In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video, Q&A, HK here

UNITED NATIONS, June 6 – Four months after the arrest for UN bribery of Patrick Ho, the head of China Energy Fund Committee full funded by CEFC China Energy, his ultimate boss at CEFC Ye Jianming was brought in for questioning in China.  On May 17, Ho was denied bail in a proceeding in which the UN was described as corrupted, and Ho's emails offering bribes to the foundation of UN President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa were made part of the judge's order. Post-hearing Periscope video here. Inner City Press' reporting that day, as before, included the non-response since November 2017 of the UN Mission the the Czech Republic, which holds the presidency of the UN ECOSOC to which CEFC continues to hold consultative status, while CEFC's Ye Jianming was and remains an adviser to Czech President Zeman. Even as the Mission in New York refused to answer, on for example 28 November 2017 and 6 February 2018, Inner City Press' reporting has been picked up in the Czech Republic, on 12 January 2018 here, then on 28 May 2018 here. On June 4, a belated response from the Czech Mission to the UN, published by Inner City Press in full below along with the Press' follow up questions on June 4, still not answered as of 4 pm on June 5. Inner City Press is also informed that Marie Chatardova has reached out with the same answer to the Czech Press Agency; some say she is under consideration by Zeman to become the country's foreign minister and that this Press question unresponded to by the Czech Mission since November could be a problem. Suddenly on June 5, Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out an answer (he rushed off the podium so follow up question have not yet been possible). Video here. He emailed the answer to Inner City Press, which he usually does not do, seemingly in this case an invitation to be sure to publish in full what he read. But then he left before any follow up questions could be asked. On June 6 Inner City Press asked Dujarric, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: I wanted to thank you yesterday for… for… for answers that… the answer on ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council].  And I've had a little time to look at it and compare to an answer that came from the Czech mission.  And… so, I'd wanted to ask you, as I'd asked you in writing, just to understand how it… what… what the purpose of the response is or how it works?

Spokesman:  Well, I think it was… you know, it's something we probably… I should have answered you quite a while ago, because you've raised the issue of NGO accreditation through the ECOSOC process.

Inner City Press:  But, I wanted to… this is the follow-up question that I'd asked you in writing, so I'll ask you now, just maybe to… what's the response to the idea that, as you know, in a… in… in… in the Ng Lap Seng case, an audit was done, and it descr… it discovered various forms of funding that South-South News had given that were not known yet.  So, in this case, by having no audit [done], the range of support by this CEFC, China Energy Fund Committee, is not known.  It's reported in Serbia that the same group funded previous PGA [President of the General Assembly] Vuk Jeremic, for example.  So, what… wouldn't it make sense for the UN to, at least for its own purposes, understand what took place in that case and wouldn't that then make the decision of Member States to either exclude it or take some further action? What's the purpose of not having an audit?

Spokesman:  We're always welcome to look into things further.  Thank you." Some say it's CEFC and its payees that are offering the thanks... Here's what Dujarric read and sent: "The procedure for withdrawal of consultative status, as per para 56 of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, is the following:

A member State has to make a complaint against an organization at the NGO Committee (it does not need to be a member of the Committee nor a member of ECOSOC) through a letter addressed to the Chair of the NGO Committee;

The NGO Committee reviews the complaint and the NGO concerned is informed of the complaint in writing and is asked to present its response for consideration by the NGO Committee.

In plain English, this means that these initiatives and decisions are within the sole purview of the Member States.  They are the ones deciding on whether or not to make a complaint to the NGO Committee, and they are the ones making the ultimate decision in the NGO Committee and then ECOSOC on any change in the consultative status of an organization.

