FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALL FUNDS UP TO AND INCLUDING $1,474,517 IN INTERBANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF NEDBANK, LTD. AT BANK OF AMERICA NA, HSBC BANK USA NA, STANDARD CHARTED BANK, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AND WELLS FARGO BANK IN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE CURRENT BALANCE OF ACCOUNTS HELD BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF MAHAMOUD ADAM BECHIR AT NEDBANK, LTD. IN SOUTH AFRICA, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXX2794, AND ALL ASSETS AT NEDBANK, LTD.
TRACEABLE THERETO,
Defendant In Rem.
Civil Case No. 14-1178 (RJL)
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN REM
Claimant Ambassador Mahamoud Adam Bechir (the “Claimant”), through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully answers the government’s Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem (the “Complaint”) as follows. All allegations and headings in the Complaint that are not
expressly admitted in this Answer are denied. Paragraph numbers refer to the corresponding numbered paragraphs of the Complaint.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Claimant admits that this is a civil action in rem to forfeit $1,474,517 in U.S. currency. Claimant further admits that the government alleges that the U.S. currency is traceable to criminal money laundering of bribe payments made by a Canadian energy company in this District to Chad’s ambassador and his wife in order to influence the award of lucrative rights for
2
oil development in Chad. Claimant additionally admits that the Defendant property consists of funds on deposit at the U.S. interbank accounts of Nedbank, Ltd. The remainder of Paragraph 1 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
2. With respect to the first sentence of Paragraph 2, Claimant admits that he was Chad’s ambassador to the United States and Canada from approximately 2004 to 2012. Claimant denies the following four sentences. With respect to the penultimate sentence of Paragraph 2, Claimant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegation relating to the number of Nedbank, Ltd. interbank accounts located in the United States. The final sentence of Paragraph 2 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
II. DEFENDANT IN REM 3. Admitted.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Paragraph 4 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant admits the allegation.
5. Paragraph 5 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant admits the allegation.
6. Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant admits the allegation.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Claimant admits that, in or about 2009, Griffiths and Tyab paid a personal visit to Claimant’s residence in the D.C. metropolitan area. Claimant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9.
3
1. First and Second Agreements
10. Denied.
11. Claimant admits the allegation in the first sentence of Paragraph 11. Claimant further admits that Claimant opened an account for the Embassy under “Ambassade du Tchad, LLC” to receive incoming funds of the Embassy and visa fees, pay Embassy bills and other Embassy-related expenses under the authority of the Claimant. Claimant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted upon information and belief. 14. Admitted upon information and belief. 15. Admitted upon information and belief.
16. Claimant denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 16. Claimant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 16.
2. Third Agreement and Bribe Payment 17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Claimant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
20. Claimant admits on information and belief that $2 million was paid to Ms. Niam’s company COCL by Griffiths Energy. Claimant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20.
21. Denied.
22. Admitted upon information and belief.
B. Laundering of Bribery Proceeds Through U.S. Accounts and Real Estate 23. Denied.
4
1. Receipt of $2 Million at BB&T Bank and Transfers to Mainstreet Bank
24. Admitted.
25. Claimant admits that Griffith’s Energy transferred $2 million into Chad Oil Account No. 1398. Claimant further admits that, on or about February 17, 2011, Niam
transferred $250,000 from Chad Oil Account No. 1398 to account no. XXXXXX9962 held in the name of Nourmac LLC at Mainstreet Bank (“Nourmac Account No. 9962”). Claimant further admits that BB&T closed Chad Oil Account No. 1398. Claimant further admits that BB&T issued a certified check to Niam in the amount of $1,502,045. Claimant further admits that Niam deposited the check in the amount of $1,502,045 into account no. XXXXXX1592 held in the name of Chad Oil Consultants, LLC at Mainstreet Bank (“Chad Oil Account No. 1592”) on or about February 23, 2011. Claimant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25.
