Office of International Treasury Control
The
Office of International Treasury Control (OITC) is a controversial entity which claims to be associated with the
United Nations and the
Federal Reserve, the
central bank of the United States. Its high-profile interventions in local economic affairs have attracted public controversy in
Ecuador,
Fiji and the
United Kingdom. The
bona fides of OITC and its principal figures have been questioned by government and law enforcement agencies, and the UN and Federal Reserve have denied any knowledge of or connection with OITC.
The OITC claims to be "an international institution registered under the United Nations (under UN Charter Control No: 10-60847) with substantial assets in its control"
["$6billion bank for resource owners", Fiji Times, 1 March 2006]. OITC spokesmen have claimed that the organisation has been chartered by the United Nations under a secret protocol and that "until today [it has been] a secret organization known by some particularly in the highest levels of banking". Papers issued by the OITC state that it was established by "Governments of the World of Legal Decadency".
["Is it Bangkok or bust for Rover?", Daily Telegraph, London. 27 April 2005] However, it has consistently declined to publish any independent verification of its status, claiming that only individuals with a "level 3" or "level 5" security classification can see its "protocol for verification". According to an OITC spokesman, "the protocol for verification can only be undertaken by a senior member of the Government or the Reserve Bank. That's why you will never find anything about it on the Internet."
["OITC agent warns journalists", Fiji Times, 3 March 2006] The UN is supposedly "legally bound" to respond to a verification request but only as long as the requisite protocols and procedures are followed, otherwise "no response will be received from the United Nations." The only way a verification request can be made is "through the UN headquarters in New York or Geneva, not via, or by, any sub-office of the UN."
["United Nations office has no record of claims", Fiji Times, 4 March 2006]. According to Keith Scott
[Dr Keith Scott], the OITC's "Chief of Cabinet" and "Special Envoy and Executor for His Excellency [Ray Cchat Dam]", the OITC is run by the UN "under a concept of
plausible deniability."
[Keith Scott, audio recording of 1 March 2006 (requires Windows Media Player)]These claims have been denied by the United Nations. According to the UN, "there is no such thing as a 'UN Charter Control Number,' quoted by the organisation to prove its validity."
["Companies: UK: Nothing ventured", Financial Times, London. 23 June 2005] The UN's representative in Fiji was unable to "verify its existence and its security rating"
and the UN's representative in
Colombia has stated that all UN agencies are listed on the UN's
official website and that they know of no secret agencies
["Estafa internacional en Loja y en el municipio de Oña", Blanco y Negro, Ecuador. 8 April 2006].
Scott claims that the OITC was set up following a paper that he presented to the US Federal Reserve in
1998 requesting that Dr. Ray Chhat Dam of
Thailand be appointed as "the sole arbiter of the centralized wealth of the world, which was controlled under the Federal Reserve under the Bank of International Settlements". OITC funds are said to be "held in an organization called the Institutional Parent Administration Account."
["Fiji mystery man tied to 'Dominion of Melchizedek'", Fijilive, 4 March 2006]Scott has also stated that the OITC's funds are "held in the Institutional Parent Administration Account of the Federal Reserve System." However, the US government has stated that "within the Federal Reserve there exists no organization or department with the initials OITC, nor anything similar to this."
The
Bank for International Settlements – an international organization representing central banks – has also denied any knowledge of the OITC.
["Swiss bank draws blank on Fiji financier", Fijilive.com, 15 March 2006]The physical location of the OITC is also unclear. According to a document produced by the OITC in March 2006, it has offices in
Malaysia, the
Netherlands, the
United States,
Australia and
Ecuador.
["Media chased from MOU signing", Fiji Village, 3 March 2006] However, the
Daily Telegraph noted in 2005 that "the Bangkok number on their letterhead doesn't exist" and in April 2006 the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau found that the OITC "neither has any fixed address or office, nor are there any reliable contact addresses." Correspondence said to be from OITC officers lists
Freeserve e-mail addresses as contacts, and the organization has no Internet website.
[Letter from D.A. Sale to Fiji Times, 2 March 2006]The OITC has taken a notably aggressive line concerning efforts to establish its
bona fides. Speaking at a press conference in Fiji, OITC representative Masi Kaumaitotoya told the local media: "Don't you ever, ever, ever again report negatively on OITC or we'll sue you for defamation."
Individuals claiming to represent the OITC have also accused online critics of "serious defamation in the plural" [
sic].
[MG Rover forums, 13 June 2005]The OITC first came to public attention in
2005 with an attempted bid for the failed
MG Rover Group in the United Kingdom. The London
Daily Telegraph reported that "a Mr David Sale and a Dr Ray Dam claim to have offered to buy MG Rover for $5 billion." The
Financial Times reported that the OITC had given the administrators a deposit of one pound, made out as a
postal order.
According to Sale and Dam, Rover's administrators
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were refusing to take their bid seriously even though (according to them)
Prime Minister Tony Blair had acknowledged it in a letter. However, PWC told the
Telegraph that it had never heard of the OITC and the Prime Minister's office had no record of the OITC's letter.
The bid met with considerable skepticism among MG Rover enthusiasts
[MG Rover forum discussion] and was evidently discarded by the administrators, as the OITC did not appear on the final list of bidders.
In late February 2006, the OITC made a public offer to invest US$3.5 billion in a bank for indigenous Fijians, to be established in conjunction with the Viti Landowners and Resources Association (VLRA). Another $2.5 billion was later offered, for a total of $6 billion. The OITC's "Chief of Cabinet", Keith Scott, met with the Fijian finance minister Ratu
Jone Kubuabola and 215 middle level Fijian chiefs to promise that the money would be brought to Fiji and that "this cannot be stopped by any human being."
