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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video, New Petition

UNITED NATIONS GATE, December 5 – At the UN World Intellectual Property Organization, whose work on North Korea's cyanide patents and retaliation Inner City Press has reported on, is at it again, having been poised for weeks to terminate a whistleblower. Now, after UNSG Antonio Guterres and his spokesmen refused for weeks to answer banned Inner City Press' written questions about the scandal, here is WIPO CIO and whistleblower Wei Lei letter calling for the suspension of Francis Gurry: "Subject: RE: Urgent: Serious flaws in a WIPO investigation
Dear Ambassador Chi Dung Duong, Chair of WIPO General Assembly,
Dear Ambassador Esmaei Baghaei Hamaneh, Chair of WIPO Coordination Committee,
While awaiting your response to my following emails, I have been advised that it would be more constructive if a revised Terms of Reference for the investigation into the retaliation against me could be provided to you and the Member States for consideration.
Accordingly I have prepared a new version of the Terms of Reference, as attached, to address the issues raised in my previous communications to you. The proposed revisions primarily cover the following:
The change of objective 6.(a) so that the investigator does not review again if there is a prima facie case of retaliation as it has already been established by UNOPS. Instead, “the External Investigator shall obtain and analyze inculpatory and exculpatory evidences in relation to the Administration’s claims that it would have taken the alleged retaliatory action absent the complaint’s protected activity.”
The addition of a new 6.(b) to investigate the integrity of the processes so far: “The External Investigator shall also investigate the circumstances leading to the initiation of the investigation, including but not limited to the reasons for the long delays, the development of this Terms of Reference, and the selection of the external investigator.”
The original 6.(b) has now become 6.(c), which is largely intact except that the final report should be addressed to an alternative to the Chief Ethics Officer in accordance with the WIPO policy.
The addition of a new objective 6.(d) to cover the report as the result of the new 6.(b).
Furthermore, I could not emphasize more the importance of having a truly impartial external investigator who should have never been engaged by the WIPO Administration before and will not be engaged for any other investigation for the foreseeable future. I therefore repeat my demand that an independent investigator that has not previously worked for the WIPO administration (as the current purported investigator has) be appointed to undertake the subject investigation, and further, that as part of their terms of reference that such investigator agree in advance to not accept and be expressly prevented from accepting any contracts or mandates from WIPO or its senior officials for a period of seven (7) years after the completion of its investigation to avoid all appearance of conflict of interest.
Finally, I shall emphasize again that Mr. Gurry’s continuance in office might be prejudicial to the interests of WIPO. Firstly, given the nature of his functions, as the Director General, and the access it gives him to the Organization's critical records and personnel, there is a risk that Mr. Gurry may use his position to take action contrary to the interests of WIPO. Taking into account his senior position in the Organization, the misconduct which is alleged against him is such as to possibly deprive him of the confidence of the WIPO Member States, his continuance in office is likely liable to be prejudicial to the Organization*. I therefore again urge your consideration of suspending Mr. Gurry for the duration of this investigation.
Sincerely yours,
Wei LEI
Chief Information Officer, WIPO" And here was the letter to the two to whom Gurry has assigned the retaliatory tasks: "Dear Ms. Wang and Ms. Dayer, I made a complaint in August 2018 with allegations that Messrs. Gurry, Director General, and Singh, Director of the Internal Oversight Division, again used a bogus investigation (with allegation of fraudulent use of a colleague’s bank card) as retaliation against me.
