BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
16 Companies May Violate U.S. Ban on Trade With Terror States
June 19, 2007 8:45 AM
Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Credit Suisse are among 16 companies publicly traded in the United States that may be violating a U.S. ban on doing business with Sudan, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The ban grows out of an effort by the United States to stop the government of Sudan from carrying out policies that have led to human rights violations and genocide in Darfur and from continuing support for international terrorism.
The SEC compiled a list of the companies in a new effort to publicly identify multinational corporations that report business dealings with countries identified by the U.S. as "state sponsors of terrorism." In addition to Sudan, trade with Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba is also banned.
An examination of the SEC filings of some of the most prominent companies on the list reveal the multinational corporations are well aware of the U.S. sanctions and possible legal problems.
"We may be subject to the imposition of U.S. government sanctions as a result of the Group's activities in certain countries," Royal Dutch Shell reported in a 2007 filing to their shareholders.
Credit Suisse, which reported business with all of the restricted countries, notified shareholders it "was aware of the U.S. laws" and reported it had determined to limit the amount of business with the countries on the list and close its representative office in Iran.
Nokia Corporation reported that as a "global company," they have sales in "most countries of the world," including Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria, which they reported amounted to one percent of their total revenue.
Another company on the list, shipping giant Seacor told investors it was facing possible civil penalties relating to a U.S. Treasury investigation into shipping charters to the Sudan in 2003.
The SEC originally researched the information about companies doing business with restricted countries in response to a request from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Financial Services and General Government.
Chris Cox, chairman of the SEC, then moved forward with an initiative to also make the information readily available to the investing public.
The SEC plans to start posting the information on its Web site later this week in an online database that will quickly help U.S. investors locate details often buried in thousands of pages of SEC disclosure forms.
The list of 16 companies identified by the SEC as reporting business dealings with Sudan in SEC filings are:
1. Air France-KLM
2. Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited
3. Baker Hughes Inc.
4. Celanese Corporation
5. Credit Suisse
6. Deutsche Bank
7. Euroseas Ltd.
8. Dresser-Rand Group Inc.
9. Mindray Medical International Limited
10. Nokia Corporation
11. Royal Dutch Shell
12. SR Telecom Inc.
13. SEACOR Holdings Inc.
14. Siemens AG
15. Syntroleum Corp.
16. Total S.A.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
This post has been updated.
June 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am curious to know how many of these companies have top leaders of the U.S.A. including our President on their board of directors or as silent partners.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 19, 2007 9:14:14 AM
I am curious to know how many of these companies have members of the U.S. gov't including our President on their board of directors or as silent partners.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 19, 2007 9:21:23 AM
These are foreign corporations...we don't have to do business with them, and we can fine them, but the rest of the world doesn't have to bow down to our paranoid, self-interested outlook on the rest of the world. Case in point: Cuba, who poses no danger to any other nation, one of the countries that apparently doesn't have the right to self-determination because we Americans don't agree with the philosophy they've chosen. India and Pakistan created nuclear weapons without any trouble from us, while North Korea and Iran are evil for doing the very same thing. It's time for Americans to get over themselves, and stop acting like what's in our best interest is Right and Good while the interests of the 6 billion other people in the world are dangerous, evil, or irrelevant.
Posted by: Heliocracy | Jun 19, 2007 10:04:06 AM
An example, that has been set by the US Government of doing buisiness in Iraq and other places, while threatning, terorrism.
Illegal to our Government means Amnisty, what does it mean to me?
You will see in 2008 or sooner if we are attacked here in the USA/NAU.
PS: ABC if you do not agree with what is free speech, then let me know, you have my e-mail! dont just remove my comments.Its your ratings.
Posted by: JB | Jun 19, 2007 10:13:57 AM
This is news???? I would think that Cheney being the CEO of Halliburton and opening up a subsidiary in the British Cayman Islands to do business with Saddam by circumventing a US boycott of Saddam after Gulf War 1 would be more significant. But that hadn't been reported back then and still is considered a non-topic. But it bordered on Treason since Halliburton was an American Company.
Posted by: Roy | Jun 19, 2007 1:17:57 PM
Some idiots just don't get it. Case in point is the self righteous capitulators with comments on how we set the example. The fact is that past wrongs don't make this right! The fact is that while we are criticizing ourselves (which is good to a degree) we should not confuse the state of self criticizing with acceptance of those nations that are in fact clear and present dangers to our nation.
For all the aid and help we have provided and continue to provide to the world at large, we are in fact in a position to try to establish an order of things. Cuba while no direct threat is a threat and this is no forumn for a history lesson. They were going to entertain missles directed at New York and other cities under the benevolent Fidel, and if you think they have changed their stripes you are to stupid and ignorant to comment here.
We had better wake up or we will face a world in which the US is no longer the strongest and the leader. Bad as it is to many of you out there that the big bad US is your home, it will be far worse under the new circumstances you will find yourselves in the ensuing decades, should the US have to bow to a new world order.
Wake the hell up.
Posted by: John D | Jun 19, 2007 3:17:02 PM
Sudan’s been in the news for long enough and these companies showed how greed beats humanity and kept doing business with this country anyways. The fine should be big and amounting to as many days they ignored this Ban on Trade.
Posted by: pusedo | Jun 21, 2007 12:30:53 AM
After the news and all of our comments, there will be nothing done about this and it will be business as usual. The only thing that will change is some greedy politicians pockets will get a little fatter
Posted by: William Baldridge | Jun 21, 2007 7:59:26 PM
With over 100 separate "terrorist groups" on the international terrorist group list, all of a wide variety of causes, countries and ideologies, it is virtually impossible to not have some business dealings with some of them at any given time.
That's what happens when the arbitrary number of "terrorists" out number the arbitrary number of good guy states by ten fold.
Anyone else see the limitations and the imbalance here, in this new world order, yet?
It's the draconian Empire from Star Wars against everybody else.
Programmed for failure if peace is the objective.
Posted by: gotcha | Jun 22, 2007 8:26:03 PM
Post a comment
