.

Motion to dismiss

Smart Video and Edwards and Angell have bogged down Mr. Hamouth's case with a motion to dismiss that has been dismissed twice and appealed twice.

They first asked the B.C. Supreme Court to dismiss Mr. Hamouth's petition before it ever went to trial, based on the apparently weak case he had against them. The first motion was denied by Master Alan Donaldson. In a five-page decision, Judge Donaldson said Mr. Hamouth's case appeared to be strong enough for a hearing into the matter.

Smart Video and Edwards and Angell appealed this decision to Justice Kirsti M. Gill. Judge Gill, in a six-page decision, also sided with Mr. Hamouth and struck down the motion to dismiss.

Smart Video was apparently not content to leave the matter to a full trial, and asked the B.C. Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Judge Gill's decision. Justice Jo-Ann E. Prowse granted the company such permission. She also ordered the Supreme Court case halted, pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal is still pending.

Smart Video's U.S. complaint

Nearly one month after Smart Video's lawyer sent the allegedly libelous letter, Smart Video filed a civil action against Mr. Hamouth. Smart Video's complaint, filed on April 22, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, said Mr. Hamouth made $151,428 (U.S.) in illegal "short-swing trading."

Smart Video's complaint claims that short-swing trading, as defined by the SEC, involves buying and selling the same shares within a six-month period. In the U.S., according to S.16(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act it is illegal for insiders to carry out short-swing trades. The company involved may sue the insider for any profits realized.

Smart Video said Mr. Hamouth was an insider of the company during the time of the alleged short-swing trades, between Jan. 31, 2003, through Feb. 3, 2004. The company said he owned more than 10 per cent of its outstanding shares, and reported his trades with the SEC the same as any other insider.

The company, represented in that case by Atlanta lawyer Lauren S. Antonino, is asking for Mr. Hamouth's allegedly illegal profits, plus interest and any other settlement to which the company may be entitled.

Mr. Hamouth's response

Mr. Hamouth, in a very sparse response to Smart Video's complaint, denied being engaged in illegal short-swing trading. He said he mistakenly filed insider trading reports with the SEC for his Smart Video trades. He said these reports incorrectly stated that he owned over 10 per cent of Smart Video.

He contends that, because he was not actually an insider, the short-swing trade profits are not recoverable by Smart Video. He is asking that the complaint be dismissed and that Smart Video pick up his lawyer's bill.

SEC filings

According to SEC filings, Mr. Hamouth traded Smart Video shares on behalf of people other than himself, including his son, Ryan Hamouth, his wife, Leona Hamouth, and the Hamouth Family Trust.

Mr. Hamouth specifically disclaims beneficial ownership of those shares.

The company said it had 7,636,658 shares outstanding as of Aug. 11, 2003, in a quarterly report. Mr. Hamouth, in an SEC filing, dated Sept. 24, 2003, said he personally held 1,030,200 shares as of Aug. 13, 2003.

A trial date has not been set for the U.S. dispute or for Smart Video's Court of Appeal appearance.

Attempts to contact Mr. Hamouth for comment regarding his U.S. case were not successful. A Telus directory services operator informed Stockwatch that Mr. Hamouth has no listed number. Mr. Hamouth's lawyer, Andrew Davis of Vancouver law firm Silbernagel & Company, did not return requests for comment.

Meanwhile Smart Video, which reached a high of $9.80 on Feb. 17, 2004, closed Wednesday at $2.44.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reader Comments - Comments are open and unmoderated, although libelous remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.Harmouth shouldn't sue as we all have things in the past.He helped pump it Smart video should let him sell,I always sold into buying.cheers

Posted by jim decker @ 2004-12-02 18:52

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Hamouth should realize that the SEC's trading rules do limit how many shares he can sell, and, to make the statement "he was not subject to any limits on how many shares he could sell" would be highly unlikely given his position with the Company. It would be interesting to note if there are any Howe Street promoters who are not involved in "improper trading". Mr. Hamouth is only following the norm of Vancouver promoters. In fact, I'm surprized he did not use off shore or nominee accounts to do his trading.....

Posted by bearcat @ 2004-12-03 10:03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)12/3/2004 9:40:39 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
The more I think about it I bet that POS Adnan Khashoggi helped hide Arafat's Billions. He did it for the Marco's so hiding Arafat money is quite the possibility. No?

"She is often seen in the front rows of Paris fashion shows, or shopping with the wife of the Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and the sister of the King of Morocco."

Image is all for chairman's luxury-loving wife
By Kim Willsher
Paris
November 6, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
If anything was guaranteed to annoy the Palestinians, it was a comment made by Yasser Arafat's wife after the birth of their daughter, Zahwa.

As Suha Arafat proudly showed off the Palestinian leader's only child at the $A2600-a-night hospital in Paris in July 1995, she declared: "Our child was conceived in Gaza, but sanitary conditions there are terrible. I don't want to be a hero and risk my baby."

