U. S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division

Otice ef the Arbmnt Aterney Camere Meshing. D.C. 20580

April 16, 1998

Mr. Richard D. Bennett

Chief Counsel

Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight

2157 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-6143

Dear Mr. Bennett:

I am writing in response to your letter of april 7, 1998,
requesting the Department of Justice’s position on the granting
of immunity to Charles Intriago, Yogesh Gandhi, Armed Abdulshafi
Jeffrey Neimeyer, Simon Chen, and Siceng Fei Man. The
Department opposes immunity in each of these cag

Mr. Gandhi, as you know, is currently under indictment for
mail fraud and the Department is continuing ite investigation of
him on other matters. Therefore immunity would be inappropriate
at thie time. As to the matters involving Messrs. Intriago,
Abdulshafi, Neimeyer, Chen and Man, the Department's
investigations are not yet at a stage where it can be determined
with confidence whether immunity would be harmful. Should we
later determine that immunity for any, or all, of these
individuals would not impact negatively on our investigations, we
will so notify you.

The Department opposes the granting of the act of production
immunity to Mark Middleton, John Huang and Mark Jimenez. The
Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr should be contacted
on the question of production immunity for Webster Hubbell

As always, we appreciate greatly your coordination with us
on these matters.

Sincerely,

E44)

Mark M Richard
Acting Assistant Attorney General

ec: Kenneth Ballen
Minority Chief Counsel



26

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you see that check, sir?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes. Yes, I do.

Mr. BENNETT. Did you—to sort of followup on what Chairman
Burton asked, you went ahead and you wrote this check. Did you
ask Mr. Intriago why you were getting these phone calls in terms
of making changes as to what State you were to make these checks
payable to?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. The first change from Ohio to Kentucky,
I didn’t bother to ask. But when the third call came in to change
another check to Florida, I asked him and that’s when I was told
by him that it was not a big deal it was just the way they wanted
it to be done.

Mr. BENNETT. And again, he didn’t—he, Mr. Intriago—did not in-
dicate who they were?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, he did not.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you have any knowledge of who, with whom at
the Democratic National Committee, or any State Democratic
structure Mr. Intriago was dealing with?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I do not.

Mr. BENNETT. Looking at VEN-7, just for a minute if I can, Mr.
Castro, I note that there is handwriting on the top of that check.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Is that your handwriting at the top of the check?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, it is not.

Mr. BENNETT. I note there is an address, a Florida address.
That’s not your handwriting, but is that a correct Florida address
for you at that time?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I can’t read the first part where it says
before Brickell, but if it’s 520, it is mine. It looks like 501, which
is not mine, but if it says 520, it’s mine.

Mr, BENNETT. What about the telephone number at the top
there?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, that is not my telephone number.

Mr. BENNETT. In fact, to your knowledge, is that Mr. Intriago’s
telephone number?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you have any knowledge as to why his tele-
phone number would be listed on your check in his handwriting?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. BENNETT. Just so the record is clear, the checks to Ohio and
Kentucky, reflected by VEN—16 were never, in fact, cashed, correct?
The two checks were the check for $20,000 to the DNC——

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. That was cashed.

Mr. BENNETT [continuing]. And $5,000 to the Kentucky State
Democratic party.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That was not cashed.

Mr. BENNETT. OK. What was the total amount of your contribu-
tions for which you were reimbursed?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. $25,000.

Mr. BENNETT. And, to your knowledge, your aunt was also reim-
bursed for her checks.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO, That is correct.


CONTENTS

Hearing held on Apri 30, 1998 .
Statement of:
Castro Barredo, Jorge .
Dawson, Joseph J., Assistant District Attorney, New York County Dis-
trict Attorney’s Office ..
Preiss, Richard T., Assistant ‘District “Attorney, “Senior Investigative
Counsel, New York County District Attorney's .
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bennett, Richard, chief counsel, Committee on Government Reform and

xhibit VEN-3
Exhibits VEN-4 and VEN-16
Exhibits VEN-6 and VEN-5
Exhibit VEN-7
Exhibit VEN- 15
Exhibit VEN-27
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Article dated February 23, 1997
Exhibit VEN-26
Exhibit VEN-29
Mica, Hon. John
Florida:
Article dated April 30, 1998
Background ini formation .
Waxman, Hon. Henry
of California, letter 4 fated April 30, 1998 ..
Wilson, James C., senior investigative cou
ment Reform and Oversight, exhibit VEN-12 .

ap



69

anybody in the Democratic party would have known, Mr. Castro
was a man who seemed to be well off financially. He was sending
in checks the way any citizen could do. He was a USS. citizen.
There’s no way in the world that they would know that the con-
tribution might have been reimbursed. On the face of it, here’s a
contribution from a man, he’s a U.S. citizen, he’s well off, he’s send-
ing it to the Democratic party.

at seems to me to be the facts and it’s hard to know what to
make of it except if there was a conduit contribution. And that is
against the law, if there was a conduit contribution. A conduit con-
tribution means that-the contributor really didn’t contribute the
money, someone else paid for it. The contributor wouldn’t on the
surface appear to know about it. There’s no evidence anybody’s of-
fered that the Democratic party or President Clinton would have
known about this contribution having been reimbursed. On the face
of it they would have looked at it as a proper one.

So what we then have is Mr. Castro’s statement years later that
this contribution had been reimbursed and he told that to the law
enforcement officials. So the question is, why wasn’t there a pros-
ecution by the Justice Department. And that seems to me I guess
the question for this hearing. Did the Justice Department act ap-
propriately or inappropriately?

e next witnesses we’re going to hear from were prosecutors in
New York and they turned over the information they had. The Jus-
tice Department hasn’t acted. Now it’s not unusual for the Justice
Pepartment not to act right away. Even with Charlie Trie, they
had information about Charlie Trie in 1996, and they didn’t indict
him until 1998, 15 months after the allegation surfaced.

Now this is many years later. The Justice Department—to con-
jecture about it, maybe they’re trying to evaluate whether they've
got a good case. The evidence indicates that it was a conduit con-
tribution according to Mr. Castro’s statement. Mr. Intriago presum-
ably would deny it. You have his word against Mr. Intriago. The
other evidence is the fax from Mr. Intriago to Mr. Castro, saying
send checks, here’s how you should make them out. And he did it.
So, it’s not, it seems to me, a case that’s easy to prove.

But the thing that’s puzzling to me, Mr. Chairman, is why isn’t
the Justice Department here today? Why haven’t they been asked
to come in and. explain their actions? If that’s what this hearing’s
all about—this hearing is no longer about the massive funneling of
Chinese contributions into the United States political system, it’s
about one contribution that may well have been a conduit contribu-
tion. And if the issue is really whether the Justice Department
didn’t prosecute when they should have, shouldn't the Justice De-
partment have been invited? I yield to you.

Mr. BurTON. Mr. Waxman, I intend to have the Justice Depart-
ment at the conclusion of this hearing. We just didn’t want to take
too much time today, but I’m glad you suggested it, because we're
going to do it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well it just seems to me that it’s not that com-
plicated of an issue. They could have been permitted to testify at
this hearing and we could hear what they have to say. It would be
appropriate to hear from them and then we'll know whether they—
T guess the implication of all this is, you’re accusing the Justice De-


80

case deserved a thorough investigation, that his office intended to
give the case a close Took, and that he was confident that the inves-
tigation into the alleged political contributions could be completed
by the date upon which we all theorized that the statute of limita-
tions might run; and that, among all concerned, was generally re-
garded to be September 16, 1997, the fifth anniversary of the date
appearing on the fax that our office had found in the Dominican
public.

In the latter part of June or early July 1997, I received a phone
call from the defense attorney for Jorge Castro. He told me that the
second Assistant U.S. Attorney had left the southern district of
Florida to work with the Independent Counsel’s office and that the
Office of Public Integrity of the U.S. Justice Department had re-
moved the political contributions case from the southern district of
Florida and, that as far as he could tell, nothing was being done
with the case. He expressed concern that the statute of limitations
would run and that his client would be left to face the sentencing
judge without anything to show for his cooperation. He also said
that he had spoken to the chief of the Public Integrity Section of
the Department of Justice.

After calling the southern district of Florida and confirming that
the case had been transferred by Washington to Public Integrity,
I called the chief of the Public Integrity ion but was not put
through to him. And I asked that the person handling the Castro
case return my call.

Within a week or so, I received a phone call from a trial attorney
assigned to the Campaign Financing Task Force. He told me he
had the notes and documents from the debriefing of Jorge Castro
by the Federal prosecutors in our office on May 28, 1997. I invited
him to come to New York to speak to Jorge Castro, review the doc-
uments, and discuss the case with Mr. Dawson and me. And I told
him that we were prepared to ask the sentencing judge to put off
Castro’s sentence. He said he did not want to speak with Mr. Cas-
tro, but he did want to review the documents we had and speak
with us.

On July 23, 1997, the Task Force attorney came to the District
Attorney’s office with the same FBI agent who had come to the of-
fice on May 28 for the debriefing of Jorge Castro. We explained
what we ew about the Castros’ political contributions and
showed him the documents that corroborated Jorge Castro’s state-
ments. I reiterated that we would continue to put off Jorge Castro’s
sentencing date for as long as necessary and asked him to let us
know as soon as possible whether, and to what extent, Castro
would be used in the investigation. He and the FBI agent left my
office in the late afternoon, taking some documents with them that
had been photocopied.

On August 19, 1997, and September 23, 1997, we asked for, and
were granted, adjournments of the sentencing date for Jorge Cas-
tro.

On September 4, 1997, in response to a call from the Task Force
attorney, I sent him a letter enclosing additional documents he re-
quested, including our original copies of the checks. I asked him to
let us know when a decision had been made, and I asked him to
call Mr. Dawson if he had any questions because I would be away


16

castro Checks Never Deposited

G Sa Gnezis MATOS DE CASTRO aren
Ji ema
OMe, Lad BL) BF18 Toe

Lhrsaad a olart

THe Gray ad ‘BANK OF MIAMI NA.

M cw________ (a
pwiasrOo Lesa: 3003805 iEO97O1 a

SOAGE F. Cas THD
lat. $ DE CASTRO.

y 128

ere

Dolturs

A
S Se |
t
t

ENCE LESH 1 I03S0SiB"O8,

- earns nae Tat



75

Mr. BurTON. We are always concerned about the safety of our
witnesses.

We are now going to have Richard T. Preiss, is it?

Mr. PRrEIss. Preiss.
f Mr. BURTON. Preiss, excuse me, and Joseph J. Dawson to testify
for us.

Would you both stand and raise your right hands, please?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BuRTON. Be seated.

I understand that you both have opening statements, is that cor-
rect?

Mr. PREIsS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dawson’s going to start, if
that’s all right with you?

Mr. BurRTON. Mr. Dawson.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. DAWSON, ASSISTANT DISTRICT AT-
TORNEY, NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Mr. Dawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jo-
seph J. Dawson. Thank you.

I am an Assistant District Attorney in the office of Robert M.
Morgenthau, the District Attorney in the county of New York. I
have been employed in the New York County District Attorney's
Office since September 1987. My colleague, Assistant District At-
torney Richard T. Preiss, and I are here pursuant to subpoenas
that have been served upon us.

We have been asked to make brief statements outlining certain
evidence of political corrup—I’m sorry—political contributions that
we obtained in the course of a bank fraud investigation and our
contacts with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to that
evidence. We have attempted to coordinate our statements to avoid

repetition.

In May 1995, I was assigned to an investigation of certain Ven-
ezuelan banking groups that had conducted business through New
York banks and had collapsed in December 1994, The investigation
later focused on transactions conducted by Banco Progreso in Ven-
ezuela, Banco Progreso Internacional de Puerto Rico [BPIPR], and
Banco Latinoamericano in the Dominican Republic. These three
banks, our investigation showed, were owned by Orlando Castro
Llanes, a Venezuelan citizen who moved to Miami, FL, after the
collapse of his banks. Castro Llanes’ son, Orlando Castro Castro,
was the president of Banco Progreso in Venezuela. Jorge Castro,
Castro Llanes’ grandson and Castro Castro’s nephew, was presi-
dent of Banco Latinoamericano in the Dominican Republic. Until
April 1994, he was also the president of BPIPR, which was closed
by Puerto Rican banking regulators in January 1995.

In or about February—mid-February 1996, authorities in the Do-
minican Republic granted me, an analyst, and several investigators
from our office, access to the premises and files of Banco
Latinoamericano in Santo Domingo. The Dominican banking super-
intendent had closed the bank at the end of December 1994.

Among the items found in the office of Jorge Castro’s secretary
was copy of a fax dated September 16, 1992, from C. Intriago to
Jorge Castro which appeared to contain instructions for payments


33

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I’m sorry?

Mr. BENNETT. I’m asking in light of this letter to Mr. Intriago,
which made reference to your grandfather, I’m just asking do you
have any personal knowledge of your grandfather’s association with
any officials of the Democratic National Committee, apart from Mr.
Intriago having those contacts?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No, I don’t think he had any other contact.

