Categories
Business

Greensill’s Collapse Inquiry and David Cameron’s Lobbying

He said he first became concerned about the financial health of his company in December when a German regulator said a bank acquired by Greensill Capital must cut its exposure to a client.

In business today

Updated

May 11, 2021 at 1:13 p.m. ET

The request “would be impossible for us to fulfill,” said Greensill.

Greensill’s business model has raised concerns and even allegations of fraud. The main offering has been supply chain finance, where a middleman advances payments to suppliers and the money is then returned by the buyer. It’s a long-established type of funding usually provided by banks, but Greensill added a twist. The suppliers’ invoices and other receivables were packaged in assets that were then sold to investors through funds. The company also financed companies on “future claims” based on transactions that had not yet taken place.

In the virtual hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Greensill vigorously defended the business model.

“Every asset we’ve ever sold has been properly described,” he said, adding that all investors would have had complete information about what they were buying.

But he admitted a little admission for mistakes he’d made. He told lawmakers that one of his company’s innovations is taking information directly from company accounts to make quick credit decisions. This “is absolutely the future, but the way I did it definitely had flaws,” he said without specifying what they were.

In March, when insurance coverage ran out, Credit Suisse closed Greensill’s $ 10 billion supply chain finance fund. The Swiss bank returned almost half of the amount to investors, but is still exposed to potential billions in losses.

“I am fully responsible for the collapse of Greensill Capital,” said Greensill, adding that he was “desperately sad” that more than 1,000 of its employees had lost their jobs. But he added, “It is deeply regrettable that we have been disappointed with our leading insurer, whose actions ensured the collapse of Greensill.”

The Financial Conduct Authority, the UK’s top financial regulator, said in a letter to the committee that it is “formally investigating” Greensill because some of the allegations of its failure are “potentially criminal in nature”. The agency also works with supervisory authorities in Germany, Australia and Switzerland, wrote Nikhil Rathi, the supervisory authority’s managing director.

Categories
Politics

Prosecutors Are Stated to Have Sought Aggressive Method to Capitol Riot Inquiry

WASHINGTON – In the weeks following the deadly January 6 riot at the Capitol, federal prosecutors in Washington drew up a comprehensive plan to eradicate possible conspirators against the attackers and investigate them for links to the attack.

Prosecutors suggested that these lists could help organizers of the rally where President Donald J. Trump spoke just before the attack, anyone who helped pay the rioters to travel to Washington, and any member of the far-right groups that in the US include crowd that day.

Two of the prosecutors – trial lawyers who led the riot investigation – presented the plan to the FBI in late February, along with a roughly 25-page document setting out the strategy for uncovering possible conspiracies between the attackers and other people behind on condition of anonymity spoke to discuss an active investigation.

The aggressive plan was in line with the Justice Department’s public vow to indict those involved in the Capitol attack. But FBI officials flinched, citing concerns that the plan appeared to suggest investigating people with no evidence to suggest they committed crimes, and that doing so would be against the bureau’s policies and protection of the first amendment. It is not illegal to join any organization, including extremist groups, or to participate in protests or to fund travel to a rally.

FBI officials voiced their concern to officials at the Chief Justice Department in Washington, who eventually overturned the plan.

However, the decision by senior FBI and Justice Department officials to override the task force prosecutors came at a crucial time for the high-profile, far-reaching investigation, as the public and officials of the Biden government are accountable for the insurrection and called for a push to combat domestic extremism.

Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment.

The proposal also demonstrates the balancing act that newly sustained Justice Department leaders face as they attempt to counter domestic extremism and prevent terrorism without violating American civil liberties. The FBI was previously criticized for its response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the aspects of which were condemned as an attack on civil liberties, and for its Cointelpro campaign in the 1950s and 1960s to spy on civil rights leaders and others.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said last week that even as he led the investigation into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing during a previous stint at the Justice Department, investigators knew they needed to see to it that Americans’ civil liberties were protected.

“We promised to find the perpetrators, bring them to justice and do so in a way that respects the constitution,” Garland said.

FBI officials have emphasized the bureau’s efforts to stay within its boundaries when investigating protected activity. While preventing terrorism is a priority in the United States, “an investigation cannot be initiated solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment,” said Michael McGarrity, then head of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, in the year 2019 in a statement from the house.

The office relies in large part on its large network of informants who provide tips and information on how to start an investigation, said current and former members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. But agents cannot investigate people simply because they are members of groups that advocate violent, racist, or anti-government ideologies.

