ITALY: INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING UN 1267

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 004740

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/14/2018
TAGS: EFIN IT KTFN PREL PTER UNSC
SUBJECT: ITALY: INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING UN 1267
COMMITTEE DE-LISTINGS

REF: A. A. ROME 2515

B. B. ROME 2143

C. C. STATE 139684

D. D. STATE 145622

Classified By: IO PDAS James B. Warlick, Reasons, 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (U) This is an action request; please see paragraphs 11-14
and 18-19.


2. (C) Summary: On December 21, Stefania Fancello at the
Italian MFA's Office of International Cooperation against
Terrorism conveyed a request to Embassy Rome officials for
more information on the 1267 (al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions)
de-listing cases of Ahmed Idriss Nasreddin, Youssef Nada, and
Ali Ghaleb Himmat (see Ref A). This cable responds to the
Italian government,s request for information concerning the
U.S. perspective on these three de-listing petitions. End
Summary.

--------------
Nasreddin
--------------


3. (U) Ahmed Idriss Nasreddin (an Eritrean-born Italian
citizen) was jointly listed by G7 nations pursuant to UNSCR
1267 and related resolutions (al Qaida Taliban Sanctions) on
April 22, 2002. Mr. Nasreddin applied on April 13, 2007 to
the UN Focal Point system for the de-listing of himself and
12 entities associated with him. The Focal Point office
forwarded the request to listing countries (G7),the Kingdom
of Morocco (country of residency),and relevant governments
of incorporation of Nasreddin-linked entities. These
governments had three months to review the petition and
decide to oppose or support delisting, or to request
additional time to review the petition. These Member States
could also opt to not take a position for or against the
request. In July 2007, an extension for reviewing
Nasreddin,s petition until October 12 was granted to ensure
thorough consultations on Nasreddin's petition.


4. (C) In September, the Italians indicated to the USG that
they would likely support the decision to de-list Nasreddin,
or, at minimum, remain silent (Ref B). However, both MFA and
Ministry of Finance officials requested insight on the USG
position, stating that it would factor into the Italian
decision. In late September, the USG informed the GOI that
we would support de-listing Nasreddin barring receipt of
relevant new information. (see Ref C).


5. (C) In October, the GOI reversed its previous position
after an Italian magistrate reviewed the case. GOI officials
explained that they did not want to contradict their own
magistrate's opinion, or to publicly name an Italian national
as a terrorist, so the GOI could no longer support
de-listing. However, the GOI encouraged other countries
reviewing the petition to object to the de-listing, even
though the Italians indicated that they would likely remain
silent. After considering the Italian position and carefully
reviewing the Italian magistrate,s decision, we determined
that there was no new evidence provided that would sway our
decision to support the de-listing, and Post conveyed our
position to Italian authorities on October 18 (Ref D). The
USG filed its papers supporting the decision to de-list
Nasreddin via the UN Focal Point in early November 2007. The
GOI opted to remain silent. As the USG was the only state
reviewing the Nasreddin petition that informed the UN Focal
Point of its position, the 1267 Committee was so informed and
the item was added to the November 5 agenda of the 1267
Committee for discussion. The US position was then
circulated to committee members under a 5-day no objection
deadline (NOD). None of the committee members objected to
our position, so Nasreddin was de-listed on November 10,

2007.


6. (C) Nasreddin appealed on December 21 to the Italian legal
system for compensation. The Italian ministries are now
coordinating their positions on this issue, and the GOI is
seeking an explanation of U.S. reasoning behind the decision
to support de-listing, likely to help bolster their case to
deny compensation.

--------------
Nada
--------------


7. (U) Yousef Moustaffa Nada (an Egyptian-born Italian
citizen) was listed pursuant to UNSCR 1267 and related
resolutions on November 9, 2001. Nada was designated as an
al Qaida/UBL financier who was thought to have operated an
extensive financial network providing support for terrorist
related activities in collaboration with Nasreddin.
Nasreddin's corporate holdings and financial network provided
direct support for Nada and Bank Al Taqwa, which were
previously designated by the USG and under UNSCR 1267 on
November 7 and 9, 2001, respectively. Nasreddin and Nada
were both directors of Bank Al Taqwa and Akida Bank. Nada
held a controlling interest in Bank Al Taqwa, Nasreddin in
Akida Bank. Both banks were thought to be shell companies
lacking a physical presence. They shared the same address in
the Bahamas, where they were licensed, until the Bahamian
government revoked the licenses of both banks.


8. (U) On April 11, 2007, Nada applied to the UN Focal Point
for his de-listing. The Nada de-listing petition was
forwarded to the US (designating state) and Italy (country of
citizenship/residency). After informing the GOI that we were
likely to oppose Nada,s de-listing, and having heard no
objection from the GOI, we informed the UN Focal Point in
September 2007 of our opposition to Nada's de-listing
request. The 1267 Committee was informed of our opposition,
and Nada remains listed.