["FIJI: Prime Minister Expresses Doubts About Landowners Bank", Pacific Magazine, 4 March 2006] According to Ratu Osea Gavidi of the VLRA, the bank would help Fijians to access funds for development purposes which they could not get from commercial organizations, and so make it easier for Fijians to obtain loans.
["Police to look into bank financers", Fiji Times, 3 March 2006] Ratu Osea claimed that the OITC had already invested $400 billion in
China, though the Chinese Embassy in Fiji was unable to confirm this.
["China to check Fiji bank backer claims", Radio New Zealand International, 3 March 2006]A memorandum of understanding was signed on
3 March between Scott and the head of the VLRA, under which the OITC was to provide 50% of the bank's funding and the landowners the other 50%. They were expected to use their land and resources as collateral. Under the terms of the MOU, the OITC would fund equipment for landowners, the development of a "Community Aged Center", the development of a community-owned tourist and resort centre, the construction of modern prisons and support for a reforestation programme. The MOU was signed in chaotic circumstances which culminated in the attending journalists being thrown out by security guards acting for the OITC.
Ratu Osea Gavidi subsequently claimed that the OITC had already deposited $3 billion in a bank account but the Reserve Bank of Fiji's Deputy Governor Sada Reddy denied that any such transaction had taken place.
["Qarase Advises Caution", Fiji Village, 6 March 2006]However, the OITC's offer attracted immediate suspicion from a number of sources. The Fijian media played a leading role in questioning the
bona fides of the OITC and pointed out the lack of verifiable information, to the evident annoyance of OITC representatives who threatened to sue "for so much the biggest insurance company in the world would not be able to pay the damages."
["Mysterious Fiji visitor offers $3.5 billion deal", Radio New Zealand International, 2 March 2006] In response, the country's leading newspaper, the
Fiji Times, ran a front-page open letter to the OITC's Keith Scott, declaring: "You cannot continue to refuse to tell us, the people of Fiji, who you are. ... Mere words and assurances are not enough. We want hard, commercial facts that we can check and verify."
[Fiji Times asks: 'Who are you, Dr. Scott?'", Fiji Times, 3 March 2006]Government views
The Fijian government expressed serious concerns about the deal and the
bona fides of the OITC. Fiji's finance ministry noted that the OITC had provided no proof that it had the money and the home affairs minister,
Josefa Vosanibola, asked the immigration service and police to investigate the
bona fides of Scott and the OITC.
Vosanibola said that the government had no knowledge of either party and noted that neither Scott nor the OITC had submitted an application to do business in Fiji, as required by immigration regulations. The Native Land Trust Board also told the Viti Landowners and Resources Association that it had "no legal authority to sell native land privately."
["NLTB warns against land deal", Fiji Village, 6 March 2006]The Prime Minister of Fiji,
Laisenia Qarase, who is himself a former bank managing director, also questioned the deal. He told the
Fiji Times newspaper that "I doubt the people will see the money" and commented that "no one in their right mind would inject such a large sum of money into an economy as small as ours. They (VLRA) must be careful when someone comes along and promises such a thing, they must check it out first."
Following the Fijian government's request for a police investigation, Fiji Commissioner of Police Andrew Hughes told the media that "nothing that [the police] received gave credence or legitimacy to the organisation and Mr Scott ... What we can say is that the information that we do have at hand leads us to conclude that the proposed transaction is highly irregular, it is questionable and leaves me with a profound level of suspicion." He urged the Fijian parties to the OITC deal not to "send any money if it's requested as some form of an advanced fee for this transaction to proceed" (the sending of advance fees is
a widely used method of fraud). He also disclosed that Keith Scott was "known by Australian authorities", though he was not at liberty to provide further details.
["Police Commissioner cautions on partnership with OITC", Government of Fiji, 7 March 2006]The OITC's deal was viewed with scepticism in other areas of Fijian society. The country's
Great Council of Chiefs expressed concern, noting that there had been recent high-profile instances of fraud, and advised Fijians to be careful about assessing such promises.
["Council Concern at $6b tale", Fiji Times, 11 March 2006] Fiji's newspapers ran numerous letters questioning the veracity of the OITC's claims, and an online poll run by
fijilive.com asking "Is Dr Keith Scott and OITC's multi-billion dollar donation to Fiji landowners genuine?" found that 89% of respondents voted no.
[Fijilive.com online poll, 6 March 2006] The
Fiji Sun published a strongly-worded denunciation of the OITC, calling it "a scam in the making" and a "get-rich scheme".
["Greed, gullibility greet Fiji scam", Fiji Sun, 6 March 2006] However, some other prominent groups supported the deal. The Assembly of Christian Churches, an affiliate of the Viti Landowners and Resources Association, supported the deal and stated that it had no doubts about the
bona fides of the OITC.
["Fiji churches give support to questionable bank operation", Radio New Zealand, 6 March 2006]In the end, the deal apparently fell through after the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Board (FTIB) rejected an application to set up a bank, which had been submitted by an entity called Triunion Investment Holdings Limited on behalf of the OITC. The FTIB found that the OITC "neither has any fixed address or office nor are there any reliable contact addresses which are pivotal for approval of applications." The decision produced an angry response from the head of the VLRA, who vowed that "Our relationship with the OITC will continue no matter what."
["No permit for $6bn bank", Fiji Times, 17 April 2006]