Her remarks highlighted the gulf between the Palestinian first lady and her people, many of whom live on little more than $A7 a day per family.

The image of Mrs Arafat as spendthrift was further enhanced when French authorities launched an investigation into claims that $A15 million had been transferred from Switzerland to two of Mrs Arafat's French bank accounts between July 2002 and 2003.

The sums were on top of an allowance of $A132,000 that Mr Arafat, 75, sent his 40-year-old wife each month. Mrs Arafat and Palestinian representatives in Paris described the claims as Israeli propaganda.

Advertisement
AdvertisementMrs Arafat, born in Jerusalem to a wealthy Francophile family, has always had strong connections with the French capital. She spent much of her youth in Paris and has lived in Paris full-time since 2000, ostensibly so that Zahwa - named after Mr Arafat's mother, who died when he was five - could receive treatment for leukaemia, although close friends suggest that she was also worried by the second intifada. With the exception of last week's mercy mission to Ramallah, she has not returned since and has been granted French citizenship.

She is often seen in the front rows of Paris fashion shows, or shopping with the wife of the Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and the sister of the King of Morocco.

"She travels first or business class and is renowned for her business acumen," said a friend in Paris. "She is obsessed by image. Everything about her screams money. She is immaculate, from her Chanel eye shadow to her manicured fingernails."

She met Mr Arafat in her mid-20s on an assignment in Amman for a French newspaper. He hired her as a public relations adviser and later as an economics adviser for the PLO.

They married in Tunis in 1990 after she converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Islam, but the union was kept secret for 15 months. The marriage, when he was 62 and she was 28, came as a surprise to many of his followers.

Mrs Arafat quickly adapted to her new role, speaking out against corruption and cronyism in Mr Arafat's inner circle to win the respect of the Palestinian people. She was photographed carrying out aid work and, on a visit to Gaza's refugee camps, refused to accept an Israeli escort around roadblocks choosing to queue with ordinary people.

She helped to soften Mr Arafat's image as a guerilla leader focused only on the Palestinian struggle. "I married a myth," she boasted later, "but the marriage helped him step down from his pedestal and become a human being."

- Telegraph



To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (13900)12/4/2004 12:26:03 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
U.N. chief's son got $50,000 from firm suspected of fraud
Swiss company previously said Kojo Annan had no involvement in U.N. contracts

By JUDITH MILLER
New York Times
Dec. 3, 2004, 12:36AM

A Swiss company that is being investigated on suspicion of fraud and abuses in the United Nations' oil-for-food program paid the son of Secretary-General Kofi Annan more than $50,000 for consulting at U.N. meetings and other projects in the year it won a lucrative oil-for-food contract, investigators said Thursday.

Representatives of the company, Cotecna Inspection Services, which is based in Geneva, previously said that Kojo Annan, the secretary-general's son, had no involvement in U.N. contracts.

But billing records from Kojo Annan, 29, and other documents provided by Cotecna to House and Senate committees investigating the U.N. program show that in 1998 he traveled to U.N. meetings in New York and Durban, South Africa, to develop "contacts" and work on unspecified "specific projects." In December 1998, Cotecna won a $4.8 million U.N. contract to monitor goods shipped to Iraq.

Cotecna confirmed Annan attended those meetings and said it was "confident" that the congressional inquiries "will reveal that Cotecna's actions were at all times ethical, lawful and professional."

Cotecna deplored the leak of its confidential information, but pledged to continue cooperating with the congressional investigations and the inquiry of an independent panel led by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The United Nations confirmed Monday that Kojo Annan received more than $2,300 a month after leaving the firm in 1998, payments that did not end until February 2004.

On Thursday, investigators disclosed that Annan had used a Cotecna credit card for travel and other expenses that totaled $54,700 for his consulting in 1998. That included $17,000 for extra hours of work for the United Nations-related trips.

Kojo Annan's troubles have resulted in escalating attacks on his father in the United States, and one U.S. senator has called for his resignation.

Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and dozens of other countries have rallied to support the beleaguered U.N. chief. The 54 African nations sent a letter of support Tuesday, and Annan received strong backing Wednesday from Argentina, Algeria, Colombia, Egypt, Italy, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain and Turkey.

But he did not get support from the United States.

President Bush twice on Thursday refused to say whether Annan should resign, and didn't use the opportunities to back him. Instead, Bush demanded "a full and fair and open accounting" of the oil-for-food program, saying this was essential for U.S. taxpayers to continue supporting the United Nations and "for the integrity of the organization."

Relations between the Bush administration and the world body plummeted over the Security Council's refusal to authorize the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

The demand for Annan to step down came from Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican. Two weeks ago, Coleman's subcommittee said it had uncovered evidence that Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program. The program was aimed at helping Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War.

Coleman wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Annan should resign because "the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch."

The United Nations rejected Coleman's call for Annan's resignation. "A few voices doesn't make a chorus," said U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard .