• The Bollyn Trial
• Madoff Scam

The Bollyn Trial

The Destruction and Withholding of Evidence

In the same way that the 9/11 relatives have been denied access to the evidence of the "crime of the century," the destruction and withholding of evidence has been the main obstacle for the defense of Christopher Bollyn, independent journalist and 9/11 researcher. 

*  *  * 

The intentional withholding and destruction of crucial evidence from the terror attacks of 9/11 has been the main obstacle to discovery for the 6,600 plaintiffs who brought lawsuits against the airlines, the passenger screening companies, and others.  The denial of access to evidence is clearly obstructing the pursuit of justice for the 9/11 relatives and victims. 

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=87695

Ellen Mariani, the first 9/11 relative to file a lawsuit against United Airlines for the wrongful death of her husband, is still demanding a jury trial.  "You can't have a trial without evidence," Mariani says.

It is discouraging to see how this is done in cases large and small.  The withholding of evidence has become the main obstacle I have encountered in preparing my defense. 

In my misdemeanor case, the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. (HEPD) has destroyed the video evidence of the incident. HEPD is also withholding the most important parts (more than 75 percent) of the audio tape of the police transmissions and has provided false evidence of the body armor vests the undercover unit was wearing when it came to my house.

When the state's case against me began, a supporter wrote:  "The side which gets the most evidence excluded wins."

FALSE EVIDENCE

When three unidentified men wearing body armor marched up my driveway last August 15, I was shocked and realized something had gone terribly wrong with my 911 call. 

I had been very concerned about a suspicious vehicle with three armed men that I had seen prowling around my house for two evenings in a row and called the police to report it. I thought the armed men posed a danger to me and my family.

While I had expected a uniformed police officer with a normal police car to respond, the same suspicious vehicle I feared had unexpectedly returned.

I saw my wife, Helje, and our 8-year-old daughter talking to them on the driveway. Helje was frightened but had enough sense to ask them who they were and what they wanted.  The men, who were wearing blue jeans and navy blue body armor, had not even said "Hello" or explained that they were responding to my 911 call.

Seeing three armed men confronting my wife and child was a sign of imminent danger. I had never been in such a situation before and although I was very alarmed, I rushed out of the house to assist them.

"Who are you, and why are you threatening our neighborhood?" I asked them. The men did not explain who they were or their business on my property and did nothing to de-escalate the situation. 

I was dismayed by their aggressive demeanor and went to summon my brother as an extra witness.

Contrary to the police report, their dark blue body armor carried no insignia or badges which identified them as police. The men were working undercover according to Lt. Richard Russo, spokesman for the HEPD, the author of the press release of August 16, 2006.

The HEPD Media Information Release Form started its description of the incident as follows: "Undercover officers responded to a 'suspicious vehicle' call."

Would officers working undercover wear "POLICE" written on their vests?

My attorney subpoenaed the body armor vests so we could all see what they looked like.  Rather than present the vests in court the police department protested and submitted color photographs instead.  The photographs, however, are of different vests than those worn by the three undercover officers on August 15. 

The vests in the photos are cut differently, have pockets on the front, are a different color and have the word "POLICE" printed in large yellow letters across the front.  These are clearly not the plain navy blue body armor the undercover unit was wearing when they arrested me.

An expert witness about police procedures said that I would not be in this predicament if the vests really did have markings of the police.

Lt. Richard Russo was named as the officer responsible for "preserving video and other criminal evidence." Since Russo served as the police spokesman when Bollyn was arrested, met with his family personally and was well aware of the fact that the Bollyns disputed the police version of events - why would he not want to preverve the evidence? 

DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO EVIDENCE

In violation of their own General Order No. 79, the HEPD destroyed the video evidence filmed by their own police officers on the scene.  When the undercover police assaulted and TASERed me on my front lawn, at least four officers recorded the event using a digital video system.

"I am informed that all tapes have been recycled," Richard Williams, attorney for Hoffman Estates, wrote to my attorney in a letter dated March 29, 2007. 

The village attorney's statement indicates that the police destroyed the video evidence of the crime they are charging me with, in violation of their General Order concerning "Mobile Video Recording" and the preservation of video evidence:

Tapes containing information, which could be useful to an investigation or prosecution, will be treated as evidence.  Tapes deemed to be of evidentiary value shall be processed according to departmental procedures governing property custody.  The narrative of the associated report shall indicate that the video tape was inventoried as evidence.