On 5 November 2018 Ms. Dayer notified me that I had been suspended as result of this investigation. On 7 November 2018, Ms. Dayer issued a charge letter against me without the cooperation from the bank concerned; nor taking into consideration of any of the numerous discrepancies my legal counsel raised against the draft investigation report .
On 14 November 2018 I received notification from the WIPO Chief Ethics Officer notifying me that she had decided to refer my complaint for investigation and that “The Ethics Office has submitted its recommendations to the competent authority” (of the WIPO Administration). 
With this background – there will be an investigation of the investigation that led to my suspension, I found the continuing efforts to press on with the case against me outrageous.
I therefore demand that you immediately suspend my suspension and all related measures against me. Failing that, you must immediately recuse yourself and leave any further decision to the Chairs of the WIPO GA and CoCo in relation to the said case against me. As you both report to the subjects of my report of misconduct, which is subject to another on-going investigation, and your continuing employment at the WIPO International Bureau is subject to their approval, the obvious conflict of interest must be avoided.
I shall also emphasize that under the WIPO Staff Regulations and Rules, as well as the International Civil Service Code of Conduct, you have the obligation to report and avoid conflict of interest. Failing that, it may be considered as misconduct.
Until I hear from you, I shall cease all and any collaboration with you in relation to your charges against me.
Best regards,
Wei LEI
Chief Information Officer, WIPO. Guerres, typically, is silent, himself a retaliator including against the Press which asked him repeatedly about the China Energy Fund Committee's bribery in the UN before Guterres, who's refused to audit CEFC, had Inner City Press roughed up and banned now 148 days and counting. On November 13, UN staff unions wrote to Francis Gurry - and to UNSG Antonio Guterres, a retaliator himself, including against the Press: "Dear Mr. Gurry,
We are writing to you on behalf of the three staff federations of the UN common system, CCISUA, FICSA
and UNISERV, representing 120,000 international civil servants worldwide, regarding what would
appear to be a serious act of reprisal against Mr. Wei Lei, who holds a D2 Chief Information Officer
position at WIPO and who is also the Vice-President of the WIPO Staff Association.
We have been informed that the WIPO Administration has suspended Mr. Lei (an Australian national)
from duty and given him seven days to respond to a charge letter, following what seems to be a tainted
investigation conducted by WIPO into an alleged ATM bank card fraud.
Mr. Lei has been accused by WIPO of having used a colleague’s ATM bank card to withdraw CHF 300
from that person’s bank account at the UBS bank ATM on the WIPO premises. Mr. Lei denies the
accusation and neither UBS nor the Swiss authorities have provided WIPO with any evidence or record
that would substantiate the accusations.
The staff federations find all of this rather strange given the context. Mr. Lei was a key witness in the
investigation carried out by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) into the alleged
misconduct (procurement corruption) by you as WIPO Director General. A violation of the standards of
conduct was substantiated by the OIOS; however, Member States decided not to take any action
against you. Following the investigation, you apparently received an unredacted copy of the OIOS
report, thereby exposing the witnesses to retaliation – this is contrary to standard investigative practice
at WIPO.
We have been informed that Mr. Lei has already been investigated twice over the last two years and
cleared of any wrongdoing during both investigations.
Furthermore, he is not the only staff representative at WIPO being subjected to such type of
investigation or undergoing alleged harassment. We understand that Mr. Christopher Mason, President
of the WIPO Staff Association (WSA), would seem to be the subject of yet another such investigation
and Mr. Olivier Steele, another Vice-President of the WSA, has allegedly been informed that his fixed-
term contract will not be renewed after 31 January 2019, because of a negative performance evaluation