Mr. BENNETT. And, then, finally, sir, in October 1993, when your
family was here in Washington, there was a meeting at the State
Department. Is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And what was the purpose of that meeting at the
State Department?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. We just came and visited, I don’t remem-
ber the name of the person that we visited at that time and we
were just discussing the events that were occurring in Venezuela,
the financial district in Venezuela, regarding our family’s business,
and so on and so forth.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I see my 20 minutes is out, and I'll
reserve the other 10 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. The 10 minutes are now reserved.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BurRTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Castro, I want to
review and summarize some of the testimony that you have given
today and I want to make sure it is correct.

In September 1992, Charles Intriago called you and asked you
and your aunt to make political contributions. Is that right?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. He called me. I told my aunt afterwards.

Mr. Waxman. OK. And you knew Mr. Intriago because he was
your grandfather’s attorney and adviser. Is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And according to your testimony, Mr. Intriago told
you that you would be reimbursed. Is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any evidence, aside from your own
testimony, that Mr. Intriago knew you would be reimbursed?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. That he knew that I would be reimbursed?

Mr. WAXMAN. The only evidence we have that you were going to
be reimbursed is your statement here. Is there any other evidence
of that?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. Just—I can tell you that I wouldn’t have
given $25,000 to the Democratic, the Republican, or any other com-
mittee if I wouldn’t have been reimbursed. I had no interest in the
United States and no business in the United States to give out
$25,000 of my personal money.

Mr. WaxMAN. But your grandfather’s attorney and political ad-
viser sent you a fax.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And in that fax he said, I want you to write checks
to the following Democratic party organizations.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Correct.

Mr. WaAxMAN. And you did it.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.


104

reimburse him for a contribution that he made. The offense we're
talking about—there may be bigger offenses——

Mr. Dawson. Right.

Mr. WaxMaN [continuing]. Than whether somebody was reim-
bursed for a campaign contribution—for example, bank fraud we
know is a big, a pretty big offense, and we've got a couple of people
in jail. We have Mr. Castro and his grandfather in jail. Anybody
else?

Mr. PREISS. Well, actually, all three of them are in jail, but
it’s——

Mr. WAXMAN. It is——

Mr. PREISS [continuing]. The grandfather, Orlando Castro
Llanes, Orlando—the grandfather got 1 to 3; Orlando Castro Cas-
tro got 2¥a to 7, and Jorge Castro Barredo got 3¥2 to 10¥2.

Me. Waxman. I thank you for your hard work in getting that con-
viction, but if a prosecutor had to rely on the testimony of those
characters who you described as, “Simply put, these are individuals
who thought they could fool other people—their employees, their
customers, their regulators, or auditors.

Mr. Preiss. Are you quoting my summation? [Laughter.]

Mr. WaxMan. Yes. Yes, I'm quoting your words back to you. If
a prosecutor had to rely on their testimony, they're not the most.
credible witnesses, and it could be that a prosecutor would look at
it—a Federal prosecutor would say, you've got this Mr. Castro
who's in jail for fooling a lot of people and defrauding them, and
he’s going to say something about somebody else, who’s going to
deny it. So I guess, as prosecutors, you always have to question
whether not only can you get the testimony, but can you—is it
credible enough to get a conviction.

Mr. Dawson. That’s why corroboration is so important.

Mr. Waxman. Right.

Mr. Dawson. That’s why the documents are important.

Mr. WaxMaN. Right. But they tend to corroborate the fact that
it’s foreign money, and they may corroborate, but it may not be suf-
ficient for a burden beyond a reasonable—beyond a reasonable
doubt, to convict an individual whose reputation, as far as we
know, has never been besmirched——

Mr. Dawson. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing). Or denied.

Mr. BurTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Waxman. Thank you.

Mr. BurRTON. I’m going to yield to counsel and just take a minute
of his time. The gentleman from California indicated that FBI
agents had talked to Mr. Intriago. He must know something we
don’t because the information we have is that Mr. Intriago has not
been investigated or contacted by FBI agents in any way, and
that’s one of the reasons why I felt that it was extremely impor-
tant, before the statute ran and before this gentleman was sen-
tenced, that there be a full investigation of Mr. Intriago to see if
this was a pattern of bringing in illegal foreign contributions to try
to influence maybe some of our policies with an elected official.

I yield to the counsel.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would you yield to me just on that point about Mr.
Intriago being questioned by——


40

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. You told the district attorney you
wanted to cooperate in exchange for a recommendation that you get
a lenient sentenc . Isn’t that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. It was then that you decided to accuse your grand-
father of reimbursing your political contributions. Is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Accuse? I didn’t accuse my grandfather of

an’

REF oa, You didn’t accuse your grandfather of reimbursing
the money that you contributed?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I didn’t accuse him. I just said that I was
reimbursed by him in one of the companies. I didn’t accuse him of
doing anything of that sort. Accusing is admitting that something
is wrong, and——

Mr. WAXMAN. You're here today to tell us that money you con-
tributed to the Democratic party was reimbursed to you by your
grandfather.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WaxMaNn. OK. That was first mentioned by you after you
were convicted of bank fraud, and you did it in the context of get-
ting a a more lenient sentence. Is that right? You were trying to be

hel; pfu
ir. CASTRO BARREDO. To myself.

Mr. WaxMaN. To yourself.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. So, instead of facing 40 years in prison, you got a
sentence of 3¥2 years.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WaXMAN. And, I guess this is a question: Should this fact af-
fect your credibility?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That—in what sense?

Mr. WAXMAN, Well, that you came up with the story about get-
ting reimbursed.

ir. CASTRO BARREDO. It’s not a story.

Mr. Waxman. It’s a story, maybe it’s true or not true, but it’s a

story. You would say, presumably, it’s a truthful story.

ir. CASTRO BARREDO. The only thing I can say, Mr. Waxman,
is the gentleman that is saying, is denying this, is taking the fifth
amendment, which I didn’t know, and he’s not here to say the
truth or not.

Mr. WAXMAN. Nor is your grandfather. Where is your grand-
father?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. He’s serving time in a correctional facility.

Mr. WaxMAN. You got a more lenient sentence because you were
willing to come forward and talk about this campaign contribution
when you were originally sentenced. Now Chairman Burton has
told you that he’ll write a letter on your behalf to get you released
on a work-release program for coming here today——

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Which I am already eligible for.

Mr. WAXMAN. You are eligible for it, but still it is a question of
discretion, and the chairman has offered to help you get that work
release as a reward for or hetpi the committee get this information.

Mr. CASTRO BARRE y letter that is always sent to the cor-
rectional facility or eo A board helps. So, that’s an incentive.


|. Professional Background

A. Biography: Charles A. Intriago was born in Ecuador in
1942. He earned an undergraduate degree from Florida
State and his law degree from the University of
Florida, where he served as editor of the law review.

e After a brief stint in private practice, he went to
work for Congressman Dante Fascell as a staff
member on the Government Operations Committee.'
From 1973 until 1974, he worked on the staff of
former Governor Reubin Askew of Florida. He
moved down to Miami upon leaving Askew’s office,
working in private practice until hired as an Assistant
U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida in
1975,?

Joined former IRS Chief Troy Register in a consulting
business until mid-1979, then went back into private
practice on his own. He became an income partner in
the Miami office of McDermott, Will et Emory in
1982. Four years later, he joined Floyd, Pearson,
Richman & Greer.

© Since 1989, he has published the Money Laundering Alert,
a newsletter devoted to how money laundering has

‘ SoothFleride Bezmess Joxrsl, 12/25/89. Intriago worked for Government Ops from
1968 until 1973. Intriago Deposition, Government Reform & Oversight
‘Committee.

A ntriago Depotition, Government Reform & Oversight Committee, He was hired
by Robert W. Rust, and held che position until lace (977.


36

STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND

April 30, 1998

Charies Intriago is a private citizen who, during the 1992
Presidential campaign, exercised his fundamental right under the U.S.
Constitution to make a campaign contribution from his own personal funds. He
also solicited contributions from a number of well-off American citizens with
whom he was acquainted, and who he believed had the personal financial
capability to make such contributions. As a consequence of those activities, he
now finds himself unwillingly drawn into a nasty and vindictive political conflict

that is unfettered by rules of faimess and is immune from the laws of defamation.

Mr. intriago is not a government official. He has never held a high
elected or appointive goverment position. He has never been an employee of,
or consultant to, the Democratic National Committee. He is not a “friend” or
"associate" of the President, the Vice President or of any other high ranking
Democratic Party official. He has not applied for, been interviewed for or
considered for a government job, He has never had nor sought a government
contract. Mr. Intriago simply is a respected private lawyer with a previously

unblemished record of conduct.


68

the attorneys cannot be held directly accountable, so it’s fairly easy.
For example, a reporter in Miami, Miss Gail Epstein, reported in
an article in the Miami Herald of February 28th of this year, that
one of Mr. Intriago’s attorneys said that, “He will, at the appro-
priate time and place, tell his side of the story.”

I mean, that’s something that we hear a lot from people in this
administration and witnesses, that at the appropriate time and
place, they'll tell their story. And, in the mean time, they send self-
serving letters like the one that was introduced this morning. The
fact of the matter is though, this whole process that brings us here
today was not started by this committee, was it? I mean, this arose
out of the investigation from the district attorney’s office in Man-
hattan.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct. .

Mr. Barr. So one would think that if Mr. Intriago’s army of at-
torneys had a problem, as he seems to indicate in this gratuitous
statement, that he really should have a problem with the district
attorney’s office in Manhattan. Wouldn’t that be fair?

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. That would be fair to say.

Mr. Barr. Yes, I don’t think he’s written this silliness to them,
his attorneys that is. He apparently hasn’t done anything. I know
there was a discussion between you and one of the folks on the
other side, as part of their continuing effort to trivialize anything
connected with this investigation. It’s not your testimony here
today—that the matters that we're looking are trivial. Do you agree
that these are very serious matters?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I agree. I agree, they are very serious
matters after everything read in the media in the last year, year
and a half, 2 years.

Mr. Barr. Would you agree with me that one reason they are se-
rious is because foreign money coming in, as you've testified seems
to be the case, and as the district attorney’s office in Manhattan
suspected is the case, really go to the heart of the political system
here in this country of which all citizens should be concerned with?
Do you agree that that is very serious?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. Barr. Thank you. One wishes that our colleagues on the
other side shared that viewpoint, because we do believe that it is,
and that’s why you're here today. Not to be congratulated, but sim-
py. to answer questions, and for that we do appreciate your being

ere.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BuRTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WaxMaN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask ev-
erybody here to take a step back and put this hearing and your tes-
timony into perspective. This committee is supposed to be inves-
tigating campaign finance abuses of 1996, where the chairman al-
leged that there was a massive effort for foreign money to be fun-
neled into the United States to corrupt our political system, pri-
marily by the Chinese Government. That has been the stated objec-
tive of our investigation.

What we have here today from Mr. Castro is a statement that
he contributed in 1992 money, at the request of an attorney who
had worked for his grandfather, to the Democratic party. As far as


105

Mr. BuRTON. Well, we only have 10 minutes here, and the coun-
sel has it. Briefly, go aheat

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I just want you to know the reason we know
that he was interviewed by the FBI is because Mr. Intriago’s law-
yer answered the question we asked of him, and he said, well, that
they had been questioned by the FBI; that the Justice Department
sent them over to pursue this issue. That’s how we know about it.

Mr. BurTON. We'll double-check that.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Preiss and Mr. Dawson, hello, again.

One of the things that’s come up recently is whether the Depart-
ment of Justice has or has not moved forward with any investiga-
tion of conduit contributions here, and I wanted to ask a couple of
very brief questions on that.

Mr. Dawson, is it correct-——

Mr. Burton. Let me interrupt briefly. I’ve just been informed by
counsel that the FBI interviewed him regarding some possible cus-
toms offenses, but that had nothing to do with the question at
hand, and that Mr. Intriago and the question of the illegal cam-
paign contributions has taken the fifth amendment, hasn’t talked
to the FBI about that.

Go ahead, counsel.

Mr. WiLson. If we could just put up exhibit VEN-6, which is a
copy of a check from Maria Castro to the Maryland Victory Fund.
Is it correct to say—I’ll give you a moment to look at that. Is it cor-
rect to say that, prior to this here, you had not seen a copy of this
check, Mr. Dawson?

(NotE.—Exhibit VEN-6 may be found on p. 22.]

Mr. Dawson. We had not seen a copy of the check until you’ve
just flashed it on the screen.

Mr. WILSON. Did you at any time ask the Department of Justice
to subpoena this, the bank records of Ms. Castro, to see whether
there were reimbursements or whether the checks were cashed

Mr. Dawson. We had subpoenaed the bank records of Ms. Castro
and got account statements and specific checks that we had re-
quested. Because we didn’t have—well, because we didn’t have a
copy of the check in the Dominican Republic, obviously, we didn’t
know what check number to ask for. There came a time when we
suggested to representatives of the Department of Justice that they
should get a copy of this check. We also suggested that they should
get better copies of all the checks.

ae WILSON. Do you know whether they did obtain copies of the
checks?

Mr. PREISS. No. We just know that we gave them the original
microfiche copies of the ones that we got directly from the bank,
and those were three.

