The CIA, Secretiveness and Jim Giffen's Gamble
Jim Giffen, a New York man accused of passing oil company bribes to Kazakhstan’s president, has asked a federal judge to determine whether U.S. intelligence agencies are purposely withholding documents that the defense says could exonerate him.
In a letter on Giffen’s behalf, his lawyer, William Schwartz, also asks U.S. Judge William Pauley to determine whether his client – whose trial has yet to be scheduled five years after his arrest – has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Earlier this month, Pauley suggested in court that the delays may have gone on too long.
The Giffen case has attracted attention as the largest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecution since the 1977 law took effect. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. In Kazakhstan, the case is known as Kazakhgate.
The 67-year-old Giffen doesn’t deny the government’s charges that he passed along some $80 million in payments from U.S. oil companies to Nazarbayev and other officials from the country. But he has invoked a so-called “public authority” defense, asserting that he had reason to believe that U.S. intelligence agencies knew and approved of the payments because Giffen served a useful role for the U.S. as a Nazarbayev confidante. In order to prove his claim, Giffen has requested a trove of documents from the CIA. In an April hearing, a U.S. prosecutor told Pauley that he would produce some of the documents by September.
Giffen in fact had contact with the CIA for more than three decades as a businessman dealing with the Soviet Union and then post-Soviet Kazakhstan. During the Soviet period, he and other American businessmen were effectively required to brief the CIA after visits to the Soviet Union -- it was a price of being permitted to deal with the enemy in a relatively free manner. After the Soviet breakup, Giffen shifted to Kazakhstan, and he continued to make his visits to the agency, something he regularly noted at the time to acquaintances as a seeming sign that he was plugged in at the top in Washington.
In invoking the novel defense, Giffen has seemed at least in part to be gambling that the highly secretive Bush administration would refuse to turn over documents for public review, and that thus some of the charges might be dropped since he couldn't defend himself without the papers. The latest news seems the first indication that the strategy may pay off.
Giffen’s letter – dated Sept. 8 and entered into the court file yesterday – was triggered by remarks made by Pauley in Giffen’s hearing on Sept. 5. In the hearing, assistant U.S. attorney Stephen Ritchen said he didn’t have the CIA documents, and the usually patient Pauley for the first time suggested that the government demonstrate that it is serious about trying the case. He said he might order intelligence officials to appear and explain themselves. According to the latest court docket, Pauley has scheduled a closed hearing Sept. 25, apparently with representatives of the intelligence agencies.
``At some point, the government has to decide whether it wants to go forward,'' Pauley said Sept. 5, as reported in a story by Bloomberg reporter David Glovin, who has covered the case almost from the beginning. ``Oftentimes, there's nothing more effective than having to look at a federal judge and explain why you haven't done what you're supposed to.''
Pauley said, ``Five years -- that in itself is punishment and hardship'' to Giffen. ``I'm reaching the point where I can't let it go on for years.''
Asked why the CIA has not complied with the request for documents, CIA spokesman George Little said in an e-mail response to me yesterday, "The CIA does not, as a rule, comment on matters pending before U.S. courts."
In his letter, Giffen asks Pauley in the Sept. 25 hearing “to determine whether any delays in production to date have been the result of deliberate inaction or indifference on the part of those agencies such that Mr. Giffen’s rights to a speedy and fair trial may have been compromised.”
In a letter on Giffen’s behalf, his lawyer, William Schwartz, also asks U.S. Judge William Pauley to determine whether his client – whose trial has yet to be scheduled five years after his arrest – has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Earlier this month, Pauley suggested in court that the delays may have gone on too long.
The Giffen case has attracted attention as the largest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecution since the 1977 law took effect. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. In Kazakhstan, the case is known as Kazakhgate.
The 67-year-old Giffen doesn’t deny the government’s charges that he passed along some $80 million in payments from U.S. oil companies to Nazarbayev and other officials from the country. But he has invoked a so-called “public authority” defense, asserting that he had reason to believe that U.S. intelligence agencies knew and approved of the payments because Giffen served a useful role for the U.S. as a Nazarbayev confidante. In order to prove his claim, Giffen has requested a trove of documents from the CIA. In an April hearing, a U.S. prosecutor told Pauley that he would produce some of the documents by September.