The police transcript of their communications indicates that the entire incident was videotaped by Ofc. Joseph Kruschel, the first police officer logged in "on scene."

In a letter to my attorney, dated April 18, 2007, Williams wrote that the incident had been video taped by at least 4 different officers:  Joseph Kruschel, Kathryn Cawley, Anthony Tenuto, and John Fitzgerald, the reporting officer.  All of these tapes have been erased, Williams wrote.

The HEPD officer who was responsible for preserving the video evidence was Lt. Richard Russo, according to the department's response to my recent FOIA.  Russo also acted as the department spokesman in the days after the incident. 

Russo was asked about the incident by a number of news outlets and was well aware of the controversy surrounding my arrest and TASERing.  He must have also been aware of General Order No. 79. 

I had filed a FOIA with the HEPD on September 11, 2006 asking for the complete record and manifest of documents pertaining to my case.  So why did Russo allow the video evidence to be destroyed?

DENIED DUE PROCESS

Illinois courts have ruled that if the police destroy evidence, “even absent bad faith” that is “essential and determinative of the outcome of the case” then the Defendant would be denied due process, as the defendant “could not hope to exonerate himself without a chance to have his own experts examine the substance [evidence forming basis of case].” 
People v. Camp, 352 Ill. App. 3d 257, 261, 815 N.E.2d 980, 984 (2d Dist. 2004)

The court in Camp (id.) reasoned that if the charges were dependent on the destroyed evidence then the defendant would be deprived of due process if convicted. Therefore, they concluded that the case must be dismissed under such circumstances.

"You don't lose the records unless you are guilty," Ellen Mariani said about the destruction of the evidence in my case.

THE TAMPERING OF THE 911 AUDIO TAPES

After 6 months, the HEPD finally turned over the audio tape of police and fire department transmissions with the 911 dispatcher.

Unfortunately, both tapes are severely cut and badly edited versions of the complete tapes.  This is not what was requested in the subpoena.  Due to the fact that more than 70 percent of the material on the original tape has been withheld, the audio tapes are of little use as evidence – except perhaps as evidence of the bad faith of the HEPD.

I need to know what was communicated between the police prior to and during this incident.  For my defense, we need the entire tape of the police transmissions, which ran for about 40 minutes, i.e. from the time I made my 911 call at 19:43 until the matter was cleared at about 20:25. 

The HEPD has only provided what are called "composite" tapes.  The 911 call and police transmission tape spans a period of about 35 minutes, yet the tape they have provided is less than 12 minutes long.  I have the right to know, what is on the entire tape.

The 911 tape with the fire department spans a time of more than 8 minutes but has been edited down to a tape lasting only 1 minute and 45 seconds. 

The critical 10 minutes of police communications prior to the undercover team's arrival at my house, for example, have been deleted.  This is the period during which 11 police officers and two emergency medical vehicles were called to the scene – well before anyone had arrived at my house – in response to a non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle? 

According to Deputy Fire Chief Robert Gorvett, the undercover police had talked about a "fight in progress" prior to arriving at my house.  This misinformation led the 911 dispatcher to send emergency medical vehicles.

I consulted Steven Cain of Burlington, Wisconsin, a 20-year veteran expert in forensic audio tape analysis and told him about the cut-and-paste tape that I had received.

"They made a composite tape and only gave you the parts that they thought you should have," Cain said.  "That's an insult to your attorney and you, the defendant."

To produce this composite tape, the HEPD obviously worked to remove a large amount of evidence from the complete tape that I requested in my FOIA request and subpoenas.  I have every right to have the complete tape in order to be able to prepare my defense.

This is just one more indication of the HEPD willingness to tamper with the evidence.  This has to be challenged with a motion that will either dismiss the charges against me or bring real sanctions against the prosecution's case.

The front door of the Bollyn home

Madoff Scam

Note: I am very grateful for the Truthseeker, who has reposted my most recent articles at: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/columnist.asp?id=6 

Here are my two most recent updates on the Madoff scam:

 Is the Prosecutor Protecting Madoff's Fellow Conspirators?
March 17, 2009

The Strange Case of Art Nadel
March 25, 2009

MADOFF'S PARTNERS:  A DIRECTOR AND AN OWNER OF PRIVATIZED ISRAELI BANKS KNOWN FOR MONEY-LAUNDERING

"Where's the money, Bernie?"