Washington prosecutors encountered this restriction while trying to identify and track down individuals who participated in the January 6 attack. They also investigated whether the attack was more than a spontaneous riot that broke out after an emotionally charged rally, limited by Mr Trump’s admonitions to his supporters to contest Congressional certification that afternoon of the election.

In February, some prosecutors expressed frustration at being obstructed by senior Justice Department officials overseeing the investigation in the weeks leading up to the swearing-in of Mr. Garland and other Biden officials.

Prosecutors wanted to know more about who had spoken to Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers, a militia whose members had played a prominent role in conspiracy cases charged by the government in connection with the attack.

In a message posted on the Oath Keepers website, Mr Rhodes had urged members to come to Washington and stand up for Mr Trump. He was also part of an operation to provide security to Mr. Trump’s close associates, including Roger J. Stone Jr., who spoke at the rally that day.

Prosecutors wanted a search warrant for Mr. Rhodes. Militias like the Oath Keepers and right-wing nationalist groups like the Proud Boys had for years managed to largely evade FBI control as their protests and other public activities remained within the law.

But with members of such groups in the Capitol on January 6, some prosecutors expressed the hope that they now had reason to investigate their staff and leaders.

However, the law does not prohibit pressuring people to take part in a protest or support a politician, even if the statements are provocative. and investigators found no evidence that Mr Rhodes had helped arrange anything more than bodyguards for the speakers.

Justice Department officials, including Michael R. Sherwin, an officer who was overseeing the January 6 investigation at the time, denied prosecutors’ request for a search warrant on Mr. Rhodes, according to two people who were briefed on the deliberations . They concluded that the prosecutors lacked a likely cause for doing so without violating his civil liberties and rights.

Following the dispute, two of the lead task force prosecutors contacted the FBI’s Terrorism Operations Department to inform investigators of their proposed strategy to review the insurgency. They suggested that investigators look at rally organizers and organizations such as militia groups.

Among the FBI officers who opposed the approach, according to those informed about the plan, was Deputy Director Paul M. Abbate. After office officials discussed the presentation with Justice Department officials, the assistant attorney general’s chiefs – including Matthew S. Axelrod, then the second-largest officer in the office – briefed Channing D. Phillips, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, on the Prosecutors would not take such an approach to the investigation.

The investigation, which continues to be led by federal attorneys and FBI agents in Washington, has led to the arrest of over 400 defendants in at least 45 states. About 30 were charged with more serious crimes, including conspiracy, according to the Justice Department.

Categories
Health

Virus Origins Stay Unclear in W.H.O.-China Inquiry

For 27 days they searched for clues in Wuhan, visited hospitals, live animal markets and government laboratories, conducted interviews and pushed Chinese officials for data, but an international team of experts left the country far from understanding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic worldwide 2.8 million people killed.

The 124-page report of a joint World Health Organization-China investigation, due to be officially released on Tuesday and released to the media on Monday, contains a plethora of new details but no profound new evidence. And it does little to allay Western concerns about the role of the Chinese Communist Party, which is known to be resistant to outside control and has at times tried to prevent an investigation by the WHO. The report is also not clear whether China will allow outside experts to dig further.

“The investigation is in danger of getting nowhere and we may never find the true source of the virus,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow on global health with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The report, the advance copy of which was obtained from the New York Times, said China still lacks the data or research to indicate how or when the virus began to spread. Some outside of the country skeptics say China may have more information than it admits.

The team of experts also dismissed the possibility that the virus accidentally emerged from a Chinese laboratory as “extremely unlikely,” although some scientists say this is an important question that needs to be investigated.

The Chinese government has tried to provide some level of access and cooperation, but has repeatedly tried to bend the investigation to its advantage. The report was co-authored by a WHO-selected team of 17 scientists from around the world and 17 Chinese scientists, many of whom hold official positions or work in government-run institutions, which has given Beijing great influence on its conclusions.

Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, said he was not convinced that a laboratory leak was extremely unlikely after seeing a copy of the report. He said he agreed that it was highly plausible that the virus would naturally have evolved to spread to humans, but he saw no reason in the report to rule out the possibility of a laboratory escape.

A member of the expert team, Peter Daszak, a British disease ecologist who heads the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based pandemic prevention group, backed down against criticism of the team’s work and collaboration in China. He said the laboratory leak hypothesis was “political from the start”. Dr. Daszak added that the WHO team was not constrained in its interviews with scientists who were on-site at the beginning of the pandemic.

He himself has been accused of having a conflict of interest for doing a past research on coronavirus with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, what a disease ecologist should do.

