A Key Biscayne, Florida, resident and the former CEO and Chairman of a now-bankrupt multinational pharmaceutical company was sentenced to 30 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release yesterday for his role his role in a $100 million scheme to defraud Westernbank of Puerto Rico (Westernbank). The losses triggered a series of events leading to Westernbank’s insolvency and ultimate collapse.
Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida, Inspector General Jay N. Lerner of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General (FDIC-OIG), Special Agent in Charge Michael J. DePalma of IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) for Miami and Puerto Rico, Special Agent in Charge Iván J. Arvelo of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in San Juan and Special Agent in Charge Douglas A. Leff of the FBI’s San Juan, Puerto Rico Field Office made the announcement.
Jack Kachkar, 56, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham of the Southern District of Florida, who also presided over the trial in this case. Judge Graham also ordered the defendant to pay $103,490,005 in restitution to the FDIC, as receiver for Westernbank. Kachkar was convicted on Feb. 4, 2019, after a three-week trial, of eight counts of wire fraud affecting a financial institution.
According to evidence presented at trial, from 2005 to 2007, Kachkar served as chairman and CEO of Inyx Inc., a publicly traded multinational pharmaceutical manufacturing company. Beginning in early 2005, Kachkar caused Westernbank to enter into a series of loan agreements in exchange for a security interest in the assets of Inyx and its subsidiaries. Under the loan agreements, Westernbank agreed to advance money based on Inyx’s customer invoices from “actual and bona fide” sales to Inyx customers, the evidence showed.
The trial evidence showed that Kachkar orchestrated a scheme to defraud Westernbank by causing numerous Inyx employees to make tens of millions of dollars worth of fake customer invoices purportedly payable by customers in the United Kingdom, Sweden and elsewhere. Kachkar caused these invoices to be presented to Westernbank as valid invoices. Kachkar made false and fraudulent representations to Westernbank executives about purported and imminent repayments from lenders in the United Kingdom, Norway, Libya and elsewhere in order to lull Westernbank into continuing to lend money to Inyx, the evidence showed. In fact, these lenders had not agreed to repay Westernbank’s loan. Kachkar made false and fraudulent representations to Westernbank executives that he had additional collateral, including purported mines in Mexico and Canada worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to induce Westernbank to lend additional funds, the evidence showed. In fact, this additional collateral was worth barely a fraction of that represented by Kachkar.
During the course of the scheme, Kachkar caused Westernbank to lend approximately $142 million, primarily based on false and fraudulent customer invoices. The evidence showed that the defendant diverted tens of millions of dollars for his own personal benefit, including for the purchase of, among other things, a private jet, luxury homes in Key Biscayne and Brickell, Miami, luxury cars, luxury hotel stays, and extravagant jewelry and clothing expenditures.
In or around June 2007, Westernbank declared the loan in default and ultimately suffered losses exceeding $100 million on the Inyx loans. According to trial evidence, these losses later triggered a series of events leading to Westernbank’s insolvency and ultimate collapse. At the time of its collapse, Westernbank had approximately 1,500 employees and was one of the largest banks in Puerto Rico.
This case was investigated by the FDIC-OIG, IRS-CI, HSI and FBI. The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs provided significant support in the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael N. Berger of the Southern District of Florida and Trial Attorney Michael O’Neill of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. The Department acknowledges and appreciates the substantial assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the U.K. Metropolitan Police.
NEW YORK, July 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Inyx, Inc. , reported that the company's Chairman & CEO, Jack Kachkar, M.D., yesterday was approved as the debtor-in-possession lender for Inyx USA, Ltd. and Exaeris, Inc., its two wholly-owned North American operating subsidiaries, by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware, over the objections of Westernbank Puerto Rico, a wholly owned subsidiary of W Holding Company, Inc. .
On July 2, 2007, as a measure to protect Inyx against further potential damaging actions by Westernbank, the company placed its two U.S. operating subsidiaries in Chapter 11 protection.