Mr. WILson. Right. Well, that’s——

Mr. Preiss. That was on the September 4th letter that I think
I testified about earlier.

Mr. WILSON. That’s something we can followup on and find
whether they did or did not at any point request those checks.

Staying on the subject of Maria Castro, have either of you ever
spoken with Maria Castro?

Mr. Preiss. I have not.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Dawson?


46

mit a fraud and a crime under the Federal Election Act of the
United States. Is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. I learned that in 1996 when——

Mr. KANJoRSKI. Now, at that time was Mr. Intriago still rep-
resenting you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. KANgorskI. OK. Are you still seeing him on a friendly basis?
Going to ball games together still?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I’ve been in jail for 2 years, so it is quite
far from——
wit KANJORSKI. Do you ever hear from him? Do you write to

im /

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. Never.

Mr. KaNsorskI. OK. Now have you talked to your attorneys
about this?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. About what?

Mr. KaNJorSsKI. Your present attorneys about this situation?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. Which——

Mr. KANJoRSKI. A situation which might be conceived by a law-
yer to commit a crime. What I want to know is, did you sue him,
given the statue of limitations? Did you bring disbarment proceed-
ings or sue Mr. Intriago?

ir. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. Kangorski. Why?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I don’t see a reason why to.

Mr. KANJORSKI. He committed probably one of the greatest torts
a lawyer can commit against his client: advise him to commit a
crime.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s up to him.

Mr. KANJORSKI. What do you mean that’s up to him? You're the
guy doing time.

Mr. CasTRO BAaRREDO. I don’t have anything against him. I don’t
have anything again Charlie Intriago. I would not——

Mr. KaNJORSKI. So you’re not offended by what he told you to do,
and you didn’t mind that he told you to do something that you now
consider improper?

Mr. CaAstRO BARREDO. Offended? In a sense, I would say yes, be-
cause I was told to do something at that time that we thought was
very normal and then we found out it wasn’t normal. But to take
that to a level of lawsuit and disbarment and legal process, I
wouldn’t do it.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I see. What’s our recourse now? The statue of
limitations on all of this has run. It’s run on you, conveniently at
the end. That’s when the information was coming to the Justice
Department. You’ve taken no action against your attorney; al-
though you have a clear action against him. You've brought no pro-
ceedings against him, so he’s possibly still advising people out
there, possibly, to do the same thing he advised you to oo in 1996.

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. That could be.

Mr. KANJORSKI. And you feel as an American citizen no compunc-
tion to stop that activity?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. The last 2 or 3 years I’ve gone through so
many hardships and lost so much money and spent so much time
in jail——


88

Mr. Burton. Well, I guess the point I want to make, and maybe
Tm not getting my point across, is you already had Jorge Castro
convicted and he was going to go to jail. So when you referred this
to the Federal authorities, you were talking to them about Mr.
Intriago more than Mr. Castro. Is that correct? Or was it Mr. Cas-
tro?

Mr. Dawson. The referral had occurred much earlier, Mr. Chair-
man.

Mr. PREISS. That’s the point I was trying to get to. It was the
fall of 1996 that the referral was made, and Jorge Castro wasn’t
convicted until February 19, 1997, and it wasn’t until after that
that we actually spoke to him, so that’s why I was having trouble.

Mr. BuRTON. But he was convicted and you knew the statute was
running on the whole case.

Mr. PREISS. We thought it was.

Mr. BurTON. You thought it was, and what I’m getting at is that
by the time you started being concerned about the statute running,
it was well into 1997. You knew it was September 12 that it was
going to run out, and you were talking to them. Was Mr. Intriago
one of your concerns?

Mr. Dawson. Well, I don’t know that we knew that it was going
to run out. It was a potential issue.

Mr. Burton. I know, but was one of your concerns that you
wanted to make sure that if there was going to be any action
taken, it was taken—or looked into—on Mr. Intriago as well as Mr.
Castro before the statute ran?

Mr. Dawson. Mr. Castro Llanes? I’m sorry, as well as Mr. Cas-
tro, you say?

Mr. BurRTON. The gentleman that was here today.

Mr. DAWSON. Oh. We just wanted something. We had referred it,
and we knew that there was this potential issue out there.

Mr. PREIss. I don’t want to—clearly we were interested in what
was going to happen. We were interested because we had referred
the case. We thought it was a serious matter, and that’s why we
referred it.

Mr. BURTON. You thought Mr. Intriago should have been inves-
tigated.

r. DAWSON. That the matter should have been investigated.

Mr. PREISS. We thought that the matter should be investigated.

Mr. BurTON. Including Mr. Intriago.

Mr. DAWSON. Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, we had
already looked into some of Mr. Intriago’s transactions ourselves,
and we had referred all of this stuff. So, I guess it’s no secret that
this was among, I suppose, that he would be among the matters
that we had referred.

Mr. BuRTON. You thought it was worth them looking at.

Mr. PRrEIss. Absolutely; that’s why we referred it.

Mr. Burton. That’s what I wanted to hear.

Mr. WILSON. I think my time is about to run out, at least my
first 20 minutes. I’ve got 10 additional minutes later, and I'll go
very quickly just to followup on something the chairman was dis-
cussing.

Mr. Preiss, it’s my understanding that Mr. Castro’s lawyer had
a conversation with the head of the DOJ Public Integrity Section


9

ably ought to go and make that vote and then come back. So the
committee will stand in recess until we return.

[Recess.]

Mr. BuRTON. The committee will reconvene.

Mr. WaxMAN. Mr. Chairman, before we hear from the witness—
during the break, I was informed that two networks played tapes
of Webb Hubbell, conversations he had from his prison, and I’m
confused, in light of that statement you made earlier that you were
going to review these tapes very carefully before any of them are
released. Could you give us an explanation on how these tapes got
to the networks, and whether they had been reviewed to remove
privacy information?

Mr. BurRTON. I’m pretty sure, and the gentleman might double
check this, but during the hearing, when you were absent, when
a number of tapes were entered into the record, and then subject
for disbursal to whomever, the media or anybody else in the public
area, I think those are the tapes that you’re referring to. Those are
already in the public domain. What I was referring to last night
on “Larry King Live,” and “The Today Show,” are the tapes that
we're reviewing very thoroughly, and we're going to make sure, as
I said, that personal things are not in there unless, along with
them, there’s information that’s relevant to our investigation. But
we're being very careful now. I don’t know what tapes you're refer-
ting to, but I believe they're the ones that previously have been re-
leased.

Mr. WaxMAN. Well, I don’t. I checked the transcript of our hear-
ing record very carefully, and I don’t believe that we ever gave au-
thorization for releasing any tapes. But I can’t understand which
tapes—if you think we gave authorization for some, and not others,
how you would delineate those tapes? Maybe, you can tell us which
one’s are already out in the public, which one’s you think you had
authorization to release?

Mr. BuRTON. Well, I gave you documents that showed that they
were put into the record and subject to disbursement at our last
meeting. I don’t think I’ll belabor the point, but my staff and your
staff can get together and show you exactly what tapes were re-
leased at that time.

Mr. Castro, would you rise, please?

[Witness sworn.}

Mr. BurTON. Mr. Castro, I understand you have an opening
statement?

STATEMENT OF JORGE CASTRO BARREDO

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BuRTON. Proceed.

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. My name is Jorge Castro Barredo, and I
am currently incarcerated in the Mid-State Correctional Facility—
is that OK? Tm currently incarcerated in the Mid-State Correc-
tional Facility located in Upstate New York. I am serving a sen-
tence with a mandatory minimum term of 3¥2 years and a maxi-
mum term of 10¥2 years in prison, upon my conviction in New York
State Supreme Court of grand larceny and related crimes. I have
already served more than 2 years of that sentence, and I am cur-
rently eligible for work release.


2

I'd like to start off my opening remarks today by once again
drawing attention to the stone wall that we have over on the wall
which shows some of the problems we've encountered with the in-
vestigation. The Speaker of the House has made some comments
about this in the last few days, and at the White House yesterday,
speaking for the President, Michael McCurry, responded to Speak-
er Gingrich, and here’s what he said, and I quote: “There’s a lot
of work to be done and we'll leave the politics to the Speaker. We’re
going to do the business of the people.”

So I just have a couple of questions for the President and Mr.
McCurry. Is it the business of the people to have drug dealers and
gun runners in the White House in exchange for contributions? Is
it the business of the people to rent out the Lincoln bedroom and
seats on Air Force One for campaign contributions? Is it the busi-
ness of the people to stonewall investigations by not turning over
documents, or delaying documents for long periods of time to the
Congress? Is it the business of the people to conceal video tapes of
the President at White House fundraisers for 6 months and longer?
And is it the business of the people to abuse executive privilege,
to block criminal investigations and congressional investigations?
These are just a few of the questions I'd like to ask Mr. McCurry,
and I think some of the words were two syllables and longer.

Today, we continue to look into illegal foreign money that flowed
into national campaigns through Florida. In March, we heard testi-
mony about $400,000 in contributions from a German National,
Thomas Kramer. We questioned Federal Election Commission offi-
cials who investigated this matter. More than $500,000 in fines
were assessed, and Mr. Kramer was fined, and his lawyers were
fined, and his secretary was fined, and the Republican party of
Florida was fined.

One important person was not punished in any way. According
to the Federal Election Committee General Counsel’s epart. they
obtained evidence that Democratic fundraiser, Howard Glicken,
may have been involved in advising Mr. Kramer to illegally funnel
contributions through his secretary. Despite the evidence, the Fed-
eral Election Commission decided not to investigate Mr. Glicken.
They did not even call him to ask about it. One of the reasons they
cited in deciding not to pursue Mr. Glicken was his close personal
relationship to Vice President Gore.

Today, we will hear testimony about $50,000 in Venezuelan
money that was contributed to the Democrat party during the Pres-
idential campaign in 1992. These contributions were made by a

rominent Venezuelan banking family headed by Orlando Castro

lanes. The evidence of these illegal contributions emerged during
a bank fraud case being prosecuted by New York District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau.

Mr. Morgenthau won convictions against three members of the
Castro family, including Orlando Castro and his grandson, Jorge
Castro Barredo. During the course of this investigation, Jorge Cas-
tro became a cooperating witness. He revealed the conduit con-
tribution scheme to the prosecutors. The contributions were made
during the fall of the 1992 Presidential elections. They consisted of
two $20,000 contributions to the Democrat National Committee,
and two $5,000 contributions to State Democratic parties.


43

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I don’t know what I said. Right, I know
I am going to get a letter, but I don’t know if Mr. Burton is going
to sign it, or Mr. Bennett was going to sign it, or they were going
to New York, or I don’t know where they are going to send it or
to who. I have no idea who the letter is going to be sent to. I know
it is going to be sent to the New York State Department of Correc-
tions, but to who I don’t know.

Mr. Lantos. Now Mr. Intriago, who is the attorney for your
grandfather, was the attorney —.

Mr. CastTRO BARREDO. Who was the attorney, that is correct.

Mr. LANTOs [continuing]. Did he indicate to you that he’s acting
on behalf of the Clinton-Gore campaign?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. At that time?

Mr. LANTOS. Yes.

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. I don’t know if he said the Clinton-Gore
campaign or the Democratic campaign. I don’t remember. It was 6
years ago.

Mr. Lantos. Do you have any personal knowledge that the
Democratic National Committee advised Mr. Intriago to obtain a
contribution from you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. From us? No, I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. LANTOS. So the only contact you had with respect to this con-
tribution was Mr. Intriago.

Mr. Castro BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. LANTOS. You said earlier in your testimony that you had
adequate resources to write such checks.

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. That is correct.

Mr. LANTOS. Can you give us a ballpark figure of what your as-
sets were at the time?

Mr. CasTRO BarREDO. I have no idea.

Mr. LANTOS. Well, was it $1 million or less, or more?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Or less, or more.

Mr. LANTOS. Well, what do you think it was?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. We include what, liquid assets or stock as-
sets? Maybe more.

Mr. LANTOS. You know, I find it remarkable that you can’t re-
member the discussion you had yesterday, but you have a vivid
recollection of a discussion you had 5 years ago. Or 6 years ago.
Could you explain that discrepancy to us?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Well, what j is to remember of yesterday
that is so memory lapsing? I was asked questions. There were four
members of one side there, two members of the other side, and that
was basically it. They were asking questions and I was answering
them.

Mr. Lantos. Well, you raised the issue of the letter being sent
by Mr. Burton and someone on the Democratic side. We didn’t raise
that question. You did, a couple of minutes ago. Presumably you
remembered it from your conversation yesterday.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. Lantos. So there was such a discussion yesterday.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. The letter was mentioned. There was a
letter mentioned because I have asked my attorney many, many
times about letters and things like that.

Mr. Lantos. I’ll be glad to yield.


74

Mr. Cox. And so at a time when these big contributions are
being made to the President of the United States, the President’s
own cabinet is responsible for investigating the crimes that have
been served up by the DA of Manhattan and that surprisingly, the
Supreme Court of New York finds that they have not been pur-
sued. I think it speaks for itself, and you’re quite right to include
this in our investigation of what’s going on in this campaign inves-
tigation in the Clinton administration.