“We were in the right place because we knew there was a risk of the virus occurring,” said Dr. Daszak. “We worked with that same viral group there and it happened.”

Updated

March 29, 2021, 2:06 p.m. ET

The prevailing theory remains that the virus came from bats, jumped to another animal, and then mutated in a way that allowed it to be transmitted to humans and from person to person. However, the process of tracing the origins of a virus is notoriously tedious.

To answer many of the remaining questions, the report recommends further retrospective studies of infections in humans, including the earliest cases, as well as further virus testing in farm animals and wildlife in China and Southeast Asia. It also calls for more detailed tracking of routes from farms to markets in Wuhan, which would require extensive interviews and blood tests for farmers, vendors and other workers.

It is unclear how much China will cooperate, however, and the country’s secretive and defensive behavior has helped fuel theories that were somehow responsible for starting the pandemic. Local officials in Wuhan first tried to hide the outbreak; Beijing has since expelled many Western journalists and put forward evidence-free theories about the virus originating elsewhere – although the earliest known cases were all in China and experts believe it almost certainly showed up there first.

“We have real concerns about the methodology and process that went into this report, including the fact that the Beijing government appears to have helped write it,” Foreign Secretary Antony J. Blinken said in a CNN interview that aired on Sunday.

China’s increasingly keen ties with the United States and other countries have also made investigation difficult. The Biden government has repeatedly criticized China’s lack of transparency, including its refusal to provide raw data on early Covid-19 cases to investigators during their visit to Wuhan. Chinese officials have resisted suggesting that the United States should welcome WHO to investigate the unsubstantiated theory that the virus may have originated in a US Army laboratory.

“We will never accept the baseless allegations and wanton denigration of the United States regarding the epidemic,” said Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, at a regular press conference in Beijing on Monday.

In bombastic news articles, Chinese propagandists have hailed the investigation as a sign of China’s openness to the world and as a justification for the government’s handling of the epidemic.

WHO has come under pressure to request more data and research from the Chinese government. However, the global health authority is inherently obliged to its member countries, which have not given the WHO team extensive powers to conduct forensic investigations into laboratory accidents in China, for example.

While much of the report was in-depth about molecular studies, virus development, and possible animal hosts, the section on the possibility of a laboratory leak was sketchy at best. While the animal origin of the virus is largely undisputed, some scientists claim that the virus could be collected and present in the laboratory of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although Chinese scientists do not claim it is.

China’s lack of transparency and other concerns prompted a small group of non-WHO scientists to call for a new investigation into the origin of the pandemic this month. They said such an investigation should consider the possibility that the virus escaped from or infected someone in a laboratory in Wuhan.

The laboratory leak theory was promoted by a number of Trump administration officials, including Dr. Robert Redfield, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, endorsed it in comments on CNN last week. He offered no evidence and insisted that it was his opinion; The theory has been largely rejected by scientists and US intelligence officials.

Matt Apuzzo and Apoorva Mandavilli contributed to the coverage. Albee Zhang contributed to the research.

Categories
Health

Some Scientists Query W.H.O. Inquiry Into the Coronavirus Pandemic’s Origins

Asked to respond to the letter, Tarik Jasarevic, a spokesman for WHO, replied in an email that the team of experts that had traveled to China are working on his full report, as well as an accompanying summary report, which we understand will be issued simultaneously in a couple of weeks. “

The open letter indicated that the WHO study was a joint effort by a team of external experts selected by the global health organization and worked with Chinese scientists, and that the team’s report must be agreed upon by all. The letter stressed that the team had been denied access to some records and no laboratories in China were examined.

Updated

March 7, 2021, 3:06 p.m. ET

The team’s letter stated: “While this may be of limited use, it does not represent the official position of the WHO or the result of an unqualified, independent investigation.”

Without naming him, the letter criticized Peter Daszak, an expert on animal diseases and their links to human health, the head of the EcoHealth Alliance. In the letter that began with articles about Dr. Daszak was said to have previously expressed his belief that the virus was most likely to have a natural origin.

Dr. Daszak said the letter’s urge to investigate a laboratory origin for the virus was a position “supported by political agendas”.

“I urge the world community to wait for the WHO mission report to be published,” he added.

Filippa Lentzos, Lecturer in Science and International Security at King’s College London and one of the signatories to the letter, said: “I think to get a credible investigation, it has to be more of a global effort in the EU to feel that there is UN General Assembly should be brought where all the nations of the world are represented and can vote on whether or not to mandate the UN Secretary General to conduct this type of investigation. “