The President of ECOSOC is not personally involved in any step of this procedure." Inner City Press asks, overall, doesn't a president of ECOSOC have an interested and duty in ensuring that indicted bribers don't remain in status?  Has anything precluded Marie Chatardova for the Czech Republic asking for the needed action? To Dujarric and his deputy, Inner City Press has put these follow up questions and will report response (or non response) - "Did this note come from (Secretariat's) Paul Simon, to whom I've previously sent questions [or] from the the Czech Mission to the Mission, which belatedly responded to Inner City Press' Nov 2017 and Feb 2018 questions last night?  And, what would be the Secretary General's (Office's) response to a statement that the failure in the China Energy Fund Committee / Patrick Ho case to commission and release an OIOS audit as was done in the South South News / Ng Lap Seng case makes it much less likely that the steps set out in the note will take place, and make it more likely that such an NGO, allegedly involved in bribery including of a UN PGA, remains in consultative status to UN ECOSOC?" Here is what the Czech mission belatedly sent, followed by Inner City Press' June 4 follow up questions not answered or even acknowledged as of 4 pm on June 5. "Dear Mr. Matthew Russel Lee,
       Allow me to contact you in my capacity as a  diplomat responsible at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations for contacts with media. I take this opportunity  to refer to your latest articles in Inner City Press issued  on 2 May 2018 and 28 May 2018 respectively, namely to the part concerning H.E. Ms. Marie Chatardova and her role as President of the ECOSOC repeatedly mentioned by you.
(See:  http://www.innercitypress.com/unbribery1hobeltroad050218.html

http://www.innercitypress.com/unbribery5hojeremic052818.html
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is composed of 54 Member States, elected for a period of three years. ECOSOC plays a coordinating role to as many as 29 subsidiary bodies covering very fast field of activities. One of these subsidiary bodies is Committee on Non-Governmental organizations. This Committee is composed of 19 Member States elected on the principal of geographical distribution for a period of 4 years. (The Czech Republic is not currently member of this Committee.)
At present day, 5.083 non-governmental organizations obtained this statute.The question of the Suspension and withdrawal of the consultative statute is covered by Part VII (Articles 55 -59) of the ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 as follows:
"55. Organizations granted consultative status by the Council and those on the Roster shall conform at all times to the principles governing the establishment and nature of their consultative relations with the Council. In periodically reviewing the activities of non-governmental organizations on the basis of the reports submitted under paragraph 61 (c) below and other relevant information, the Council Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations shall determine the extent to which the organizations have complied with the principles governing consultative status and have contributed to the work of the Council, and may recommend to the Council suspension of or exclusion from consultative status of organizations that have not met the requirements for consultative status as set forth in the present resolution."
"56. In cases where the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations has decided to recommend that the general or special consultative status of a non-governmental organization or its listing on the Roster be suspended or withdrawn, the non-governmental organization concerned shall be given written reasons for that decision and shall have an opportunity to present its response for appropriate consideration by the Committee as expeditiously as possible."
"58. The consultative status of organizations in general consultative status and special consultative status and the listing of those on the Roster shall be suspended or withdrawn by the decision of the Economic and Social Council on the recommendation of its Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations."
(Note:  By the decision of the ECOSOC´s Member States, not by the decision of ECOSOC´s President.)
        It is thus obvious that the President of the ECOSOC, according to the valid rules, has no competence to start the procedure of the suspension and removal of the already granted consultative statute of the given NGO.
        I hope you will find this explanation useful and we will really appreciate if you stop to disseminate incorrect information and speculations on this topic.
        Best regards,
Karel Komárek, Minister-Counsellor
Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic
to the United Nations
1109 -1111 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10028." So "Organizations granted consultative status by the Council and those on the Roster shall conform at all times to the principles governing the establishment and nature of their consultative relations with the Council." Doesn't being indicted for using the access to the UN to bribe the President of the GA - Sam Kutesa and, it seems, Vuk Jeremic - violate the principles? And doesn't the president of ECOSOC, even if her president has the head of the bribing group as an adviser, have standing to raise this issue? Soon after receiving the above, Inner City Press on June 4 send these follow up questions: "
 Given that China Energy Fund Committee's Patrick Ho has been indicted for, and remains incarcerated for, allegedly bribing PGA Kutesa, does not “comform... to the principles governing the establishment and nature of their consultative relations with the Council”? If not, are you arguing that the President of ECOSOC has not power to raise and pursue this issue which to some makes a mockery of ECOSOC under her presidency? Given Czech President Zeman's relationship with Ye Jianming, isn't it imperative that Zeman's Ambassador, while heading UN ECOSOC, respond to this indictment of Jianming's ECOSOC adviser for bribery? Has she sought any legal or ethical advice in this regard? From whom? Does a President of ECOSOC not have responsibility for what happens with / in ECOSOC under her or his presidency?" No answer yet. Watch this site. Back on May 18, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Farhan Haq about it, video here, UN transcript here: and below. Now on May 28, with UN Secretary General still not having even started an audit, the scope of the China Energy Fund Committee / Ye Jianming / Patrick Ho scandal expands again as to the UN. Yet another President of the UN General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, is reported have received his funding from Ho, Ye Jinming and CEFC, click here for example, citing Inner City Press and its questions to "Farhan Haku," and reporting that "Ho was one of Jermic's main financiers and that he had transferred 4.3 million euros to Jeremic's organization and his private company." We'll have more on this. From the May 18 UN transcript: Inner City Press:  Yesterday, there was a court hearing down in the Southern District of New York where Patrick Ho was applying once again…  of the China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) was applying again for bail. He was denied, but I'm asking you this, because in the court hearing, it was said, these were two direct quotes.  One quote was that he's charged with "corrupting the UN", and second quote is "many people at the UN were involved".  So it made me wonder, and I looked around the courtroom, whether the UN is already following this case?  I'm aware that there has yet…  at least my understanding is there's no audit yet.  Is OLA (Office of Legal Affairs)…  do they have somebody there?  Are they ringing up fees, would be one way to put it, but what's your response to these statements in court?