Mr. BurTON. Thank you, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Castro, you, and your attorney I want to thank you for your
participation. You are excused, and we'll now bring our next panel
forward.

Mr. CAMPRIELLO. Before we leave, the marshals have indicated
that it might be helpful if you would indicate that the writ was sat-
isfied, and he’s free to be taken back.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, could I make one suggestion?

Mr. Burton. Mr. Horn.

Mr. Horn. If there’s intimidation of you for your appearance be-
fore this committee, I hope you'll {minediately let the chairman
know. I was former vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, and there was a statute we relied on that if any witnesses
were intimidated that is a Federal offense. And the U.S. Attorneys,
if they’re awake, would be indicting the people that did the intimi-

tion.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before he leaves just for the record
could I ask one question?

There was a statement made that someone attempted to stab you
in prison. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. To stab me in prison?

Mr. Waxman. Yes.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s incorrect.

Mr. WAXMAN. Because the chairman made that statement, and
I didn’t know whether——

Mr. BurRTON. No, no, no. I never made any statement like that.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Oh, no, I was never——

Mr. BuRTON. I’ve never made a statement like that.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Not that I know of.

Mr. WAXMAN. On the Larry King Live Show, which I didn’t
see——

Mr. BurTON. No, no, no. You’re getting second-hand information.
I never made a statement like that.

The gentleman is excused, and he’s remanded to the custody of
the marshals for return. Thank you very much.

Mr. CAMPRIELLO. Thank you.

Mr. WaxMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I have been informed that state-
ment that you made was that you were going to get this gentleman
to a safe place so he wouldn’t get stabbed.

Mr. BURTON. What I said was that we wanted to make sure and
he wanted to make sure and I think everybody wanted to make
sure, that he was going to be in a safe place in a different facility
before he came to testify because there were some concerns about
his safety. But I didn’t say he had been stabbed.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.


83

. Mr. Burton. I see. Was there any further illumination of that
issue?

Mr. Dawson. No, I don’t think. Do you remember any?

Mr. PREIss. What I remember is that when we were interviewing
him one of the questions that we thought was sort of obvious is
well why were these contributions—why were these contributions
made? And what he said to us was that he thought—sorry—what
he said to us was that his grandfather had told him that he want-
ed—he referred to him as Charlie to be appointed Ambassador of
the United States to the Republic of Venezuela.

Mr. BurTON. And so that was the initial reason why the cam-
paign contributions were funneled up through his relatives in
Miami?

Mr. PREIsS. That’s what he told us. That’s what he told us. What
the real reason was or whether that was the reason, Mr. Chair-
man, I really don’t know. But I can only tell you what Mr. Castro
told us.

Mr. Burton. OK. Thank you.

Mr. WILSON. Referring to the document on the screen in front of
you—and Mr. Preiss and Mr. Dawson, the screens are sometimes
hard to read. In front of you, you have black binders with materials
in them. And if you’d like to refer directly to the copies of the docu-
ments in those binders, you might find it easier to follow some of
the documents. .

We're looking at VEN-2, the second exhibit in the book. It is a
fax from a C. Intriago to Mr. Jorge Castro, and Mr. Castro did tes-
tify before this committee earlier today. And he spoke at great
length about this fax. And I'd like to ask you both a few questions
about this fax.

First of all, Mr. Dawson, in your opening statement—you made
a reference to the fax—if you could, please describe how you found
it.

[Note.—Exhibit VEN-2 may be found on p. 18.]

Mr. Dawson. I was in the office of what was identified to me as
a secretary’s office, the secretary being Jorge Castro’s secretary. I
believe he had two—one that was a secretary and one that was a
secretary or an assistant of some kind—in any event. There were
two filing cabinets, which were sealed by the Dominican authori-
ties. The entire building had been sealed actually. We got upstairs.
We asked to look through this filing cabinet or both filing cabinets.
We looked through the desks. We looked through everything basi-
cally. And this was—I found this in a file in one of the two filing
cabinets.

Mr. WILSON. Moving from the micro to the macro, what country
was the office in?

Mr. Dawson. Oh, the Dominican Republic, in Santo Domingo. It
was the office of Banco Latinoamericano.

Mr. WILSON. OK. And is it correct to say that at that point, the
offices had been vacated by Mr. Castro and his staff?

Mr. Dawson. This was in February 1996. The bank, I was told,
was closed in December 1994, and had been under the continuous
custody of the Superintendent of Banking of the Dominican Repub-
IC.


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jn, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York GARY A. CONDIT, California
STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wi
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Ilinois
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South DANNY K. DAVIS, Ilinoi

Carolina JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JIM TURNER, Texas
PETE SESSIONS, Texas THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
‘MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas —
BOB BARR, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DAN MILLER, Florida (Independent)

Kevin Bincer, Stoff Director
RICHARD BENNETT, Chief Counsel
WILLIAM MOscHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
JuDITH McCoy, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

ab

AUTHENTICATED. or


109

ments, because I don’t think that would be fair to anybody in-
volved. So I will check that out, but it was my understanding—we
should get it from the Justice Department—that the Castros and
Mr. Intriago have been interviewed on this question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to yield, since I still have time, to Mr. Bar-
rett.

Mr. BarretTr. And I want to thank both of you for being here,
and thank you for the job that you’re doing.

But, again, I have to comment on this committee, because I think
that you have raised some questions that deserve to be answered.
But I believe that if this committee was interested in fairness, this
committee would have invited the Justice Department to be here
today. I just—I don’t understand how you can have a person set
the plates; you put the food on the table, and then you don’t have
the guests arrive—because the Justice Department is the person or
is the Department that’s under attack here. And so what we do is
we throw these innuendos out, and it would make all the sense in
the world to an impartial observer to let’s have the Justice Depart-
ment come in. I, frankly, thought, when you said the Justice De-
partment would be—we’d hear from, I thought we’d hear from
them today. There’s no reason to sort of let this hang on, other
than just let’s just throw this out in the air and see what happens.

So I’m disappointed. I think that we deserve to know the answer,
and I think if we are interested in justice and fairness to all par-
ties, we would have done it all in the same day.

And my question, too, Mr. Chairman, is, do we have a time cer-
tain when we're going to hear, when we’re going to be able to hear
the testimony from the Justice Department?

Mr. Burton. I'll answer on my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I'll yield to the chairman to answer.

Mr. BurTON. No, I'll answer on my time.

Mr. WaxMAN. I'll yield back my time, so you can reply back on
your time.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

As I said earlier in the hearing, we will have the Justice Depart-
ment up here. It’s now 4 o’clock, and we didn’t want to run this
thing on into the late night hours, but we will have the Justice De-
partment up here and we will ask them the questions that were
raised today.

Now let me just also say that you, gentlemen, continue week
after week, when we have the hearings, to try to pooh-pooh the im-
portance of the hearings, and I understand that’s your job. Your job
is to obfuscate and obstruct and do everything you can to keep us
from getting at the facts. We will not be deterred.

Now let me just say one other thing. Mr. Waxman has made a
representation that is simply not accurate. He said that he sees no
evidence of an investigation of foreign money involving Repub-
licans. Just this week, counsel for the minority requested of chief
counsel for the majority that there be an interview of the wife of
a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Matt Fong of Califor-
nia. We agreed to that interview. This is in connection with Ms.
Fong’s work with the National Policy Forum, which has Republican
affiliations. Our entire investigation involving Ted Sioeng and the


VENEZUELAN MONEY AND THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998

HOUvusE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Burton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Morella, Cox, Ros-Lehtinen,
McHugh, Horn, Mica, Sununu, Snowbarger, Barr, Waxman, Lan-
tos, Kanjorski, Condit, Barrett, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, and

mer.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief
counsel; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian;
Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calendar
clerk; David Kass, deputy counsel; Dudley Hodgson, chief investiga-
tor; James C. Wilson and Uttam Dhillon, senior investigative coun-
sels; Robert Dold, investigative counsel; Elliott Berke, investigative
attorney, Robin Butler, office manager; Ashley Godwin, investiga-
tive administrative assistant; Tom Bossert, investigative staff as-
sistant; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority
chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel;
David Sadkin and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk; Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant;
and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.

Mr. BurTON. The committee will come to order. Good morning,
a quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight will start its business.

Before the distinguished ranking member and I deliver our open-
ing statements, the committee must first dispose of some proce-
dural issues. I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and wit-
nesses’ written opening statements be included in the record, and
without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all ar-
ticles, exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to be
included in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter under
consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2), House Rule XI, and com-
mittee Rule 14, in which the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber allocate time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate
for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes, divided equally
between the majority and the minority, and without objection, so
ordered.

fe))


110

foreign money he gave to campaigns is exploring both Democrat
and Republican contributions.

Furthermore, Mr. Waxman last week opposed immunity for one
of Mr. Sioeng’s closest associates, Kent La. As Mr. Waxman knows,
Kent La is involved with marketing Red Pagoda Mountain ciga-
rettes in the United States and China, which ought to be of inter-
est to you.

Let me further say that I just talked to my chief counsel a mo-
ment ago, and he told me that if you have information that the FBI
has talked to Mr. Intriago about this case, then it’s something that
has happened in the last 10 days; 10 days ago he talked to them,
and they said they had not interviewed him in any way about this.
So that must be new information.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I know it’s
been a long day. We believe you have contributed, and we appre-
ciate very much your time and effort. And I sure would like to have
a couple more answers I don’t think you’re going to give us about
when you considered taking this case back, but maybe we will find
out about that at some later date.

This meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the
call of the Chair.]

oO


31

Mr. Castro BarreEDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you have any knowledge as to whether he di-
rectly received an invitation to that event?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. I don’t know if he directly received it but
he was given and told, in front of me, by Charlie Intriago, when
we were in the lobby of the hotel here in Washington.

Mr. BENNETT. And do you know he would be on some list because
your grandfather’s name would not appear, should not appear on
any contribution list. You’re the one, technically, according to the
records, that made the contributions.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you know why he would be attending that?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. BENNETT. Just directing your attention to exhibit VEN-27,
this is a letter which was provided to the committee pursuant to
a subpoena issued to the Democratic National Committee, and it’s
a letter from an official of the Democratic National Committee. Do
you have any knowledge of your grandfather’s association with any
officials of the Democratic National Committee?

(Exhibit VEN-27 follows:]


90

Mr. Dawson. I have no information on any of that.

Mr. WaxMaN. Could I ask just one question? I know I’m going
to have my time in a minute, but we fave to vote. Do you know
whether the case was dropped by the Justice Department, because
the counsel for our committee just said that the case had been
dropped. Do you know whether the case—

Dawson. Actually, I apologize; you’re right. That was the
way the question was phrased, and I should have caught it and I
didn’t. I don’t know that the case has been dropped.

Mr. PREISS. But—and the reason we don’t know, Mr. Waxman,
is because we've never asked, nor have we been told. I got that let-
ter from Mr. Radek and that told me what I needed to know, and
we proceeded to sentence on December 15 with Mr. Castro.

Mr. BurTON. We will stand in recess and come back quickly.
We're going to have two votes on the floor, so we'll be gone about
15 minutes. Thank you for bearin; ng with us.

We stand in recess at the call of the gavel.

{Recess.]

Mr. BuRTON. The committee will reconvene. I’m sorry, Mr. Preiss
and Mr. Dawson, that we took so long.

Where were we when we recessed? I think, Henry, you were
about to—are you ready?

r. Waxman.

Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Preiss and Mr.
Dawson, I don’t know if you get many thank-you’s in your job, but
I want to thank you for the job that you have done in prosecuting
the underlying bank fraud and trying to make sure that if there
is any criminal offense, that it is pursued. That’s exactly what we
want from our prosecutors, and I want you to know that I appre-
ciate it.

Mr. Dawson. Thank you.

Mr. PrEIss. Thank you.

Mr. WaxMAN. The evidence that you’ve described for us is pretty
clear that it appears there was an illegal foreign contribution. We
have the bank records which show that Mr. Castro and his aunt
were reimbursed from Venezuela, and you found other corroborat-
ing evidence to fill in the blanks so that I think we've got a picture
of a foreign contribution.

What is less clear is whether or not Mr. Intriago was a part of
this. In fact, besides Mr. Castro’s testimony, the only hard evidence
of Mr. Intriago’s involvement is the fax and Mr. Intriago’s phone
number on one of the checks, but neither the fax nor the check
mentions anything about a reimbursement. So in terms of Mr.
Intriago’s activities, the evidence leads us to, I think, several possi-
bilities, and I want to explore them with you.

The first possibility is that Charles Intriago arranged for Jorge
Castro, a U.S. citizen, to make a political contribution for his Ven-
ezuelan grandfather. if he did that, that would be illegal; that’s a
foreign contribution.

Well, I was just pausing because we hear a lot of bells, but it
looks like we're not being summoned to the House floor, and per-
haps we're even in recess.

‘he one possibility is that Intriago was responsible for it. The
second possibility is Mr. Intriago promised that he would arrange


30035051600 *B Bae
i

PREF co econ!

105764



13

Mr. BENNETT. By your grandfather?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. I was going to be reimbursed by one of the
companies owned by the family, yes.

Mr. BENNETT. Companies owned by your grandfather?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And who told you that, sir?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Mr. Intriago.