Madoff and one of his lawyers

"So he spends the rest of his life in jail — is that justice? People's lives are ruined," said Adriane Biondo of Los Angeles, one of five members of her family who lost money with Madoff. "He's sitting in jail? That's awesome," she said sarcastically. "Where's the money, Bernie?"
- AP Report, March 12, 2009

Is the Prosecutor Protecting Madoff's Fellow Conspirators?
17 March 2009

"People tend to think of the Israeli War of Independence as gung-ho Jews-Arabs stuff; it wasn't that at all.  It was more Bonnie and Clyde, Chicago type of stuff.  The people in the Stern Gang were violent, but they had a droll sense of humor.  Some of them used to dress up to rob banks.  They loved to put on masks and little moustaches."
- Avi Nesher, Israeli film director and partner of Sharon Harel, commenting on his film about the Stern Gang, to the New York Times, 9 October 1981.  Sharon Harel is the daughter of Yossi Harel, the former head of Israeli intelligence.

When Bernard Madoff read a statement in court recounting his crimes on March 12, "he sounded like a man reading a speech he hadn't bothered to rehearse," according to Joe Nocera of the New York Times.  Madoff's performance was most unsatisfactory for those who had lost their life savings in his immense fraud.  They, of course, want to know where their money went and who helped Madoff carry out the biggest financial fraud in U.S. history.  The only thing made clear during Madoff's hearing was that he is refusing to help the government build a case against anyone else, which indicates that there are others involved in this massive fraud who are being protected.

"Did we get answers?  Not at all," said George Nierenberg, a filmmaker whose family lost "almost everything," said after the hearing.  Nierenberg, who was allowed to speak during the hearing with Judge Denny Chin, expressed his dismay that Madoff had not being charged with conspiracy: 

Nierenberg: "I know that the operation – Madoff's operation was massive, that he didn't commit these crimes alone and I don't understand why conspiracy isn't part of one of his pleas.  Just to produce the reams of documents that were received and the elaborate data that went into them must have required an army of people to produce.  And we all know that Madoff wasn't around a lot at his operation.  There were other people who handled it when he was gone.

The Court:  I gather your point is that I should reject the plea because the government has not charged conspiracy?

Nierenberg:  No.  The question is – I'm not suggesting that you reject the plea.  What I'm suggesting is that there is an additional crime that was committed that wasn't included in the plea that needs to be considered.

Joe Nocera, a business journalist, added his opinion as if it were a fact in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune by stating that Madoff's fraud was a simple Ponzi scheme and that "there is no money" to be recovered.  Nocera wrote: 

One woman argued that the judge should force a trial because it would allow for the "opportunity to find out where the money is."

But of course there is no money.  That is the point of a Ponzi scheme:  the fraudster uses money from new investors to pay old investors, pretending that payment is their "gain."

How can Mr. Nocera say with certainty that the Madoff scam is really a Ponzi scheme?  Is he simply taking Madoff's word that this was a Ponzi scheme?  If Nocera has information to support his statement, why doesn't he present it?  How does Nocera know, for example, that the Madoff scheme is not a massive theft posing as a Ponzi scheme?  Why would there be such a high-level cover-up in the Madoff case if this were a simple Ponzi scheme?  Why would the prosecution be willing to ignore the other people who were involved in the Madoff fraud?

The failure of the prosecution to bring charges of conspiracy against Madoff suggests that the U.S. attorney is ignoring the network behind the crime, as Mr. Nierenberg said, by failing to address the fact that other people must be involved.  This point was addressed by Christopher Caldwell, the editor of The Weekly Standard, in an article in the Financial Times:

To top it all off, there have been no charges of conspiracy against Mr. Madoff.  That means that, as far as prosecutors are concerned, and as far as we are permitted to speculate, this make-believe investment history was his own creation.  He must have been one of the hardest-working men of his generation.

Is the prosecutor playing along with Madoff to protect the other conspirators involved in his fraud?  If he is, why would he?  Who are these other high-level conspirators who are being protected?

It appears that the larger conspiracy is being protected.  In this regard, the Madoff investigation is similar to the 9-11 investigation:  evidence of a larger conspiracy is being avoided and ignored.  After three months of investigation, it is outrageous that charges of conspiracy were not included in Madoff's plea.  He must have had conspirators in his office, in his family, and at his banks.  It is not possible that he carried out this huge fraud all by himself and managed to keep it concealed from his family and business partners for 20 years.  That is simply not believable. 