Giffen in fact had contact with the CIA for more than three decades as a businessman dealing with the Soviet Union and then post-Soviet Kazakhstan. During the Soviet period, he and other American businessmen were effectively required to brief the CIA after visits to the Soviet Union -- it was a price of being permitted to deal with the enemy in a relatively free manner. After the Soviet breakup, Giffen shifted to Kazakhstan, and he continued to make his visits to the agency, something he regularly noted at the time to acquaintances as a seeming sign that he was plugged in at the top in Washington.
In invoking the novel defense, Giffen has seemed at least in part to be gambling that the highly secretive Bush administration would refuse to turn over documents for public review, and that thus some of the charges might be dropped since he couldn't defend himself without the papers. The latest news seems the first indication that the strategy may pay off.
Giffen’s letter – dated Sept. 8 and entered into the court file yesterday – was triggered by remarks made by Pauley in Giffen’s hearing on Sept. 5. In the hearing, assistant U.S. attorney Stephen Ritchen said he didn’t have the CIA documents, and the usually patient Pauley for the first time suggested that the government demonstrate that it is serious about trying the case. He said he might order intelligence officials to appear and explain themselves. According to the latest court docket, Pauley has scheduled a closed hearing Sept. 25, apparently with representatives of the intelligence agencies.
``At some point, the government has to decide whether it wants to go forward,'' Pauley said Sept. 5, as reported in a story by Bloomberg reporter David Glovin, who has covered the case almost from the beginning. ``Oftentimes, there's nothing more effective than having to look at a federal judge and explain why you haven't done what you're supposed to.''
Pauley said, ``Five years -- that in itself is punishment and hardship'' to Giffen. ``I'm reaching the point where I can't let it go on for years.''
Asked why the CIA has not complied with the request for documents, CIA spokesman George Little said in an e-mail response to me yesterday, "The CIA does not, as a rule, comment on matters pending before U.S. courts."
In his letter, Giffen asks Pauley in the Sept. 25 hearing “to determine whether any delays in production to date have been the result of deliberate inaction or indifference on the part of those agencies such that Mr. Giffen’s rights to a speedy and fair trial may have been compromised.”
Labels: Caspian, central asia, Giffen, Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev, oil
4 Comments:
Awesome, hardly waiting for any further news to come up on the case after 25 Sept!
Thank you for keeping the thing elucidated!
Good day, Mr. Rakhat Aliev has published this article (askew translated) at his page at livejournal, I am afraid you soon may find out that access to your site is barred from .kz domain.
Steve, you must really update this blog more often. Your wisdom is indispensible, unparalleled. You are also a man of excellent taste, with a doting wife and lovely family. One day, if you're lucky, you could be first dude or something.
As a lawyer (and you know who I am at this point), and given Judge Pauley's evident frustration with the government, I am wondering if he'll order the U.S. gov't to pay some of (or all) of Mr. Giffen's attorneys' fees/court fees. That would be rich, rich irony, and a perfect conclusion to this saga. After all, G got so far as a deal-maker in Central Asia by touting his (actually not that great) connections to American wealth and political power -- essentially, he traded on the brand of the U.S. government (a taxpayer-supported entity, like so many of our banks these days), without any quid pro quo. That alone is basically a fraud (already something illegal). Then he was accused of breaking other laws. And who is going to end up paying -- the U.S. taxpayer!
I don't think Mr Giffen is a particularly bad man, though I do suspect he broke the law he is accused of breaking. But he deserved either a speedy trial and conviction, or a slap on the wrist, or nothing at all. This drawn out affair of innuendo has done a disservice to Giffen and the law.
I know, I know Tacitus. I have been seriously remiss. I just finished a huge Business Week project (not that that is an excuse).
I also think that the stalling tactics have gone on long enough with the Giffen case. It's time to try it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home