Mr. BENNETT. Now, going through the dealings with Mr. Intriago
in terms of his relationship with you, would you—can you deter-
mine exactly when you believe you were first contacted by Mr.
Intriago with respect to making these contributions?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. It was the, either the first week of Sep-
tember, or the second week of September 1992.

Mr. BENNETT. And where were you at that time, I believe, ac-
cording to our notes, around September 15, 1992?
fi Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I was in the Dominican Republic in my of-
‘ce.

Mr. BENNETT. And how long had you been in the Dominican Re-
public at your office? Were you working for that period of time in
September 1992? .

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. Yes, I was. Yes, I was.

Mr. BENNETT. And did you contact Mr. Intriago, or did he contact
you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. He contacted me.

Mr. BENNETT. And exactly what occurred when he contacted you?
I gather he was calling from the United States?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. He called from Miami, from his office, and
he spoke to me and told me what I was supposed to do.

Mr. BENNETT. And exactly what did he say to you when he
called, sir?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. He told me that there was some certain
political contributions to be made. At that time he, over the phone,
he told me to—where to write the checks to.

Mr. BENNETT. Did he make ary specific reference to a political
party, or to President Clinton?

Mr. CASTRO BaARREDO. Not President Clinton, the Democratic
party, he just told me the name of, to what entities to write the
checks to, and I told him to fax me a document because I was al-
ways a very busy person so J wouldn’t make a mistake.

Mr. BENNETT. I’ll get to the facts in a minute, sir, but let me just
ask you something else. The representation, then, was not with re-
spect to the President, or at that time, President—or Governor
Clinton's election campaign, but was in reference to the Democratic
party?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And did he make any reference to whether or not
your grandfather was to make these contributions?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. In what sense?

Mr. BENNETT. I mean when he called you, you weren't politically
active? According to the notes the committee has, you’ve indicated
that there was some representation that your grandfather wanted
you to make contributions at this time?

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.


55

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Just to make it clear. To the question I
was asked before about——

Mr. BurTON. Go ahead, proceed.

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. I was asked if anybody from the Demo-
cratic side had promised me anything. I was asked that before and
that’s exactly what I was told yesterday—what Mr. Bennett just
said. That a copy would be given back and forth. That’s what I un-
derstood; that it was going to be signed. I didn’t know it was a
copy. That’s what I understood—just to make it clear.

Mr. BuRTON. Mr. Mica.

Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to question
the witness at this time. However, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
make a brief statement. I think today’s hearing shows another ex-
ample of how the other side of the aisle is doing everything possible
to cover up, stall, impede, smear, to smirch witnesses that we have
here and this investigation.

Quite frankly, I’m very frustrated in this process. Last week, I
sat here as I saw them for the first time invoke not granting immu-
nity to witnesses that had been recommended by the Department
of Justice. Today, I’m totally dismayed with the New York Times
editorial and revelation that in fact, the Attorney General who
came before this panel and sat in those chairs has now announced
that Mr. LaBella, who she put in charge of the investigation at the
Department of Justice, this whole fiasco, fending off the appoint-
ment of an independent counsel recommended by the Director of
the FBI, even in his testimony before us both in closed and open
sessions. And today we find Mr. LaBella is being shipped off to San

Diego.

They are making a farce in this hearing. They are making a
farce in the Department of Justice. They are destroying the process
that maintains the integrity of a check and balance system in this
Nation. I am just personally offended by this. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that today’s New York Times editorial be made
a part of this record and I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Horn
in great disgust.

Mr. BuRTON. Without objection.

[The article referred to follows:]


97

Mr. BarRETT. Do you think something is wrong here?

Mr. Dawson. Wrong with? There have been so many things fly-
ing back and forth here today, I don’t know what you mean by

it.

Mr. PreEIss. As I understand the question, you’re asking us to
opine on whether there is something wrong. Mr. Barrett, I would
think that that’s probably something for you and the committee to
do, not for us to do.

Mr. Dawson. Yes; in fact I had to make an application before a
judge to get the documents before the committee, and I had to basi-
cally discuss the resolution that was passed and the report, and ba-
sically say, “Look, as you said at sentencing, Judge, it’s not for me,
it’s not for Mr. Preiss, it’s not for Jorge Castro’s defense counsel,
and it’s not for Justice McLaughlin to say what went on here.” And
it’s not our position to question what was going on with respect to
the Justice Department, but I took the position in the application
to get you the documents, that it’s the House Government Reform
and Oversight Committee that has responsibilities for overseeing
these matters, and therefore it’s in the public interest to provide
the committee with these documents. We’ve given them to you.

Mr. BARRETT. You understand what’s going on here.

Mr. PREIsS. Why don’t you explain it to us, just in case we don’t.
(Laughter.]

Mr. BARRETT. I'll explain it to you. You’ve got our chairman here,
who, I think—and I'll even let the chairman interject if I state it
incorrectly—is arguing that the Justice Department has done
something wrong and for political reasons has not had an indict-
ment in this case. And I read what I have before us, giving every
benefit of the doubt to the Justice Department—maybe I should do
that, maybe I shouldn’t—that there is still possibly a open inves-
tigation of Mr. Intriago.

Mr. Dawson. How far does your immunity run here? Is it use im-
munity? Is it transactional immunity? If we give the answer to one
of Mr. Bennett’s questions in a particular way, will the southern
district of New York——

Mr. BARRETT. It would be use immunity only.

Mr. Preiss. Use immunity only—well, that goes back then to
what Mr. Dawson said before. You have to understand that there
were two referrals made, one to the southern district of Florida,
which, I think, is where all the questions are coming to us about,
and then there was a second part that also involved the Castros
and certain things that were going on, and that was referred to the
southern district of New York. And that’s not something that we
understood that you were interested in or concerned about. The
reason I mention it, though, is because that may explain why some-
one is not being offered immunity. Maybe there’s a concern there;
I don’t know.

Mr. Dawson. The bottom line, I think, Mr. Barrett, and I say
this with the utmost of respect, is you’re asking the wrong prosecu-
tors those questions. We can’t answer them.

Mr. PREISS. Our Federal brothers and sisters are in a far better
position to answer these questions than we are.

Mr. Burton. If Mr. Barrett would yield just for a moment?

Mr. BarRETT. I would yield.



76

to be made by Jorge Castro and som one named “Maria” to the
“DNC Victory Fund 1992 Federal Account” and to two State victory
funds. The amounts listed in the fax were “20” for the DNC Victory
Fund from both Jorge and Maria, and “5” from each for a State vic-
tory fund, a different State fund in each case.

We also found copies of three checks corresponding to the in-
structions in the fax: a $20,000 check dated September 15, 1992,
payable to the “DNC Victory Fund 1992 Federal Account,” drawn
on Jorge Castro’s account at a Florida bank and apparently signed
by him; a second $20,000 check, dated September 16, 1992, payable
to the “DNC Victory Fund 1992 Federal unt,” drawn on the ac-
count of Maria Sire Castro at a Florida bank and apparenth; signed
by her; and a third check in the amount of $5,000 written by Jorge

astro to the “Ohio Victory Fund 1992 Federal Account,” as di-
rected in the fax. There was also a copy of a $5,000 check written
by Jorge Castro to a State fund that was not listed in the fax.

Records of Jorge and Maria Sire Castro’s bank accounts, which
we later subpoenaed, showed that the two $20,000 checks to the
DNC Victory Fund 1992 were cashed in November 1992. None of
the other checks found in Santo Domingo had been cashed. How-
ever, we later obtained records revealing that a $5,000 check writ-
ten by Jorge Castro in October 1992 to the Florida Democratic
party had also been cashed. Although we found evidence showing
a $5,000 debit for a check paid from Maria Sire Castro’s account
at around the same time, we did not obtain a copy of that check.

Other bank records that we subpoenaed suggested that both
Jorge Castro and Maria Sire Castro had been reimbursed for these

ayments by a Venezuelan company controlled by Orlando Castro

Janes. The records showed that on September 24, 1992, just 8
days after the dete on the fax, $24,990 was credited to the account
of Jorge Castro and a like amount to the account of Maria Sire
Castro. These payments, $25,000 each, less a $10 wire transfer fee,
had been made, at the instructions of an entity called Inversiones
Latinfin, through the New York account of Banco Latino, a Ven-
ezuelan bank, into the personal accounts of Jorge and Maria Sire
Castro. According to documents we obtained from officials of the
Venezuelan Government, the entity that initiated the transfers,
Inversiones Latinfin, was controlled by Jorge Castro’s grandfather,
Castro Llanes.

On April 3, 1996, a New York County grand jury filed an indict-
ment against Orlando Castro Llanes, Orlando Castro Castro, and
gorge Castro concerning their conduct with respect to BPIPR, the
bank in Puerto Rico. All three defendants were charged with
scheme to defraud in the first degree. Castro Castro was also
charged with grand larceny in the first degree because of a $10
million transfer made from the Puerto Rican bank to the parent
bank in Venezuela. Jorge Castro was also charged with grand lar-
ceny in the first and second degrees; the first degree larceny charge
arose from his use of $3.26 million of the Puerto Rican bank’s
money to prop up the Dominican bank; and the second degree lar-
ceny charge arose from his use of more than $350,000 of the Puerto
Rican bank’s money to buy himself a boat.

On May 16 and 17, 1996, Castro Llanes, Castro Castro, and
Jorge Castro were arraigned in New York in the indictment after


37

On the other hand. Jorge Castro Barredo, Mr. Intriago's principal
accuser, is a convicted felon who left behind him a wake of corruption in the
Dominican Republic. indeed, it was Mr. Intriago who first learned of and
disclosed Castro Barredo's wrongdoing, which led to his ultimate termination
from the family's business. Jorge Castro Barredo has a vested interest In
inventing things about Mr. Intriago in order to curry favor with New York City
Prosecutors and retum to his several homes in Santo Domingo. This “testimony”
is well suited for a Committee whose basic investigative tactics include leaks,

smears and innuendos.

The Committee's sanctimonious use of legitimate govemment
authority to obtain illegitimate political advantage has now claimed Mr. intriago’s

reputation as its most recent victim.

Robert Plotkin

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004
(202)508-9542

Counsel for Charles A. Intriago


49

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Mr. Intriago. He’s the on who arranged
for my grandfather, and basically for him to go to the State Depart-
ment.

Mr. Horn. Now is he an attorney here in Washington?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, he’s an attorney in Florida.

Mr. Horn. In Florida, so he knew how to get an appointment at
the State Department.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. Horn. Was there any White House involvement in that, to
your knowledge?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. In?

Mr. Horn. Getting the appointment for you at the State Depart-
ment?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Horn. OK. And so it was simply arranged through an attor-
ney in Florida. With whom did you deal in the Department of
State? Was it a desk officer for Venezuela?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I don’t remember his name, but we were
told, or I was told, that he was the representative of South America
in the State Department.

Mr. Horn. OK, maybe the Assistant Secretary was it for Inter-
American Affairs?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. Could be.

Mr. Horn. What was it that you wanted the State Department
to do in your battle for control of the bank with Mr. Halvorssen?
What were you seeking?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Basically, my grandfather’s goal at that
time was to advise the State Department that the Embassy, the
United States Embassy in Venezuela, was being used by certain
United States employees there to be part of this smear campaign
against us. And it was an opportunity to him to explain to a United
States official what was going on on our side of the problem.

Mr. Horn. To your knowledge, did the State Department ever do
anything in relation to the allegations you are making about the
Embassy in Venezuela? Do you know, did the attitude change as
a result——

Mr. CasTRO BarREDO. I don’t know. I didn’t even ask afterwards.

Mr. Horn. OK. Now the question was raised early to the degree
to which you knew anybody at the Democratic National Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just note that in our witness book here,
under VEN-26, there is a letter from Charles Intriago, the attorney
for his grandfather, to Ronald Brown, chairman, Democratic Na-
tional Committee.

“Dear Ron, Just a brief note to tell you that I enjoyed meeting
with you during the campaign in Little Rock and Middleburg. Ap-
parently I am now a ‘trustee’ of the DNC,” Democratic National
Committee, “and I am looking forward to assisting in any way I
can.”—this is dated December 2, 1992—“So that you know a little
more about me, I enclose a recent issue of my publication, ‘Money
Laundering Alert,’ together with some background information. I
think this is an issue on which President Clinton can make some
headway in dealing with the drug and white-collar crime problem.”


54

Mr. Castro BARREDO. That I’ve been cooperative; that I’ve been
truthful; that I’ve been very helpful; that I should be taken in con-
sideration for the work release program, which I am already eligi-
ble for; and that was basically it.

Mr. BarrRETT. And the bank that closed under your leadership.
How big a bank was that?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. It was total assets $50 million basically.

Mr. BarRETT. And how many depositors lost money?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I don’t have the exact number.

Mr. BARRETT. I’m sure you don’t have the exact number, but I'm
sure you have a ballpark figure as to how many depositor’s lost
money.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I believe they’re getting their money back,
so I don’t know if their losing money is appropriate. But I would
say that at the time of the trial, before any money was given back
to them by the Venezuelan authorities, 30, 35 people, 40, 50,
roughly.