As I have pointed out earlier, Madoff's has very close and long-standing business ties to the directors and owners of two of Israel's largest banks, which were privatized in 2005-06 under Israeli finance ministers Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert:  Bank Leumi and Israel Discount Bank.  It is a matter of record that the IDB has a history of money-laundering and illegal money transfers. 

Jacob Ezra Merkin, who funneled hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to Madoff's fund, is co-owner of Bank Leumi.  Madoff's co-chair at the Sy Syms School of Business at Yeshiva University was Sy Syms, a long-standing director of Israel Discount Bank of New York.  These two relationships strongly suggest that Madoff's scheme was a massive theft being disguised as a Ponzi scheme in which fellow Zionist fund-raisers played key roles.

If this is the case and the Madoff fraud is actually a huge Zionist fund-raising scheme in which untold billions have been stolen, then we would expect that the role of the prosecutor would be played by a Zionist agent acting the role of a tough, but not too tough, prosecutor.  It should come as no surprise that this is, in fact, the case.

LEV L. DASSIN – U.S. ATTORNEY

Lev Louis Dassin

Lev Louis Dassin, the acting, i.e. temporary and non-appointed, U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, is the person responsible for prosecuting the Madoff case.  Oddly, Dassin is also handling the "mini-Madoff" case of Arthur G. Nadel, whose operation was based in Sarasota, Florida.  The reason given for the Nadel criminal case being heard in New York is that he traded through a broker in New York City.  I have reason to suspect there may be a connection to Israel, which I will discuss later.

Lev Dassin, the U.S. attorney who charged Madoff, was given the position of acting U.S. Attorney on 1 December 2008 when Michael Garcia resigned from the post.  Dassin had been a deputy to U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and took over the job when his boss resigned.  Dassin is now filling in the position until a new U.S. Attorney for Manhattan is nominated and approved, which may be Dassin after all.

DASSIN PROSECUTED 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING

From 1992 to 1998, Dassin served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted a wide range of cases involving terrorist acts, racketeering violations, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and white collar crimes.

In 1998, Mr. Dassin received the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service for his role in the investigation and prosecution of Ramzi Yousef, the so-called "mastermind" of the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center.  In 1994, Mr. Dassin received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service for his role in the investigation and prosecution of four defendants for their roles in the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center.  

As we now know, the prosecution of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was nothing but a big false-flag "frame-up" carried out by the same elements at the Dept. of Justice and F.B.I. who went on to conceal the truth and destroy the evidence of 9-11.  Dassin worked closely with Michael Chertoff, the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey who carried out the investigation and prosecution on the New Jersey side of the 1993 bombing plot.  Chertoff, an Israeli dual-national whose mother, Livia Eisen, was a Mossad agent, went on to serve as the Asst. Attorney General of the U.S. in charge of the criminal division of the Dept. of Justice.  In this position in 2001-2003 Chertoff masterminded the non-investigation and cover-up of the evidence of 9-11 and the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.

Dassin later became a partner at the law firm Kaye Scholer and taught a Columbia Law School class with Judge Michael B. Mukasey, the current United States attorney general.  Mukasey also played a key role in the judicial cover-up of the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. 

In short, Lev Dassin is one of the insiders in the judicial game surrounding the false-flag terror attacks that changed America and brought U.S. troops into the Middle East on a permanent basis.  The "War on Terror" was planned and first articulated by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and finance minister who supervised the privatization of the above named Israeli banks. 

WHO IS LEV DASSIN?

Lev Dassin, 43, is a Jewish lawyer from a Russian Zionist/Communist family background. He is the son of Gerald and Miriam Dassin of New York. His father retired in 1997 as the executive vice president for finance of Revlon International in New York.  His mother, who died in 1997, was a real estate broker and a vice president at Charles H. Greenthal Residential Sales in New York.

On 17 January 1998, Asst. U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin married Betsy Kramer, a staff lawyer at Lawyers for Children in New York, according to their wedding announcement in the New York Times the following day. Rabbi David Small performed the ceremony at the Chelsea Market in New York.  Both Lev and Betsy were 32 when they married and both had received their law degrees from New York University.

