Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08ABUDHABI260
2008-02-28 09:55:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Cable title:
UAE JANUARY 31 NOTICE ON BANK SEPAH - DEMARCHE
how-toVZCZCXRO6191 RR RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHDIR RUEHKUK DE RUEHAD #0260 0590955 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 280955Z FEB 08 ZDK CTG UR SVC FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0480 INFO RUCNIRA/IRAN COLLECTIVE RUEHDE/AMCONSUL DUBAI 7608 RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0167
UNCLAS ABU DHABI 000260
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR ISN, NEA/ARP, IO, T, NEA/IR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KNNP PREL PARM IR AE
SUBJECT: UAE JANUARY 31 NOTICE ON BANK SEPAH - DEMARCHE
DELIVERED
REF: SECSTATE 14956
UNCLAS ABU DHABI 000260
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR ISN, NEA/ARP, IO, T, NEA/IR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KNNP PREL PARM IR AE
SUBJECT: UAE JANUARY 31 NOTICE ON BANK SEPAH - DEMARCHE
DELIVERED
REF: SECSTATE 14956
1. (SBU) On February 14, Econchief contacted Ahmed Al-Qamzi,
Head
of the International Division for the UAE Central Bank's Anti
Money Laundering and Suspicious Cases Unit (AMLSCU) to ask
the UAE to delay or withdraw its notification and to provide
more information on the origin of money used to process the
payments. Al-Qamzi explained that the payments were for
contracts entered into prior to entry into force of 1737/1747
and were not to any designated entity. The UAE would
therefore exercise its right under UNSCRs 1737/1747 to
authorize the payments.
2. (SBU) During the February 25 Counter Proliferation Task
Force meeting, Al-Qamzi confirmed that the Central Bank had
authorized five banks operating in the UAE to receive Sepah
payments. He reaffirmed that the Central Bank had checked to
ensure that the payments were for contracts entered into
prior to the relevant UNSCRs and that they did not accrue to
any designated entity.
3. (SBU) Comment: This is the second tranche of payments
from Bank Sepah to UAE based banks that the Central Bank has
authorized -- the first being last summer/fall. In both
cases, the UAE was clear about both its rights and its
obligations under the UNSCRs and asserted that the payments
were for contracts entered into prior to entry into force of
the UNSCRs and did not go to designated entities. Post notes
that the notification was made two weeks before we received
the demarche, on the day the funds could be released, which
sharply limited our ability to work with the UAEG to obtain
either a delay or more information on the transactions. End
Comment.
QUINN
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR ISN, NEA/ARP, IO, T, NEA/IR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KNNP PREL PARM IR AE
SUBJECT: UAE JANUARY 31 NOTICE ON BANK SEPAH - DEMARCHE
DELIVERED
REF: SECSTATE 14956
1. (SBU) On February 14, Econchief contacted Ahmed Al-Qamzi,
Head
of the International Division for the UAE Central Bank's Anti
Money Laundering and Suspicious Cases Unit (AMLSCU) to ask
the UAE to delay or withdraw its notification and to provide
more information on the origin of money used to process the
payments. Al-Qamzi explained that the payments were for
contracts entered into prior to entry into force of 1737/1747
and were not to any designated entity. The UAE would
therefore exercise its right under UNSCRs 1737/1747 to
authorize the payments.
2. (SBU) During the February 25 Counter Proliferation Task
Force meeting, Al-Qamzi confirmed that the Central Bank had
authorized five banks operating in the UAE to receive Sepah
payments. He reaffirmed that the Central Bank had checked to
ensure that the payments were for contracts entered into
prior to the relevant UNSCRs and that they did not accrue to
any designated entity.
3. (SBU) Comment: This is the second tranche of payments
from Bank Sepah to UAE based banks that the Central Bank has
authorized -- the first being last summer/fall. In both
cases, the UAE was clear about both its rights and its
obligations under the UNSCRs and asserted that the payments
were for contracts entered into prior to entry into force of
the UNSCRs and did not go to designated entities. Post notes
that the notification was made two weeks before we received
the demarche, on the day the funds could be released, which
sharply limited our ability to work with the UAEG to obtain
either a delay or more information on the transactions. End
Comment.
QUINN