9. (C) Since his denial by the Focal Point, Nada has
petitioned a judge to urge the competent Italian authority to
appeal his case via the UN 1267 Committee. Noting that the
USG made a public statement when Nada was sanctioned
domestically and at the 1267 Committee, the GOI is requesting
that the USG provide the GOI with a public statement that
they may use in subsequent legal proceedings explaining why
the USG believes Nada should remain on the 1267 list.

-------------- --------------
Explaining the U.S. positions on Nasreddin and Nada
-------------- --------------


10. (U) In order to facilitate continued cooperation with the
GOI on issues relating to the UN 1267 Committee, the
Department requests that Post share the reasoning in
paragraphs 11-14 and 18-19 with representatives of the
Italian government at the appropriate level.


11. (U) With regard to Nasreddin, the USG position was based
on the determination that Nasreddin no longer fit the
criteria for designation. Upon receiving Nasreddin,s
domestic petition for delisting, U.S. authorities reviewed
all of the information in their possession, including the
information upon which Nasreddin,s original designation was
based, additional information, and Mr. Nasreddin,s
submissions in support of his delisting petition. A primary
basis for Mr. Nasreddin,s designation was his support for
Youssef Nada and Bank al-Taqwa, both of which remain
designated. In addition to his petition via the UN Focal
Point, Nasreddin also petitioned the USG directly for removal
from US domestic sanctions. As part of his request to U.S.
authorities, Nasreddin signed statements certifying that he
had terminated all business relationships with Nada, Bank al
Taqwa, and any other designated individuals and entities, and
that he would have no such dealings with listed individuals
in the future. Upon a thorough review of all the evidence in
USG possession, it was determined that his certifications
should be credited. In the event that Nasreddin recommences
his support for designated terrorist entities, the USG will
not hesitate to re-designate him.


12. (U) Please remind the Italian government that the U.S.
considered the Italian magistrate,s judgment concerning
Nasreddin,s connections to terrorist financing activities
when forming an opinion on Nasreddin,s petition. However,
the magistrate's decision did not contain any additional
evidence on Nasreddin that had not already been seen or that
could credibly alter our position.


13. (U) With regard to Nada, the reasoning behind the U.S.
position on his de-listing request was based on the view that
there was no new information in his petition that indicated
that the terms of his original designation no longer applied.
Unlike Nasreddin, there was no credible information in his
petition indicating a change in circumstance warranting
de-listing.


14. (C) Ultimately, the decisions on 1267 de-listing
petitions from Nasreddin and Nada were made by the entire
1267 Committee, not solely by the USG. The Committee
operates by consensus. Nasreddin could not have been
de-listed without the consent of all 15 Committee members,
including Italy. While we opposed Nada,s de-listing
request, that decision was likewise a 1267 Committee ) vice
USG ) action. It is not customary, nor would it be
appropriate, for the USG to issue press statements on 1267
Committee decisions not to take action on de-listing
petitions. Since domestic action was taken on Nasreddin, the
Department of Treasury did update its Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) list, which is available on its website, as
well as notify banks and other individuals/entities who
typically receive such updates of the de-listing.

--------------
Information Sharing on Himmat
--------------


15. (C) Concerning the pending de-listing petition via the
Focal Point process of Himmat, the GOI requests that we share
information on Himmat and coordinate our position with the
GOI before informing the Focal Point office of our position.


16. (SBU) Ali Ghaleb Himmat (a Syrian-born Italian citizen)
was designated by the United States on November 7, 2001, and
listed pursuant to UNSCR 1267 and related resolutions on
November 9, 2001. He was identified as a principal with Bank
Taqwa. Mr. Himmat petitioned in December 2007, via the UN
Focal Point, for his delisting. The USG (as the listing
government) and the GOI (Himmat,s country of residence) have
three months to review the petition, and a decision (or
decision not to take a position) is due to the UN Focal Point
on March 12, 2008.


17. (C) The MFA has provided Post with the Italian judge's
ruling on Himmat and has asked us to take that ruling into
account. The judge's decision on the Himmat case was similar
to that in the Nasreddin case, i.e. while Himmat could not be
charged under Italian law in place at the time of the
offending activities, the judge still believed Himmat had
participated in terrorist financing activities.


18. (U) The Focal Point deadline on this case is March 12.
The USG is currently considering Himmat,s petition, the
GOI,s input, and additional information available to the USG
to form a perspective on this case.


19. (U) The USG has no additional information on the Himmat
case to share at this time. However, Post will receive
further instructions for follow-up consultations once we have
reached a decision on the Himmat case.


20. (U) Questions may be directed to IO/PSC (Erin Crowe,
202-736-7847).
RICE