Dassin graduated with a degree in English literature from Cornell, before studying law.  After receiving his law degree from New York University, he joined the prosecutor’s office in 1992, just a few months before the bombing of the World Trade Center on 26 February 1993.

As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Dassin holds one of the most prestigious and influential prosecutor’s jobs in the nation, especially these days.  Dassin, however, tends to stay out of public view, and chooses to speak through his prosecutors in court as he did during the most recent Madoff hearing, where his assistant Marc Litt spoke for the prosecution.

Dassin is described as "a tenacious, nonpartisan advocate who moves aggressively where necessary and is willing to make hard decisions."  His history in the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center, and his background indicate that he is a dedicated Zionist.  Dassin is a scion of the Russian Jewish family of Sam and Bertha Dassin.  Lev's father Gerald said his uncle was the famous black-listed film director, Julius "Jules" Dassin. 

Julius Dassin, the Hollywood director, went to Europe after his membership in the Communist Party during the 1930s was exposed in the mid-1950s.  Dassin made a Zionist propaganda film, Survival 1967, about the 1967 Israeli war known as the Six-Day War, which was released in Israeli, French, and English versions.  The Hebrew-language version was entitled Hamilchama al hashalom.  His son Joseph, a well-known French-American singer, also worked on the film.

Jules Dassin, who has been described as "100 percent Zionist," arrived in Israel as the war ended and made a film he described as "a paean to Israel."  In making the film, Dassin worked closely with the Israeli government and military leaders.  He interviewed Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Levi Eshkol, and David Ben-Gurion.  In 1970, Dassin employed the youngest son of Moshe Dayan in one of his films.

Sources: 

Caldwell, Christopher, "Madoff's life of make-believe," Financial Times, March 14-15, 2009

Dassin, Gerald, Telephone conversation with Christopher Bollyn, March 19, 2009

Henriques, Diana B. and Jack Healy, "As Madoff goes to jail, questions still abound," New York Times (Global edition), March 14-15, 2009

Nocera, Joe, "Sharing the Madoff blame," New York Times (Global edition), March 14-15, 2009

Chase, Chris, "At the Movies," New York Times, October 9, 1981

Transcript of U.S.A. v. Bernard L. Madoff (09 CR 213), U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Judge Denny Chin, March 12, 2009

*   *   *

The Real "Scoop" on the Arthur Nadel Fraud

Why is Art Nadel's criminal case being prosecuted in New York City by the same Zionist prosecutor who is handling the Madoff fraud?  What is the real reason Nadel's $350 million alleged "Ponzi" case is being handled in the U.S. Federal Court in Manhattan?  Nadel's criminal operation was based in Sarasota, Florida.  Is Israel Discount Bank of New York involved in this scam too?

 The Strange Case of Art Nadel
March 25, 2009

Foster [Nadel's attorney] said he does not know why Nadel was charged in New York instead of Tampa. He speculated that federal prosecutors in New York consider themselves specialists in this type of case.
- "Nadel ordered to New York," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, February 3, 2009

Among the slew of investment scams that surfaced in the wake of the Bernard Madoff fraud is the strange case of Arthur G. Nadel.  Nadel's operation, which was based in Sarasota, Florida, is odd for several reasons.  One of them is the fact that Nadel is being held in the same jail in New York City as Bernard Madoff and is being prosecuted by the same prosecutor, Lev L. Dassin, although Nadel's criminal activity was clearly based in Florida.  Another interesting fact about Nadel is that he became the owner of the Venice Jet Center, a flight school where some of the "9-11 hijackers" had trained previously, under different ownership.  And then there is the coincidence that his oddly-named investment company, Scoop Management, Inc., which traded through Goldman Sachs in New York City, has the exact same name as an Israeli-owned company that is a long-standing customer at Israel Discount Bank (IDB) of New York.  IDB, a private bank controlled by the Bronfman family, is known for its practice of money laundering and illegal money transfers of billions of dollars.

WHY WAS NADEL TAKEN TO NEW YORK?

In early February, a federal judge named Mark A. Pizzo denied a motion without comment to keep the Nadel case in Sarasota, Florida. Nadel's attorney Todd A. Foster had filed an emergency motion to stay Nadel's removal to New York City, where he was charged with securities fraud and wire fraud charges.  As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune of February 3, 2009 reported:

Pizzo signed a "warrant of removal" Monday that directs the U.S. marshal to transport Nadel to the Southern District of New York to stand trial.