Deputy Spokesman:  We're monitoring this case and, as you know, we've been cooperating with the US legal authorities concerning this overall case.

Inner City Press:  In this case…  in this case…  I know that in the previous case documents were provided and $302,000 were paid as legal fees back to the UN.  In the case of Patrick Ho and CEFC, have documents been provided to the prosecution?

Deputy Spokesman:  We're cooperating as needed with the authorities." And charging?  China Energy Fund Committee, the bribery vehicle, is still in special consultative status with UN ECOSOC. Oft-traveling Secretary General Antonio Guterres has not even ordered an audit (though he keeps restrictions on Inner City Press which covered the Ng Lap Seng and now Patrick Ho UN bribery scandals. The UN is a corrupted institution. In court on May 17, Ho's lawyer Andrew Levander argued that now China is cutting "the energy company" CEFC China Energy no slack. Prosecutor Douglas Zolkind on the other hand emphasized that the energy company has now essentially been taken over the Chinese government, which he also said controls Hong Kong's decisions to extradite or not. Judge Katherine Forrest noted that the energy company is paying Ho's legal fees and said its motives could not be known. She read into the record not only the Kutesa emails in Paragraph 40 of the complaint but also those about Chad's president Deby in Paragraphs 24 and 26. It was said the case "involves many people at the UN." We'll have more on this. On May 15 the prosecution detailed how the bribes were paid, as part of responding to Ho's motion to dismissed. The funds to Kutesa when from HSBC in Hong Kong to Deutsche Bank in New York to Stanbic in Uganda. The funding to Gadio, in two tranches, when from HSBC in Hong Kong to HSBC in New York to Mashreq Bank in New York to Mashreq Bank in Dubai. On May 17 Ho should hear a ruling on his re-request for bail. At the UN, which has yet to even order an audit while Ho's China Energy Fund Committee is still in special consultative status with UN ECOSOC, Inner City Press asked if the UN hopes to get awarded attorneys fees like it did, to the tune of $302,000, in the case of Ng Lap Seng, with the same prosecutors. The UN declined to comment - it remains UNreformed. Watch this site. On May 2, Patrick Ho and five lawyers argued for more than an hour to try to get bail granted - it was not. Judge Katherine Forrest noted that even if Ho's motions to dismiss some counts, and to suppress evidence collected with his iPad password, are in fact granted, the case will still proceed. She asked his lawyers to research whether the equity in his mother's home in Hong Kong could be transferred to a bank in the United States. Ho's lawyer Andrew Levander quoted him that this is a case not only against Ho, but also against CEFC and China it its "One Belt, One Road." The prosecution's Douglas Zolkind recounted how Ho inside the UN worked with former Senegal foreign minister Gadio to bribe Chadian president Deby, who "laughingly" referred to Brazilian bribes for another oil concession. Ho's lawyers analogized him to Jeff Bezos of Amazon and to Donald J. Trump. He will be back in court in a forthnight on May 17 at 3 pm - and so will we. Post hearing Periscope video here.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2015 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for