As a result of yesterday's court approval of Dr. Kachkar providing the financing for the U.S. operating subsidiaries, Inyx's North American businesses will continue to operate on a normal basis.
Dr. Kachkar also continues to provide the financing for the operations of Inyx, Inc., which is not itself a party to the Chapter 11 filings.
In addition to the Chapter 11 protection, on June 29, 2007, Inyx, Inc. and Inyx USA, together with Dr. Kachkar and his wife, filed suit against Westernbank in New York State Supreme Court, asserting various causes of action seeking no less that $500 million in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages. The complaint charges, among other things, that Westernbank acted in bad faith and in a commercially unreasonable manner by blocking the flow of funds from Inyx's customers to the company, and preventing the Inyx companies from paying their debts. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, wrongful dishonor of checks, wrongful impairment of collateral, tortious interference or impairment with prospective business relations, and third-party beneficiary of contract and tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relations.
About Inyx
Inyx, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company with niche drug-delivery technologies and products for the treatment of respiratory, allergy, dermatological, topical and cardiovascular conditions. Inyx USA, Ltd., located in Manati, Puerto Rico, is the company's North American-based production center. Exaeris, Inc., based in Exton, Pennsylvania, is Inyx's North American marketing arm. For more information, please visit: www.inyxgroup.com.
Safe Harbor
Statements about the Inyx's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, and all other statements in this press release other than historical facts, are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Inyx intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Since these
statements involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, Inyx's actual results could differ materially from expected results.
For more information, please contact: Jay M. Green, Executive VP jgreen@inyxgroup.com
Inyx, Inc.
CONTACT: Jay M. Green, Executive VP of Inyx, Inc., jgreen@inyxgroup.com
Of course, I have attempted to water this down to start taking small sips in understanding that our elected officials are implementing privatization policies through foreign actions by ignoring the simple fact that we are a tripartite government which is structured as a trust.
Privatization is the usurpation of Judicial powers by going through that god awful administrative law in those Privateering UCC ships that sail off after stealin' the children, land and the votes.
The fun part about all this is that SCOTUS may experience a constitutional crisis, which, dare I say, may be a situation of war crimes, including violations of the statutes of fraud in #cyberwars, better recognized as propaganda.
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of l976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 289l, 28 U.S.C. Sec. l330, l332(a), l39l(f) and l60l-l6ll [hereinafter the FSIA], limits the role of the Executive branch in suits against foreign governments and governmental entities by precluding the Department of State from making decisions on state immunity. The FSIA codifies the restrictive theory of immunity, incorporating criteria, which the courts had developed in applying the theory, while codifying and applying international law. (See ch. 5, Restatement 3rd, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, sec. 451-463, pp. 390, 435, American Law Institute (1986).) The Act prescribes the means of service for suits against a foreign state or agency and instrumentality in Section.
This is about privatization because it looks like the Michigan Emergency Manager Law where the Executive Branch can make policy through Executive Order usurping the powers of the Judicial Branch.
Only the Congress makes law.
In a nutshell, this is shockingly the progenitor to the Michigan Manager Emergency Law, which was born of Michigan Child Protection Law, the international model of privatization.
Petitioners are family members of Mihai Alimanestianu, one of seven United States citizens killed in the
1989 terrorist attack on United Trans Aeriens (UTA)
Flight 772 over Niger.
They sued the Government of Libya.
They lost and appealed.
The district court entered a judgment in favor of
petitioners, but their claims were dismissed on appeal
pursuant to an agreement between the United States
and Libya that required Libya to pay money into a settlement fund to compensate American victims of terrorism and the United States to restore Libya’s sovereign
immunity to suit in U.S. courts.
Settlement funds is code for children's trust fund because that is how they are structure complex financial fraud schemes.
Then they sued the court for stealin' their claims.
Petitioners then sued the
United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), alleging that the government had taken their claims
against Libya without just compensation.
So, what had happened was....