Mr. BarRETY. And how many employees lost their jobs?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. Five.

Mr. BARRETT. My time has expired.

Mr. BuRTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. I’m going to
yield 1 of Mr. Bennett’s 10 minutes, so that he can explain the let-
ter. I think it’s a bone of contention. I think you have a right to
know. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. Congressman Barrett, for the record, yesterday
David Sadkin and Michael Yang of minority staff; and I and David
Kass of majority staff; as well as Major Gil Macklin; and Butch
Hodgson, the retired FBI agent who's the chief investigator; and
representatives of both the majority and the minority met with Mr.
Castro and his attorney. There’s no great secret about this. We in-
dicated that the chairman would write a letter at some point in
time, upon request, noting cooperation with a copy to Congressman
Waxman. That’s the extent of the conversation. That’s basically
correct, isn’t it, Mr. Castro?

Mr. Castro. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And so the record’s clear, Congressman Burton
was to write a letter upon the request with a copy to Congressman
Waxman. The minority counsels were aware of it yesterday.
There’s no great secret about it. That any letter to be written, it
was understood, would be copied to Congressman Waxman, which
might explain some of the confusion by Mr. Castro believing that
a member of the Democratic side of the aisle would actually sign
the letter. The representation in the presence of minority counsel
was Congressman Burton would, at some point in time, send the
letter, upon request, when it was deenied to be appropriate by Mr.
Castro’s lawyer and Congressman Waxman would be copied with
that letter. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Excuse me.

Mr. Burton. Mr. Mica is recognized for 5 minutes.

1 Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Mr. Chairman, can I add something brief-
Ly?

Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, the witness had asked if he could re-

spond. Yes, you can respond on my time, sir. I’m recognized.


50

So I take it Mr. Intriago, who is a publisher, as well as your fa-
ther’s attorney, is the one who was trying to be helpful in tracking
drug money. Was that correct?

[Exhibit VEN-26 follows:]


79

Mr. PREISS. As in the price is right most of the time.

Mr. Burton. OK, Mr. Preiss. You’re recognized.

Mr. PrEIss. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my
name is Richard Preiss. I’m an Assistant District Attorney in the
New York County District Attorney’s office, where I have worked
since August 1980.

In May 1996, I was assigned to be the lead trial prosecutor in
connection with the indictment against Orlando Castro Llanes, Or-
lando Castro Castro, and Jorge Castro Barredo. Because of the de-
mands of the trial preparation and the trial, I did not devote much
attention to the matter we had referred to the Miami U.S. Attor-
ney’s Office until our trial was over. The Castro trial began on No-
vember 12, 1996, and it ended on February 19, 1997, with a guilty
verdict.

Beginning in March 1997, Mr. Dawson and I both spoke with the
Assistant U.S. Attorney from the southern district of F Florida who
was handling the Castro matter. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told
us that the Florida office would handle the political contributions
part of the investigation and the southern district of New York
would handle another matter related to the Castros.

In March 1997, we also began having conversations with the de-
fense attorney for Jorge Castro, concerning Castro’s cooperation.
Jorge Castro agreed to speak with us under a debriefing agreement
in which we agreed not to use anything that he said as direct evi-
dence in any prosecution against him. The first debriefing took
place on March 20, 1997, and we met with him again on April 3,
1997; and Mr. Dawson has summarized the information that Mr.
Castro provided to us during those two meetings.

We eventually secured defense counsel’s consent on behalf of his
client to tell the Federal prosecutors what Jorge Castro had told
us. We then disclosed the nature and extent of Jorge Castro’s co-
operation to the Federal prosecutors, and I arranged to have Jorge
Castro produced from jail to our offices for a meeting with the Fed-
eral prosecutors on May 28, 1997.

On that date, May 28, 1997, before the meeting, I spoke to a sec-
ond Assistant U.S. Attorney from the southern district of Florida
who had come to the meeting because his colleague was on trial,
and also an FBI agent who was with him. I told them, among other
things, what Castro had told us in general terms, what my impres-
sions were and that there was a potential statute of limitations
issue, since the events in question had taken place in the fall of
1992.

Castro was debriefed by the Assistant U.S. Attorney from Miami,
two Assistant Attorneys from the southern district of New York, an
IRS agent and the FBI agent. Two investigators from our office
were present because Mr. Castro was still in custody at that time.
Neither Mr. Dawson nor I stayed for the entire interview; in fact,
I was present for only a few minutes in total. After the meeting,
the Federal prosecutors left, but the IRS agent stayed behind for
a day or two to review documents in our files. We made those docu-
ments available to him.

A week or so later, I received a call from the second Assistant
U.S. Attorney from the southern district of Florida, and he thanked
me for our cooperation and our courtesy. He told me he thought the


89

after the case was taken from the Florida prosecutors and lodged
at the Department of Justice. Is that correct?

Mr. Preiss. That’s correct. That’s what Mr. Castro’s lawyer told
me.

Mr. WILson. And we're speaking of Mr. Lee Radek, who is the
head of the Public Integrity Section.

Mr. Preiss. That’s who he told me he spoke to.

Mr. WiLson. Now, Mr. Preiss, did you try and have a conversa-
tion with Mr. Radek?

Mr. Preiss. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. What was the result?

Mr. Preiss. I was not put through to him.

Mr. WILSON. Now it’s my understanding—correct me if I’m
wrong—that you were told that Mr. Radek would not speak to any-
one unless they had a referral number for the case, correct?

Mr. Preiss. That’s correct.

Mr. Witson. And do you know whether Mr. Castro’s lawyer had
such a referral number?

Mr. Preiss. If he did, he didn’t give it to me.

Mr. WILson. Did anybody ever give you a referral number for
this case?

Mr. Preiss. No, I don’t think we were ever given a referral num-
ber. I don’t think anybody had a referral number. Maybe there was
a referral number inside the Department of Justice, but, again, I
wouldn’t be privy to that, so I don’t know.

Mr. WILSON. Right, but Mr. Castro’s attorney was not an em-
ployee of the Department of Justice, so he had the same status as
you.

I Mr. Preiss. No, he was not an employee of the Department of
fustice.

Mr. WILson. OK. And I don’t know whether this is a question
you can answer or not, but were you concerned at the time that
Mr. Castro’s attorney was given more attentive treatment at the
highest levels of the Department of Justice than you?

r. PREISS. Well, I thought that. At the time, I think I said in
the conversation that I couldn’t understand why the defense attor-
ney’s phone call could be taken the day before, but mine couldn’t
be, and I was the prosecutor and he was the defense lawyer. I
think that’s what I said to the person who answered the phone.

Mr. WILSON. Fair enough; I think that speaks for itself. I’ll finish
my first 20 minutes now with one other question. Mr. Preiss, or
Mr. Dawson, do you know whether any of the Castro family attor-
neys—and bear in mind for anybody watching today that there
were three Castro family members who were under investigation
and ultimately convicted—do you know whether any of the Castro
family attorneys, such as Judge Tyler in New York, were given
meetings at the Department of Justice prior to the decision to drop
the case?

Mr. Dawson. That is a very difficult question to answer depend-
ing on how you limit the time. Are you talking back in 1988, 1990,
1992, or are you talking between the time of the conviction and the
time of the sentencing?

Mr. WILSON. ‘Actually, just limit it from the time of the conviction
until the time Mr. Radek wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Preiss.


44

Mr. Waxman. I just wanted to raise a point here. I asked m:
lawyers who worked on this why did Mr. Intriago take the fi!
amendment and the answer they got back from Mr. Intriago’s law-
yer, I presume, was, that even though the statute of limitations is
passed in terms of any offense that might have been committed, he
could still be prosecuted for some conspiracy charge, or something
like that; not that he said he was guilty, but he could be pros-
ecuted. People have a right, under the Constitution of the United
States, not to come in and give evidence against themselves or to
answer questions and have people try to use that evidence in some
way or other.

Mr. Intriago didn’t come here because he didn’t think it would
do him any good. Mr. Castro is here because he thinks this might
do him a lot of good. I do want to read the statement, if the gen-
tleman will just permit, because I think we ought to have this, not
just in the record, but people ought to know about it in the audi-
ence.

This is a statement to the committee by Robert Plotkin, counsel,
for Charles A. Intriago, dated April 30, 1998.

Charles Intriago is a private citizen who, during the 1992 Presidential campaign,
exercised his fundamental right under the United State Constitution to make a
campaign contribution from his own personal funds. He also solicited contributions
from a number of well-off American citizens with whom he was acquainted, and who
he believed had the personal financial capability to make such contributions. As a
consequence of those activities, he now finds himself unwillingly drawn into a nasty
and vindictive political conflict that is unfettered by rules of fairness and is immune
from the laws of defamation.

Mr. Intriago is not a government official. He has never held a high elective or ap-
pointive government position. He has never been an employee of, or consultant to,
the Democratic National Committee. He is not a “friend” or “associate” of the Presi-
dent, the Vice President, or any other high ranking Democratic party official. He
has not applied for, been interviewed for or considered a government job. He has
never had nor sought a government contract. Mr. Intriago simply is a respected pri-
vate lawyer with a previously unblemished record of conduct.

On the other hand, Jorge Castro Barredo, Mr. Intriago's principal accuser, is a
convicted felon who left behind him a wake of corruption in the Dominican Republic.
Indeed, it was Mr. Intriago who first learned of and disclosed Castro Barredo’s
wrongdoing, which led to his ultimate termination from the family’s business. Jorge
Castro Barredo has a vested interest in inventing things about Mr. Intriago in order
to favor with New York City prosecutors and return to his several homes in
Santo Domingo. This “testimony” is well-suited for a Committee whose basic inves-
tigative tactics include leaks, smears, and innuendos.

‘The Committee’s sanctimonious use of legitimate vernment authority to obtain

illegitimate political advantage has now claimed Mr. Intriago’s reputation as its
most recent victim.

This is what Mr. Intriago’s lawyer has written to us. Since he
makes an accusation about you, do you want to respond to it in any
way? To be fair, do you want to say anything in response to this?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. In response to?

Mr. WAXMAN. What I just read from Mr. Intriago.

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. First of all, he had nothing to do with dis-
covering anything on my behalf that would affect my position in
any bank or in any family business that I had. That I don’t know
who it came up, because it is not true.

Mr. WAXMAN. You don’t think he told your grandfather that you
were running the bank into the ground——

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Of course not.

Mr. WaxMAN [continuing]. And using it for personal purposes?





107

and said, basically, “Listen, nothing’s being done, and my client’s
going to face the sentencing judge without any cooperation to show
that judge, and, gee, what’s going on here? What’s going on?”

So I called and I found out that the case had been transferred,
and then, as I stated earlier, I then called the Public Integrity Sec-
tion, the Chief of the Public Integrity Section’s office, Mr. Radek,
and then eventually someone called me back, at my request, who
was assigned to the matter, and that was Mr. Ainsworth. And Mr.
Ainsworth came to New York on July 23, 1997, and it was Mr.
Ainsworth who called me on September 4, and asked me if I could
send him copies of some banking documents. I think you have the
letter, the committee has the letter. And Mr. Ainsworth—so I had
probably several conversations with Mr. Ainsworth in terms of set-
ting up the logistics before the July 23rd meeting, where he came
up to New York. I invited him up. And then we talked on the 23rd.
And the next time I spoke to him, I believe, was on September 4th,
when he called asking for the documents that tended to corroborate
the testimony, and that was the last tirhe I spoke to him.

Mr. WILSON. Just one last question, and I'll address this to you,
Mr. Dawson. Did you at any time have great enough concerns or
serious enough concerns that you discussed or contemplated trying
to take the case back and have your own office do something with
the conduit contributions case?

Mr. Dawson. Yes, we had conversations about it.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dawson. Thank you.

Mr. BuRTON. Let me followup on that. When you had the con-
versations about it, were those conversations involving Mr.
Intriago?

Mr. Dawson. Well, I’m reluctant to answer the question only be-
cause it involves questions between—I mean conversations between
Assistant District Attorneys in our office, and the question whether
to basically take back a matter that had already been referred is
sort of a touchy area——

Mr. BurRTON. Well, let me put it——

Mr. DAWSON [continuing]. And I really don’t want to go in——

Mr. BuRTON. Let me put it another way. Mr. Intriago was one
of your concerns when you referred it to the Federal authorities,
right?

Mr. Dawson. The entire matter, sure.

Mr. PREIsS. Sure.

Mr. Dawson. Including him.

Mr. BuRTON. The gentleman yields back his time. Do you have
any more comments? You have 5 minutes left.

Mr. WaxMaN. I'll reserve my time.

Mr. BurRTON. Well, I want you to use your time——

Mr. BARRETT. Very briefly, if I could——

Mr. BurTON [continuing]. If you want to; if not——

Mr. BARRETT. Very briefly, if I may——

Mr. WaxMaN. Mr. Chairman—.

Mr. BurTON. You had 5 minutes on your side. One of you has
used 5 minutes; you have 5 minutes left.


67

Mr. Mica. Than you.

Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Castro, you're not a
lawyer, are you?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. No, sir.

Mr. Barr. Mr. Intriago is a lawyer, is that correct?