and his supervisor’s explicit disapproval of his activities as a staff representative, despite the fact that
he has provided twenty years of loyal service to the Organization. Additionally, the case of Ms. Miranda
Brown, former D2-level Strategic Adviser to the WIPO Director General and a prominent, blacklisted
whistleblower who was forced out of WIPO, has still not been settled by the WIPO Administration,
despite renewed legal action.
Mr. Lei, having been refused whistleblower protection by the WIPO Ethics Office appealed, in
accordance with the WIPO whistleblower protection policy, to the UNOPS Ethics Office which
subsequently granted him the status of whistleblower and the protection which is supposed to be
accorded thereto. Moreover, the UNOPS Ethics Office concluded that an independent investigation
must be conducted at WIPO to investigate the reported retaliation against Mr. Lei for having been a key
witness against you in the above-mentioned OIOS investigation. We have been informed that this long-
awaited investigation has finally been initiated but that the Terms of Reference may have been

manipulated in breach of WIPO policy.
It has now come to our attention that WIPO’s current investigation of Mr. Lei may be flawed and that
the so-called evidence may possibly have been manipulated or otherwise clearly does not prove his
culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.
We understand that, for all of the above reasons, Mr. Lei has filed a complaint with the Geneva
Prosecutor General and has expressly requested and volunteered to have his privileges and immunities
lifted so as to allow the competent Swiss authorities to conduct a proper and independent investigation.
It seems, however, that WIPO has repeatedly refused to lift Mr. Lei’s privileges and immunities
preventing the Swiss authorities to proceed with the investigation. Despite its inability to obtain
cooperation from the UBS bank, WIPO has apparently concluded the investigation and initiated
disciplinary processes against Mr. Lei for serious misconduct that is likely to result in his summary
dismissal.
Against the backdrop of allegations, OIOS investigations, WIPO investigations focused on staff
representatives, reported retaliation and the decision of the UNOPS Ethics Office that Mr. Lei must be
protected from retaliation; it makes it increasingly difficult to give credibility to any investigation
conducted by WIPO.
In line with an organization’s duty of care to its staff and to ensure that Mr. Lei is provided a fair and
independent investigation conducted by the Swiss authorities which can interact with the bank
concerned, the staff federations strongly encourage you to lift Mr. Lei’s privileges and immunities in
order to allow the Swiss authorities to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged ATM bank
card fraud. We urge you, in our capacities as Presidents of the three UN common system staff
federations, to immediately suspend the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Lei until the UNOPS
evaluation in regards to retaliation is completed, an investigation by the Swiss authorities has taken
place and the matter is finalized. We also urge you to suspend all actions against other elected WSA
officials until WSA’s complaint against the WIPO Administration has been settled by ILOAT.
Failing to do so can only lead the three staff federations to conclude that this and other investigations
against staff representatives at WIPO are contrived in order to silence any voice of criticism or respectful
dissident opinion. We would therefore insist that all ongoing forms of retaliation against the WIPO Staff
Association, whistleblowers and staff at WIPO who raise allegations of misconduct by WIPO
Administration be stopped immediately.
Lastly, we are alarmed that the policies in place at WIPO to protect staff from retaliation are still not
functioning.
We shall continue to monitor this issue closely." Wei Lei (Australian) holds a D2 level position as Chief Information Officer (CIO) at WIPO and is also the Vice-President of the WIPO Staff Association. He has been employed as CIO at WIPO since 2009.

Wei was a key witness in the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services’s (OIOS) investigation into the alleged misconduct (procurement corruption) by the WIPO Director General, Francis Gurry. The procurement corruption was substantiated;  however, typical for the UN system, Member States decided not to take any action against  Gurry. Following the investigation, Gurry was given an unredacted copy of the OIOS report, thereby exposing the witnesses to further retaliation. His WIPO's failure to protect whistleblowers has been analyzed by the Government Accountability Project, here.

Over six months ago, the UNOPS Ethics Office substantiated a prima facie case of retaliation against Wei by Mr Gurry and other senior WIPO officials. The investigation into the retaliation against Wei has apparently been delayed and now corrupted. Justice delayed is justice denied - over the past six months Wei has been subject to ongoing and severe harassment. And recently, we learned that the WIPO Administration appears to have improperly influenced the terms of reference for the investigation into the retaliation. The investigation into the prima facie case of retaliation against Wei by Mr Gurry and other senior WIPO officials appears to have been corrupted.

Worst still, during the six months' period, when the investigation into the retaliation against Wei should have proceeded and reached its conclusion, Wei has been subjected to further retaliation - of the worst form: he has been unjustly accused of fraudulently using a colleague’s ATM bank card and of withdrawing CHF 300 from that person’s bank account at the UBS ATM on WIPO premises. The colleague, who was on a temporary six-month contract at WIPO, has since left the Organization and her whereabouts are unknown. The video footage used to try to incriminate Wei was obtained from a WIPO CCTV camera located in the main building. WIPO has apparently been filming UBS clients using the ATM without the knowledge or consent of the UBS bank and without the consent of its clients, in apparent violation of the Swiss Data Protection Act and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. The UBS bank refused to cooperate with the WIPO investigation and has not confirmed that the ATM fraud actually occurred. Wei has filed a complaint with the Geneva Prosecutor General and has expressly requested and volunteered to have his privileges and immunities lifted so as to allow the competent Swiss authorities to conduct a proper and independent investigation. But WIPO has repeatedly refused to lift his privileges and immunities, and the Swiss authorities cannot proceed without this. Despite its inability to obtain cooperation from the UBS bank, WIPO has concluded the investigation and initiated disciplinary processes against Wei for serious misconduct that is likely to result in his summary dismissal. I believe that the investigation against Wei is flawed and tainted, and believe that the so-called evidence has possibly been fabricated or otherwise clearly does not prove his culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no possibility for Wei to seek an injunction. Under the WIPO whistleblower protection policy only the Director General can provide interim measures. Mr Gurry has a clear conflict of interest in Wei's case. The ILO Administrative Tribunal does not provide interim measures either and the average time taken by the Tribunal to judge cases is three years. 