The State Department made the determination, devoid of any due process, that Libya sponsored the UTA attack and could not be immune from being sued which sounds exactly like Child Protection Law, because you are guilty, until proven innocent, which you can never be proven innocent as the quasi-judicial determination of rights to property fell under the Executive Branch.
Then, in the spirit of Child Welfare Law, "reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child were made" with lots of great programs, billed to the U.S. Treasury, just like child welfare bills to Medicaid, that Libya's parental rights to its sovereign immunity was terminated and its goods were
Beginning in 2003, when Libya decided to “relinquish its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs,” the United States and Libya worked to
reestablish normal diplomatic relations.
Then, Libya decided to settle for $1.3 billion to restore relations with the U.S., but not the UTA attack claims. In October 2008, the Secretary of State certified receipt of the settlement funds from Libya, triggering the restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity under the LCRA. Pet. App. 5a. President Bush then issued an Executive Order stating that the United States had “espoused” and “settled” the terrorism-related claims of U.S. nationals against Libya pursuant to the claims settlement agreement.
TRANSLATION: AS SOON AS THOSE $$$ DROPPED, LIBYA GOT ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BACK SO IT COULD TURN AROUND AND SUE THE COURT FOR NOT LETTING IT SUE UNDER THE IN COURT.
The Executive Order set up a different funding stream to compensate the victims and dismissed all the DOJ claims in the Judicial Branch by setting up Public Private Partnerships to funnel the money through child welfare NGOs like they always do.
Just consider this form of stealin' an "humanitarian action" because people have properties to build and research to develop so they can keep stealin'.
Then, Libya claimed that they could sue the court for dismissing their claims because they did not have sovereign immunity, which amounts to stealin' personal property under the Fifth Amendment.
The court of appeals reiterated that prohibiting a claimant from asserting a claim in U.S. courts did
not amount to a “physical invasion of property.
Then it goes on to say, "Blah, blah, blah", per se, usurpation of Judicial Powers, blah,blah, blah.... you can read the background model, here.
Prior to 1976, a foreign state sued in United States courts would hie
itself to the State Department and ask for an immunity letter. If the State
Department acted favorably, the letter would have the practical effect of
ending the lawsuit. To be sure, the Supreme Court's decision that such
letters should be honored was a judicial determination based upon criteria
for judicial deference developed in a series of foreign affairs cases. But such
wholesale deference came to look very like surrender, particularly because
the State Department's conduct was oft-times redolent of backroom politics: the department's decision to issue or withhold an immunity determination was not always based upon a strict reading of the Tate letter. The
department regarded its function as partaking more of "political powers"
-in Marshall's words 34-than of any quasi-judicial duty. It was difficult
to see why litigants with presumably valid claims, often amounting to
great sums, should live at the mercy of the diplomatic considerations
which the State Department felt bound to honor. Under the Act, the court-a federal court if the foreign state wants it
that way-makes the immunity determination, looking only to the standards set out in the Act and, in theory at least, not to its own or somebody
else's view of how nice or nasty the state-defendant's government is.
The Act codifies a number of exceptions to a general principle of immunity, provides a procedure for serving process on a foreign state, and
defines the assets that may be the subject of execution to satisfy judgment.
So, basically, the question I am presenting is if a claim is a moveable or immoveable one, because it sounds like chattel law to me, like what they do in adoption, termination of parental rights, quiet title actions, you know the routine when it comes to stealin' the children, land and the votes.
This action sounds like a foreboding proclamation to a series of Quo Warranto, but hey, what do I know?
I know this sounds like a constitutional crisis because there are more actions in the SCOTUS pipeline.
I also know it is not wise to be mean to my Sweetie.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the government’s restoration of Libya’s
sovereign immunity in U.S. courts and settlement of petitioners’ claims for more than $10 million in damages
effected a taking of petitioners’ property without just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
Are we finally ready to talk about child welfare fraud?
Are we finally ready to talk about trafficking tiny humans in the U.S., Haiti, Kosovo, Syria, Libya, Russia, Ukraine and the rest of the world?