While the alleged Ponzi scheme was based in Sarasota, Nadel was charged by federal prosecutors in that district because he traded his six hedge funds through a broker in New York City, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office there.

Foster said he does not know why Nadel was charged in New York instead of Tampa. He speculated that federal prosecutors in New York consider themselves specialists in this type of case.

"I would have expected there are plenty of very competent prosectors in this area who could have handled this case," he said.

The federal government "has an enormous amount of discretion in choosing the jurisdiction," said Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University law professor who specializes in international criminal law.

One possible reason for federal prosecutors to pick New York is that there may be a broader investigation already under way there, and that Nadel fits into it. Another is simply that the U.S. attorneys in that district, which takes in Wall Street, are very experienced in white-collar crime.

There is the possibility that Nadel's criminal case will be settled through some kind of plea agreement, Podgor said, adding that the parallel civil fraud case being tried in Tampa could become part of the New York case.

WHO IS SCOOP MANAGEMENT INC.?

Arthur Nadel's investment company had the odd-sounding name, Scoop Management, Inc. and was located at 1618 Main Street in Sarasota, Florida.  This name struck me as being quite odd when I first read about Nadel's scam.  It is unlike the names of the funds he operated and there didn't seem to be any logical reason for Nadel to call his investment company Scoop Management.  Nadel's Scoop Management was incorporated on April 17, 2001 in the State of Florida and Arthur Nadel was registered as the agent.

What is even more peculiar about Scoop Management, Inc. is that there is an Israeli-owned company with the exact same name doing business in Florida.  The Israeli company is based in New York, where Nadel did all of his trading, according to the criminal complaint.  The Israeli-owned Scoop Management, Inc. is connected to a retail clothing business called Scoop, and is owned by an Israeli named Uzi Ben-Abraham and is located in New York City at 532 Broadway. 

Uzi Ben-Abraham
President of Scoop Management Inc.

Ben-Abraham's American business partner is a conservative Jew named Stefani Greenfield.  Ms Greenfield grew up in Bayside, Queens.  Her mother reportedly ran a methadone clinic in the South Bronx for 25 years, and her dad was in public relations. She attended public schools, including Stuyvesant, and the conservative synagogue at the Bay Terrace Jewish Centre.

The Israeli-owned Scoop Management, Inc. is the parent company of Scoop Management LLC and Scoop Shore Club LLC, which were incorporated in Florida, on January 10, 2006, and December 27, 2005, respectively.  Ben-Abraham is also the owner of Scoop Shore Club Inc., incorporated in Florida on September 27, 1999, and located at 1901 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach at the Shore Club Hotel.

This may be only a coincidence or it could be how millions of dollars invested with Nadel's Scoop Management, Inc. disappeared without a trace.  With two companies using the exact same name it would be possible for funds sent to Nadel's company to be transferred to the Israeli-owned company with the same name.  Asked if it was legal for two companies with the same name to be registered in Florida, the department of business records told me that between 1999 and 2006 there was a legal loophole that made it possible to establish a LLC in the state using the same name as another company.  Were millions of dollars sent to Nadel's Scoop Management deposited into the account of the Israeli-owned company with the same name doing business with Israel Discount Bank?  If that is the case we probably won't hear about it from the prosecution led by Lev Dassin.  Is this the real reason the Nadel case was ordered to New York City?  Why else has the case been taken away from Florida, where Nadel's criminal enterprise was based?

The Israeli-owned Scoop Management, Inc. is a prized customer at the Israel Discount Bank of New York, which is a bank known for money laundering and illegal wire transfers.  On January 16, 2006, for example, the Israeli business news outlet Globes online reported that the Israel Discount Bank of New York had been caught laundering $2 billion from South American depositors.  Arie Sheer, the general manager of IDBNY was put on paid leave "under protest," Globes reported.

Uzi Ben-Abraham, the president of Scoop Management has a promotional testimonial in the IDBNY's annual report for 2007, where he says:  "We've been a customer for about five years and the experience so far has been great."

Scoop's testimonial in IDB's annual report 2007

Sources:

Hielscher, John, "Nadel ordered to New York," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, February 3, 2009

*   *   *

To donate to my research please donate via Paypal
to bollyn@bollynbooks.com 
Thank you!

For correspondence, please use my e-mail: bollyn.books@yahoo.com