The apparent motivation behind the WIPO Administration's investigation would seem to be its desire to fire Wei before the long-delayed investigation into the retaliation against him by the WIPO Director General can take place... Wei will in all likelihood lose his job, livelihood and will not be able to stay in Geneva - his home for nearly a decade (as an Australian national, his residency in Switzerland is contingent on his WIPO work). The US and others have been asked to:
1) Stop the firing of Wei Lei. The UNOPS Ethics Office is currently assessing his second claim of retaliation (his being subject to a bogus WIPO investigation into the alleged ATM card fraud) and interim measures must apply.
2) Quash the bogus WIPO investigation into the alleged ATM card fraud - any investigation into the alleged crime must be undertaken by the competent Swiss authorities, in cooperation with the UBS bank. The UBS bank has not confirmed the alleged crime occurred. The alleged crime does not impact on WIPO's functions or operations. Any investigation must be conducted by Swiss law enforcement and not a private WIPO investigator.
3) Demand the terms of reference for the investigation into the retaliation against Wei Lei be redrafted so they reflect the UNOPS Ethics Office findings and WIPO whistleblower protection policy – conflict of interest must be avoided and the reverse burden must apply.
4) Demand an immediate end to/rescinding of the WIPO Director General's corrupt decisions to appoint his subordinates as the decision-maker (competent authority) in cases where he has recused himself because of a conflict of interest and where he had previously taken a negative decision or made a negative pronouncement. The appointment of subordinates in such circumstances does not cure the conflict of interest. Should Mr Gurry not be willing to rescind these corrupt decisions, there should be an external independent investigation into Mr Gurry's apparent violation of the WIPO Staff Regulations and Rules and the Code of Conduct for International Civil Servants." That's WIPO -  the wider UN of Antonio Guterres has banned Inner City Press from entering its campus since July 3, claiming that its Lieutenant Ronald Dobbins targeted ouster of Inner City Press from a speech by Secretary General Antonio Guterres on June 22 then from a meeting about his budget on July 3 were "altercations." Next this ban was extended  beyond the UN campus to the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, for a July 10 press conference by the UN affiliated but ostensibly independent World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which as Inner City Press has previously reported helped North Korea with its cyanide patents and retaliated against it staff and media. Inner City Press was e-mailed an invitation on July 2 and replied with an RSVP to cover it. Marshall Hoffman of WIPO's public relations firm Hoffman PR wrote back, "Thanks. We will see at the press conference." After that, Guterres spokesman Farhan Haq was asked why Inner City Press is banned and said it is pending a review of two "altercations" - both of which were improper and unilateral ousters of Inner City Press by UN Security's Dobbins and officers, four of whom refused to give their names. Soon, there was this follow up e-mail from WIPO's flak Marshall Hoffman: "Dear Matthew, It has come to my attention that your accreditation to the UN has been suspended pending an investigation into an incident. Given the suspension, I regret you will not be able to attend the WIPO press conference."

Now the UN has gone so far as to put Inner City Press on a "banned from UN" list it does not make public; Guterres' security nearly got Park East Synagogue security to oust Inner City Press from Guterres' October 31 speech... on tolerance. This is today's UN: the ban must be reversed. We'll have more on this - and on this: how untransparent and inaccessible is Antonio Guterres, as UN Secretary General? The day he canceled his first UN Headquarters press conference in six months, he was ironically the guest of honor of the United Nations Correspondents Association. He was scheduled to make remarks at 6 pm - but it was not in the UN Media Alert. Inner City Press, whose RSVP to UNCA was never responded to, streamed the event from the tourists' balcony, edited here. Then Guterres' UN Security guards physically ousted Inner City Press from covering the UN Fifth Committee's July 3 meeting on his proposal to fire UN staff and move the jobs- then on July 5 banned Inner City Press from entering the UN. Fox News story here, GAP blogs I and II. While Guterres' UNCA fan club said nothing, others did. Guterres blathered on about how he supported the media in Portugal - dubious - and then cuts a cake for his UN Censorship Alliance. Earlier Inner City Press asked Guterres' lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who previously lent the UN Press Briefing Room to UNCA, if the event was open press but he refused to answer and ran off. Inner City Press asked the spokesman from the President of the General Assembly, who is listed as attended but will not speak, why it is not in the UN Media Alert. The spokesman said to ask UNCA. But UNCA never responded to the RSVP of Inner City Press through the Free UN Coalition for Access. In the middle of the event the claim was that UN correspondents didn't have to RSVP - not what the notice said. The event was not even in the June 26 UN Media Alert. Last week, Dujarric spoonfed sound bytes to a prominent UNCA members and is working with them to try to further restrict Inner City Press, here - Inner City Press was in fact ousted on June 22, video here, story here). The Free UN Coalition for Access questions this and the propriety of this explicit focus by the UN Correspondents Association on the UN's "causes" rather than simply covering the UN as it is; it and corruption are among the reasons Inner City Press quit UNCA (and co-founded FUNCA).

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: UN Delegates' Gate entrance
and PO Box 20047 Dag Ham Sta, NY NY 10017

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 2006-2018 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for