Stay tuned, it is not what you think it is, and the truth is going to be horrid which is why he only touches the subject for the first few minutes in the video.
The Syrian Emergency Task Force is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization created to support the Syrian people's demand for freedom and democracy, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or background. SETF seeks to convey the democratic aspirations of Syrians to the American public, and support humanitarian efforts to assist victims of the Syrian crisis. Propaganda. They did the videos.
Washington — House Speaker Paul Ryan abruptly announced Wednesday he will retire rather than
seek another term in Congress as the steady if reluctant wingman for President Donald Trump, sending new ripples of uncertainty through a Washington already on edge and a Republican Party bracing for a rough election year.
The Wisconsin Republican cast the decision to end his 20-year career as a personal one — he doesn’t want his children growing up with a “weekend dad” — but it will create a vacuum at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. It will leave congressional Republicans without a measured voice to talk Trump away from what some see as damaging impulses, and it will rob Trump of an influential steward to shepherd his more ambitious ideas into legislation.
It’s unusual for a House speaker, third in line to succeed the president, to turn himself into a lame duck, especially so for Ryan, a once-rising GOP star who is only 48 and was the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2012. His decision fueled fresh doubts about the party’s ability to fend off a Democratic wave, fed by opposition to Trump, in November. And it threw the House into a leadership battle that could end up pushing Ryan aside sooner than he intended and crush any hopes for significant legislation before the election.
Ryan, though, said he had no regrets after having accomplished “a heckuva lot” during his time in a job he never really wanted. He said fellow Republicans have plenty of achievements to run on this fall, including the tax cuts Congress delivered, which have been his personal cause and the centerpiece of his small-government agenda, even though they helped skyrocket projected annual deficits toward $1 trillion.
“I have given this job everything I have,” Ryan said.
Speculation over Ryan’s future had been swirling for months, but as he dialed up colleagues and spoke by phone with Trump early Wednesday, the news stunned even top allies.
Ryan announced his plans at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans. Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina said an emotional Ryan “choked up a few times trying to get through” his remarks and received three standing ovations.
He later briefly thanked Trump in public for giving him the chance to move GOP ideas ahead.
While Ryan was crucial in getting the tax cuts passed, a prime Trump goal, he and the president have had a difficult relationship. Trump showed impatience with Congress’ pace in dealing with his proposals, and Ryan had to deal with a president who shared little of his interest in policy detail.
Still, for many Republicans, it’s unclear who will be left in leadership to counterbalance Trump. Ryan has been “a steady force in contrast to the president’s more mercurial tone,” said Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. “That’s needed.”
The speaker had been heading toward this decision since late last year, said a person familiar with his thinking, but as recently as February he had considered running for another term. His own father died suddenly of a heart attack when he was 16, and though Ryan is in good health, the distance from his family weighed on him. A final decision was made over the two-week congressional recess, which he partly spent on a family vacation in the Czech Republic.
Ryan, from Janesville, Wisconsin, was first elected to Congress in 1998. Along with Reps. Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy, he branded himself a rising “Young Gun” in an aging party, a new breed of hard-charging Republican ready to shrink the size of government.
He was GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012.
Ryan was pulled into the leadership job by the sudden retirement in 2015 of Speaker John Boehner, who had struggled to control the chamber’s restless conservative wing. He has had more trust with the hardliners in the House.
“That’s probably his greatest gift to us,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. “His ability to bridge the vast divide.”
House Majority Leader McCarthy, a Californian known to be tighter with Trump, is expected to again seek the top leadership post that slipped from his reach in 2015. He will likely compete with Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Both men spoke at the closed-door meeting Wednesday, delivering tributes to Ryan, and both attended a GOP leadership dinner Wednesday night with Trump at the White House.
Another potential rival, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, demurred when asked if he’d pursue the speaker’s job. “Leadership has never been on my bucket list, and it’s not on my bucket list today,” he said.
Ryan’s announcement came as Republicans are bracing for a potential blue wave of voter enthusiasm for Democrats, who need to flip at least 24 GOP-held seats in November to regain the majority.