Mr. CastRO BaRREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Barr. The district attorney for Manhattan is a lawyer, is
that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Barr. You mentioned that you had been approached at some
point by some people from the Department of Justice. Did they ever
talk with you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. Barr. Were they lawyers?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Some were lawyers, some were investiga-
tors, and some were members of the FBI or something.

Mr. Barr. There are some provisions of the United States Code
found in Title II, which relates to Federal campaign laws, which
make it unlawful for foreign nationals to directly or indirectly con-
tribute to U.S. campaigns or make donations in the names of other
persons. There’s a separate section that pertains to contributions
generally made in the name of another person, whether they're for-
eign money or U.S. money.

ould it be your impression that probably people that are law-
yers, including Mr. Intriago, would be familiar with those laws?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. It would be my impression, yes.

Mr. Barr. Mine too. And one would presume also that the attor-
neys from the Department of Justice that spoke with you would be
familiar with those laws too. When did that discussion or those dis-
cussions take place?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I would say, October or November 1997.

Mr. Barr. Would that be after the statute of limitations had run?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I have no idea when the statutes of limita-
tions—

Mr. Barr. September. It’s September 1997.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. September.

Mr. Barr. I’m not asking you for professional knowledge of —

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I remember my other attorney, Mr.
Nurich, who is not present, he told me that the statute of limita-
tion was about to expire. So I spoke with these people before the
statute—whenever the date was, it was before or preceding when
the statute of limitation would have been.

Mr. Barr. Did these folks that talked with you from the Depart-
ment of Justice seem to be interested in evidence of foreign money
coming into the U.S. election campaigns?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. By the questions that I was asked—they
were basically the same questions I was asked by members of this
committee before—basically the same thing.

Mr. Barr. But nothing has happened since then at all.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. Barr. Although Mr. Intriago is not interested in appearing
here, he, like so many people in all of these matters, is very inter-
ested in having their attorneys make statements. And of course,


53

injustice, I want to clear my conscience. I’m just curious as to why
the only reason was you wanted a benefit?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. As I said before, the last 3 years, media
wise, it’s been very hard for myself and my family and basically the
main reason that I wouldn’t have done anything was I don’t want
no more publicity. I just want to be left alone with my life and my
family, not all these cameras and reporters.

Mr. BARRETT. When you said that you wanted a benefit from
this, what was the response?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That they were going to try. It was never
promised to me and that was basically it.

Mr. BARRETT. So there was never a promise to you that——

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. There was never a promise. All that I was
told was every time we speak to you, and if we ever need you and
you say the truth of everything that happened, we'll try to help
you. But there was never a I’m going to promise that you on June
3, 1998, you'll be going home or you'll be put here or you'll be put
there. It was never said to me.

Mr. BarrRETT. Do you think you’re going to get a letter?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. Do I think I’m going to get a letter? I hope
so. If I don’t——

Mr. BARRETT. Do you think you're going to get one?

Mr. Castro BarREDO. Pardon?

Mr. BarRETT. Do you think you're going to get one?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I hope so, yes.

Mr. BARRETT. Not whether you hope so, do you think so? Yes or
no, do you think you're going to get a letter, or you don’t know?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. F think I'm going to get it. That’s why I’m
hoping I am.

Mr. BarRETT. And again, what were you promised though?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I wasn’t promised anything.

Mr. BARRETT. So you were never promised a letter?

Mr. Castro BarRREDO. A letter, yes.

Mr. BARRETT. OK.

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO, I was promised a letter.

Mr. BarRETT. I thought you said you weren’t promised anything.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Yes, you want to go into the promise of
you do this, I promise you that you’re going to get out. That’s what
I was thinking of.

Mr. BarRETT. Oh, OK. Well, then let’s make it very clear. So you
were promised——

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. A letter from me is not promising nothing,
because it’s not a guaranteed thing.

Mr. BARRETT. Who made the promise to you that you'd get a let-
ter?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. The first meeting I had was with Mr.
David Kass and some other members of his office in Manhattan.

Mr. BarRETT. Who made the promise to you that you'd get a let-
ter?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. If I told the truth first at the first meeting
and second if I was ever needed, I would get a letter. Mr. Kass told
me the first time. Then, Mr. Bennett told me yesterday.

Mr. BARRETT. Did you get a letter and what did they lead you
to believe the letter would say?


102

But after I was unable to reach Mr. Radek, my phone call was
returned by another trial attorney. I think I mentioned that in my
preliminary statement. He came to New York on July 23, and he
came to my office, and he spent most of the day there with an FBI
agent, and then I heard from him again on September 4, when he
called and said that he needed some of the checks and the bank
statements because he didn’t have good copies. So I sent those to
him on September 4, and I believe that was the last day that I
spoke to the gentleman.

Mr. Horn. And what was his name?

Mr. PREISS. What was his name?

Mr. Horn. Yes.

Mr. PREIss. The gentleman, the trial attorney’s name that I dealt
with was Peter Ainsworth.

Mr. Horn. Peter Ainsworth.

Well, I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. So I yield back what-
ever is left to you.

Mr. BurRTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Just a couple of very, very quick questions: The
person you first dealt with in Florida of the U.S. Attorney’s office,
that was a person that ultimately went to the Independent Coun-
sel’s Office?

Mr. Dawson. No.

Mr. BARRETT. No?

Mr. Dawson. No, the first person was Dick Gregorie.

Mr. BarrETT. OK.

Mr. Dawson. I spoke to him first, and then Richard and I had
a conference call with him to discuss some of the issues that we
talked about before, about the statute of limitations——

Mr. PREISS. And then after that, when Jorge Castro was de-
briefed by the Federal prosecutors, Mr. Gregorie, I think, was on
trial—he was engaged on trial, because he couldn't come. So Mr.
Udolf came, and I met him in my office, and I spoke to him, and
I alluded to that in my preliminary statement. And then Mr. Udolf
left the U.S. Attorney’s office for the southern district of Florida,
and that after that, I’m told that the case was pulled from or re-
moved from the southern district of Florida and brought to Main
Justice as either part of the Public Integrity Section and/or the
Campaign Financing Task Force. And, again, I don’t know how
those two relate to each other.

Mr. BarRETT. This is more just out of curiosity. When Mr. Udolf
was jn your office, was it his case or was it still Mr. Gregorie’s
case!

Mr. PrEIss. I think that they were—I think they were going to
work—I had the impression they were going to work together on
the case, and that’s not unusual. I mean, Mr. Dawson and I work
together on cases all the time.

Mr. BARRETT. And did Mr. Udolf go directly, then, to the Inde-
pendent Counsel’s office?

Mr. PREISS. Well, I spoke to Mr. Udolf sometime in the summer,
and he told me that he had been assigned to work for the Inde-
pendent Counsel. And I guess I’ve answered your question.


27

Mr. BENNETT. Now, in terms of the reimbursement. Looking at
VEN-15, for the record, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Castro, in fact VEN—
15 reflects a wire transfer into your account for the $25,000 and
it is from Inversiones Latinfin, if I’m pronouncing that correctly?

{Exhibit VEN-15 follows:]


2s +000 20900004

py gganee

ROGET



106

Mr. Dawson. No, I have not.

Mr. WiLson. Do you know whether anybody from the Depart-
ment of Justice has ever talked to Maria Castro?

Mr. Dawson. Defense counsel at sentencing suggested that other
members of the Castro family had been contacted who were not de-
fendants in our case. I took that to mean that someone had talked
to Maria.

Mr. WILSON. It’s my understanding from information provided to
other staff yesterday on both the majority and minority side that
Ms. Castro was spoken with last week, after the notice of our hear-
ing came out, and my assumption is you would have no information
as to whether that’s correct or incorrect

Mr. Dawson. Absolutely not.

Mr. PREISS. We have no information about that.

Mr. WILSON. Just going back over a couple of points from your
gpening statements, you both indicated that Federal prosecutors in

iami were involved in this case, and that later Department of
Justice lawyers in Washington were involved in the case. And, Mr.
Preiss, in your opening statement you made the following point,
and I quote, and this is in reference to an Assistant U.S. Attorney
in Florida:

He thought the case deserved a thorough investigation and his office intended to

give the case a close look, and he was confident that the investigation into the al.
feged political contributions could be completed by the date upon which we theorized
that the statute of limitations might run.

And then later on you said that you were told that the Office of
Public Integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice had removed the
political contributions case from the southern district of Florida to
the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.

Mr. PREIsS. Right.

Mr. WILSON. What was meant by that?

Mr. PREISS. Well, first of all, you just read where I talked about
the second AUSA. I’m talking about Mr. Udolf. That’s what he told
me.

When you say, what was meant by the case being transferred to
the Department of Justice, I can only tell you what I was told b;
the defense attorney who represented Jorge Castro, and by, I thi
it was, Mr. Gregorie who I called in the southern district of Florida
to confirm that the case had, in fact, been transferred to Washing-
ton. And what I was told was that—by the way, the defense attor-
ney that I’m talking about was not the defense attorney that was
sitting here with Mr. Castro today; it was somebody else. It was
his trial defense attorney at the time.

I was told that the case was removed from the U.S. Attorney’s
office in the southern district of Florida because it involved cam-
paign—it was an investigation involving political contributions, and
that, therefore, it was being sent to Washington. No other expla-
nation was given to me, and I didn’t ask for any additional expla-
nation.

Mr. WILSON. You also indicated that, once the case was taken
away from Florida and taken over by the Department in Washing-
ton, that nothing was being done. Can you provide——

Mr. PREISS. Sure. What I was—actually, what I said was that
the defense attorney called me on the phone in late June/early July


35

PAUL. HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
2157 Raybum HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515-6143

Re: Charies A. intiago, Esquire

Dear Chairman Burton:

| am counsel to Charles A. Intriago. According to press reloases Issued by
the Committee, as well as news reports and editorials, the Committee's hearing on April 30,
1998 will accuse my client of campaign law violations, charges that he vigorously denies.

Enclosed with this leter is a statement ! have prepared on Mr. Intriago's
behalf. | request that it be included in the formal record of the hearing.

‘Thank you for your attention to this matter,

‘Yours truly,

Kat Cl

Robert Plotkin
for PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

Enclosure
ec Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

(via fax: 225-4784)


59

Mr. Horn. I believe the letter from the lawyer has been put in,
of Mr. Intriago. Is that correct? Because——

Mr. BuRTON. That is correct.

Mr. Horn. All right. You will note in that letter, he says, as law-
yers often do, Mr. Intriago is not a Government official. We know
that. He’s never held a high elected or appointed Government posi-
tion. He has never been an employee or a consultant to the Demo-
cratic National committee, et cetera. Now, the point is, I read the
letter to Ron Brown. I assume that will be put in at this point——

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

Mr. Horn [continuing]. It’s in our exhibit book. And I'd like put
in also the next exhibit, which I guess you've just got, VEN-29, is
to our chief counsel, Mr. Bennett, from Acting Assistant General
Richard. And he makes the point in the first paragraph, “I’m writ-
ing in response to your letter of April 7, 1998, requesting the De-
partment of Justice’s position on the granting of immunity to
Charles Intriago, Yogesh Ghandi, Armhed Abdulshafi, Jeffrey
Neimeyer, Simon Chen, and Sioeng Fei Man. The Department op-
poses immunity in each of these cases.”

In other words, even if you tried to get Mr. Intriago here, he’s
taken the fifth, has his lawyer writing this letter, which is a little
disingenuous to be charitable about it—I sense he’s a good friend
of Ron Brown, on a first name basis, the chairman of the Demo-
cratic National Committee. There are other letters in here from of-
ficials of the Democratic National Committee. So he was tied in
with that.

Now, Justice says hey, we don’t want you to offer any immunity
to him. I wonder why, is all I ask the question. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica, I yield back the time to you, if
you'd like.

[Exhibit VEN-29 follows:]



77

they had been extradited from Florida. They were ordered held
without bail pending trial.

From that point forward, the Castro bank fraud and grand lar-
ceny case became an intensely litigated matter. We continued to in-
vestigate the matter of the payments by the Castros even as we
litigated the pre-trial matters in the Castro case. However, since
the payments involved potential violations of Federal law, our of-
fice decided, in very early October 1996, that this would be a mat-
ter that we should refer to Federal prosecutors in Miami.

Accordingly, on or about October 9, 1996, another ADA from our
office wrote to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Miami and transmit-
ted with the letter various documents concerning several matters,
including the questionable political contributions, to the Office of
the U.S. Attorney for the southern district of Florida. I am told
that our assistant met with the Miami AUSA concerning these
matters on or about October 17, 1996, and forwarded additional
materials to him on or about October 29, 1996. At that point, we
were actively preparing for the Castro trial, and virtually all of our
attention was directed to that effort. -

The Castro trial began on November 12, 1996; it concluded on
February 19, 1997, with a jury verdict convicting all three defend-
ants. Several days later, our office sent more documents to the
Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office.

On March 11, 1997, I discussed the matter of the political con-
tributions with the AUSA from the southern district of Florida. He
told me that the Florida office would focus upon the campaign con-
tributions, and that the U.S. Attorney for the southern district of
New York would focus on other matters relating to the Castros.
During that telephone conversation, we discussed several issues,
including a potential statute of limitations problem, since the fax
from C. Intriago to Jorge Castro had been sent, and the checks
from the Castros written, in the fall of 1992.