26. Claimant admits that Nourmac LLC and Chad Oil Consultants, LLC are companies owned by Niam and registered in Maryland. Claimant denies the remainder of Paragraph 26.
27. Denied.
2. Commingling of Funds in Mainstreet Bank Accounts
28. Claimant admits that account no. XXXXXX5311 (“Bechir Account No. 5311”) and account no. XXXXXX5303 (“Bechir Account No. 5303”) are held by Claimant. Claimant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28.
a. Transfers between Nourmac and Chad Oil accounts 29. Admitted.
30. Denied.
b. Transfers between Chad Oil account and Bechir’s accounts 31. Denied.
32. Admitted. 33. Denied.
5
c. Transfers between Nourmac account and Bechir’s accounts 34. Admitted.
35. Denied.
3. Purchase, Improvement, and Sale of Sherwood Forest Properties 36. Denied.
37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. 40. Denied.
41. Claimant admits that on or about January 21, 2013, Nourmac LLC transferred the Official Residence and vacant adjacent lot located on Sherwood Forest Drive to the Republic of Chad for consideration of “No Dollars 00/100 ($.00).” Claimant further admits that on or about January 15, 2013, the amount of US $1,926,620 was wire transferred by the Republic of Chad to the account of Nourmac LLC at MainStreet Bank for the purpose of reimbursing Nourmac LLC for purchase, renovation, and improvement costs associated with the residence. Claimant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41.
42. Denied. 43. Admitted.
4. Griffiths Energy’s Conviction and Funds Transfers to Bechir’s South African Account
44. Admitted upon information and belief.
45. Claimant admits that by January 22, 2013, he had left his post as Chad’s
ambassador to the United States and Canada. Claimant further admits that he was subsequently appointed Chad’s ambassador to South Africa, a post he current holds.
46. Denied.
V. BASIS FOR FORFEITURE
6
47-50. Paragraphs 47-50 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
B. Predicate Offenses for Money Laundering
51-54. Paragraphs 51-54 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
FIRST CLAIM
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1957)
55. Claimant repeats and incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-54 as his response to Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
56-59. Paragraphs 56-59 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
SECOND CLAIM
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i))
60. Claimant repeats and incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-54 as his response to Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
61-64. Paragraphs 61-64 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
THIRD CLAIM
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i))
65. Claimant repeats and incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-54 as his response to Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
66-69. Paragraphs 66-69 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
FOURTH CLAIM
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h))
70. Claimant repeats and incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-54 as his response to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
7
71-73. Paragraphs 71-73 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies the allegations.
PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The government’s prayer for relief requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Claimant denies that the government is entitled to any of the relief requested in Paragraphs 1-73 and the Prayer for Relief.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Claimant acted in good faith at all times relevant to the Complaint.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This action is barred in whole or in part by applicable statutes of limitations.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Claimant’s property is not subject to forfeiture because Claimant is an “innocent owner” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Claimant’s property is immune from forfeiture under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 22 U.S.C. § 254(d), and other applicable laws conferring diplomatic privileges and immunities.
8
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Forfeiture of Claimant’s property, if ordered, is subject to remission and/or mitigation.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Claimant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses or amend these
affirmative defenses as discovery warrants.
JURY DEMAND
Please take notice that Claimant hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues and defenses so triable.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Claimant requests that this Court:
1. Dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice, and enter judgment on Claimant’s behalf;
2. Deny issuance of a certificate of probable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465;
3. Award Claimant costs and attorney fees; and
4. Provide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Connor Mullin Mark J. MacDougall (DC Bar No. 398118)
Connor Mullin (DC Bar No. 981715)
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036 (202) 887-4000
(202) 887-4288 (fax)
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 20th day of May 2015, the foregoing document was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following:
NALINA SOMBUNTHAM
Trial Attorney
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, D.C. 20530
United States of America
/s/ Connor Mullin
Connor Mullin