As the House GOP’s top fundraiser, Ryan’s lame-duck status could send shockwaves through donor circles that are relying on his leadership at the helm of the House majority. He has hauled in $54 million so far this election cycle.
“It injects some more uncertainty to be sure,” said the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas. “It’s just another issue that’s floating out there, and obviously there’s going to be some competition for his successor.”
But a top GOP fundraiser, Eric Tanenblatt, expects Ryan to remain a force in a tough cycle.
“Donors who are committed to making sure Republicans hold onto the majority will do whatever they have to do to make that happen,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has worked with Ryan, praised his colleague’s tenure. The Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said she hoped Ryan would work constructively on bipartisan goals before he leaves.
In Wisconsin, Republicans had no obvious successor in waiting. The most likely GOP candidate for Ryan’s seat is state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Republicans in the state said. Another Republican mentioned as a potential candidate is longtime Ryan family friend and backer Bryan Steil, an attorney and member of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
Democrat Randy Bryce, a colorful ironworker who has cultivated an “IronStache” moniker, had been Ryan’s best-known challenger, drawing liberal support from around the country. He had nearly $2.3 million in the bank at the end of the first quarter. Janesville teacher Cathy Myers has also been running on the Democratic side. The only declared Republicans are Paul Nehlen, who was banned from Twitter earlier this year for posts criticized as racist or anti-Semitic, and Nick Polce, an Army veteran who also co-owns a security consulting firm.
While his plans are uncertain once he steps down in January, Ryan has long said being speaker would be his last job in elected office. Others have suggested that an ideal job for the policy wonk could be running a think tank, noting the leader of the conservative American Enterprise Institute recently announced he would be stepping down.
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days before the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, with respect to Libya is to continue in effect beyond February 25, 2018.
Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates took extreme measures against the people of Libya, including using weapons of war, mercenaries, and wanton violence against unarmed civilians. There remains a serious risk that former members of the Qadhafi government, members of the Qadhafi family, the Qadhafi family’s close associates, or others determined to undermine the United Nations peace process might misappropriate Libyan state assets. The diversion of these resources could prolong and deepen the current instability in Libya, which would benefit the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and other terrorist groups and pose a serious risk to the national security of the United States and the security of regional partners.
A strong and united Libya is the best defense against terrorism in the region. The violence among Libyans that began in Benghazi in May 2014, and spread thereafter to Tripoli and throughout the country, has destabilized the country. Until Libyans resolve their underlying political divisions, there will remain a significant threat of civil conflict in Libya. Many of the ongoing political divisions are over power and access to Libya’s resources, and further destabilization is possible were sanctions to be lifted. We continue to encourage Libyans to engage in political dialogue and refrain from violence. Those who reject dialogue and obstruct or undermine Libya’s democratic transition must be held accountable. While we work with the international community to identify those individuals who pose a threat to Libya’s democratic transition, we must also continue to ensure that appropriate sanctions remain in place.
The situation in Libya continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and measures are needed to protect against the diversion of assets or other abuses by members of Qadhafi’s family, their associates, and others hindering Libyan national reconciliation. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to Libya.
Summary Slide Version
Oil, Arms, DynCorp, UN Peacekeepers, Rape, Child Traffic, Organ Harvest,
All One Thing
Slow and Subtle Wins the Race for DynCorp
Oil, Arms, DynCorp, UN Peacekeepers, Rape, Child Traffic, Organ Harvest, All One Thing
Slow and Subtle Wins the Race for DynCorp - How Few Operatives and Informants It Takes
Oil, Arms, DynCorp, UN Peacekeepers, Rape, Child Traffic, Organ Harvest, All One Thing
In October 2008, the Secretary of State certified receipt of the settlement funds from Libya, triggering the restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity under the LCRA. Pet. App. 5a. President Bush then issued an Executive Order stating that the United States had “espoused” and “settled” the terrorism-related claims of U.S. nationals against Libya pursuant to the claims settlement agreement. 