On March 20, 1997, Jorge Castro agreed to be debriefed by per-
sonnel from our office, and he met with us on April 3, 1997, as
well. In the March 20 and April 3 debriefings Jorge Castro re-
vealed, among other things, the following:

(a) According to Charles Intriago’s instructions, Jorge Castro had
made a $20,000 contribution to the DNC Victory Fund 1992, and
a $5,000 contribution to a State Democratic organization, for which
he had been reimbursed by one of his grandfather’s companies;

(b) According to the same instructions, Maria Sire Castro, an in-
law of the Castro family, also had made a $20,000 contribution to
the DNC Victory Fund 1992, and a $5,000 contribution to a State
Democratic organization, for which she had been reimbursed by
one of the grandfather’s companies;

(c) Those contributions had been made by Jorge Castro and
Maria Sire Castro because they were U.S. citizens. We knew, from
having investigated and prosecuted the grandfather, that Castro
Llanes was not a U.S. citizen, and, of course, Jorge Castro knew
that as well;

(d) The fax that we found in the Dominican Republic had been
sent by Charles Intriago to detail the instructions concerning the
contributions;


29

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And what is that entity?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s a premium finance company we
owned in Caracas, Venezuela, at that time.

Mr. BENNETT. That is a premium finance company in Venezuela?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And who owns that company, sir?

& Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. It was owned by my grandfather and the
family. :

Mr. BENNETT. Does it derive any income in the United States?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, it does not.

Mr. BENNETT. Does this Venezuelan company have any United
States operations?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. BENNETT. As to the activities of your grandfather and family
with any members of the Clinton administration, do you have any
knowledge of any meetings attended by your family, particularly
your dfather, after these contributions were made, after Presi-
dent Clinton’s election in 1992?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. And to your knowledge, how many—were there
any tri s made to Washington?

r. CASTRO BARREDO. After he was President, or——

Mr. BENNETT. After President Clinton was elected, yes.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. One trip, after he was elected. No, no, two
trips after he was elected. One for the inauguration and another
one when he visited the White House.

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to the inauguration, you and
your family attended one of the inaugural balls? Is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Not the inaugural ball. It was the big—
the small gathering in front of the Capitol Hill with about 3 million
other people.

Mr. BENNETT. OK. For the record, there are a few Republicans
who have also been pretty far away from the action as well, during
the events of the inauguration, but I mainly want to focus in on
the second family visit in October 1993. Your grandfather, you, and
others of your family came to Washington in October 1993. Is that
correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And do you have knowledge of your grandfather
and Mr. Intriago being invited to a White House reception for
Democratic National Committee donors?

Mr. Castro BarREDO. I know he was invited to the White House.
I didn’t know the purpose of the trip and who invited him.

Mr. BENNETT. I believe the exhibit in the books, VEN-1, as well
as a blow-up that is here in the committee room, that is, in fact,
a Picture of your grandfather with President Clinton, is that cor-
rect?

(Exhibit VEN-1 follows:]


95

eral criminal statutes, like 1001, and then it would be a 5-year
statute, and there’s no problem with that whatsoever. So that’s
why we regard it, we theorize that it was a 5-year statute, and we
used the date of the fax as sort of the baseline for that in our con-
versations.

Mr. BaRRETT. But would there be a possibility that—and, again,
I would be concerned if I felt that the case would be blown by the
running of the statute of limitations.

Mr. Dawson. Blown was an unfortunate choice of words on my

rt.

Per. BarrETT. That’s all right. I used it as well; I’m not offended
by it. What about a conspiracy charge?

Mr. DAWSON. Same deal. It would be a 5-year statute.

Mr. PREISS. We talked about these theories with the first Assist-
ant U.S. Attorney in the southern district of Florida. This was the
lawyer talk I alluded to earlier, I think, when I was answering one

the chairman’s questions. We talked about different theories that
a prosecution could be brought under, such as perhaps mail fraud,
wire fraud. Those, as I understand it, are 5-year statutes of limita-
tion cases, whereas the illegal contributions is a 3-year statute.

We went back and forth on all of this, and what. you. have to _ap-
preciate is that most prosecutors aren’t going to—like if there is a
close question of whether the statute is going to run in September
or October, a good prosecutor is going to assume that it’s going to
run in September because he doesn’t want. to find out later that he
was wrong.

Mr. Dawson. And the prosecutor in Florida was attuned to this.
In fact, he didn’t just mention mail fraud and wire fraud, he said,
“Well, I can look into RICO and money laundering and things like
that.” He was very definite on there were ways to get around this,
and we all sort of concluded it wasn’t a 3-year statute; it was a 5-
year statute, depending on how the charges, if there were to be
any, were to be structured.

Mr. BARRETT. So there would be—there is a 5-year statute of lim-
itations on the general crimes.

Mr. PrEISS. General crimes, yes.

Mr. BARRETT. General crimes. And that could be tolled, however.

Mr. Dawson. Yes, that’s another-——

Mr. BARRETT. That’s something we haven’t talked about.

Mr. Dawson. Exactly.

Mr. BaRRETT. And, again, my understanding of the conspiracy
law is that if it’s a continuing criminal activity that it would be
tolled during that period, which arguably would extend it beyond
September 1997. Was that something that was discussed or is that
something that you think could——

Mr. Dawson. No; in my own train of thought, basically, I was fo-
cused more on New York tolling provisions, just in case, and I had
sort of had those in the back of my mind. We didn’t really need to
discuss it during the March 1997 conversation with the AUSA in
Miami that I participated in because, really, there was plenty of
time—9 months.

Mr. PREISS. No one talked about—in the conversations I had
with the Assistant U.S. Attorney from the southern district of Flor-
ida—no one talked about a tolling provision. Everybody assumed


10

In 1992, a person named Charles Intriago, whom I believed to be
a prominent, well-regarded attorney, asked me to make certain po-
litical contributions. Since Mr. Intriago was a lawyer and family—
and my family trusted to represent my family’s interests in the
United States, and since I believed that he was a knowledgeable—
that be was knowledgeable about matters of that sort, I did as he
asked.

They don’t have these where I’m incarcerated at so I’m not used
to them [referring to the microphone].

On September 15, 1992, I drew one check for $5,000 to the Ohio
Victory Fund 1992, and one check for $20,000 to the DNC Victo:
Fund 1992. Subsequently, Mr. Intriago told me that the Ohio chec
had not been, and would not be cashed, and asked me to write a
$5,000 check to the Kentucky Democratic party, which I did on
September 29, 1992. Later, Mr. Intriago asked me to write a
check—a $5,000 check to the Florida Democratic party, and I did
so on October 13, 1992. Mr. Intriago told me that the Kentucky
check would not be cashed, and I asked him why we were doing
this, and he told me that, that’s the way they wanted it. I now un-
derstand that this conduct may not have been appropriate.

I have been told that if I cooperate fully with this committee and
testify truthfully, the chairman will make the fact known to the
New York State Department of Correction. As I am presently eligi-
ble for work release, it is my hope that my voluntary and truthful
cooperation will be considered as a factor in deciding whether I
should be placed in a work release program.

Mr. BurTON. Thank you, Mr. Castro. We'll now proceed with the
questioning. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for the
record, I’ll take 20 minutes of the allocated 30 minutes now, and
reserve 10 minutes at the conclusion of Members’ questioning.

Mr. Waxman. I don’t understand. You're allocated 30 minutes,
oh, you want to reserve——

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, Congressman, I was just going to take 20
minutes for staff questioning, and then I'll reserve the other 10,
perhaps, to followup after Members’ questions, perhaps not.

Mr. WaxMAN. Well, I thought what we agreed to—the way we've
always proceeded is that we have 60 minutes divided equally be-
tween both sides, and it’s up to the chairman if he wants to allo-
cate his time to you, and it’s up to me to allocate the time on our
side.

Mr. BuRTON. That’s fine.

Mr. WaxMAN. And I suppose when we do our rounds, people can
allocate that time to you at that point.

Mr. BURTON. Proceed.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congress-
man Waxman. Mr. Castro, I want to thank you for your coopera-
tion and your appearance before this committee today. With respect
to your opening statement, sir, clearly, those contributions involved
foreign money, didn’t they?

Mr. CasTRO BarREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. They involved Venezuelan money from your grand-
father’s companies?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. That’s correct.


78

(e) Mr. Intriago subsequently told Jorge Castro that his $5,000
check would not be deposited, and he should issue a new $5,000
check to a different State Democratic organization; and,

(f) After the replacement check had been issued, Mr. Intriago
called again, advising Jorge Castro that the replacement would not
be deposited either, and asking him to issue yet a third check for
$5,000 to a third State Democratic organization.

During his debriefing, we asked Jorge Castro why the contribu-
tions had been made. He told us that his grandfather wanted Mr.
Intriago to be appointed as the United States Ambassador to the
Republic of Venezuela.

Mr. Castro also told us that he and his grandfather had been in-
vited to the inauguration in January 1993, and that the grand-
father and Mr. Intriago had attended a reception at the White
House in October 1993. Jorge Castro said he had not been invited
to the reception, but, the day after the reception, he attended a
meeting with his grandfather, Mr. Intriago and others at the State
Department, during which a purported “smear campaign” against
the grandfather had been discussed.

In May 1997, Mr. Castro met with Federal prosecutors. Mr.
Preiss arranged that meeting and conducted most of the commu-
nications between our office and the Justice Department concern-
ing this matter. Accordingly, Mr. Preiss will discuss these matters

for you.

I have one final note. During the course of a civil forfeiture case
that we brought, but which was eventually dismissed by operation
of law, we obtained some additional corroboration for Jorge Cas-
tro’s statements. Specifically, in an effort to show that the judge in
the forfeiture case—I mean, I’m sorry—in an effort to show the
judge in the forfeiture case that the Venezuelan Government had

iscated all of the grandfather’s properties, one of Castro Llanes
attorneys submitted a letter attaching a series of trust agreements
between the Venezuelan equivalent of the FDIC and various com-
nies. One of the trust agreements mentioned the entity,
inversiones Latinfin, and described it in terms showing that it was
indeed an entity domiciled in Venezuela. These papers, therefore,
were further evidence that Castro Llanes had controlled the com-
pany that, according to the bank records, apparently reimbursed
Jorge and Maria Sire Castro for making the contributions in ques-

ion.

I understand that the committee has a transcript of the sentenc-
ing of Jorge Castro, which details our reasons for our recommenda-
tion with respect to the sentence. I have little to add beyond my
remarks at the sentencing of Mr. Castro, and beyond what I have
already said here today. I’m at the committee’s disposal, however,
if there are any questions.

Mr. BurTON. Thank you, Mr. Dawson.

Mr. Preiss.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. PREISS, ASSISTANT DISTRICT AT-
TORNEY, SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL, NEW YORK
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Mr. PREISS. Preiss.

Mr. BurTON. Preiss?


84

Mr. WILSON. If we could, I’d like to focus on some of the specific
entries in this fax, if you’d take a look at it. Underneath the word
“comment” it reads “20-DNC Victory Fund 1992 Fed Account” and
then in parentheses “you.” Mr. Preiss, based on the evidence that
you have reviewed and your discussions with Mr. Castro, what
does this represent?

Mr. PrREIsS. It represents a fax entry that says exactly what it
says. DNC Victory Fund, as I read it, means Democratic National
Committee Victory Fund 1992. Fed Account parentheses you. Now
you can draw a conclusion from that if want.

Mr. Witson. And in this case, the you refers to Mr. Castro, is
that correct?

Mr. PREISS. You can draw that conclusion from what it says.

Mr. WILSON. The next line has essentially the same entry and in
parentheses the entry “Maria.” Based on what you have subse-
quently learned, to whom does Maria refer?

Mr. PREISS. Based upon what Mr. Castro told us. You referred
& him; Maria referred to his relative, Maria Sire Castro. S-I-R-E

astro.

Mr. WILSON. And did Mr. Castro ever tell either of you why Mr.

Intriago wanted Castro and other of his family members to make
the political contributions described in this fax?
PREISS. Because—what he told us was that the contributions
were made because he and Maria Sire Castro were U.S. citizens,
and they could make the contributions legally, but a foreigner could
not. That’s what he told us. That’s the substance of what he told
us in our interviews with him.

Mr. Wiuson. OK, now we have been provided a great deal of doc-
umentary evidence about bank transfers that seem to indicate a re-
imbursement of money, and I don’t want to go through and belabor
these too much right now. But I'll ask this of both of you, Mr. Daw-
son first. How do you know that Mr. Castro and his aunt were re-
imbursed for the cheeks that they wrote?

Mr. DAwsON. That is a conclusion that we’re drawing based on
having found the fax, having seen the checks that were attached
to it at the time, having subpoenaed certain bank records after-
ward, and having realized that 8 days after the date of the fax,
both of them were reimbursed through very similar wire transfers
emanating from the same source.

Mr. WILSON. OK, and I'll hopefully be true to my word. I don’t
want to belabor this. But let’s just put up VEN-12 on the screen
in front of us, if we can. And if you'll take a look at that.

You referred just then to bank transfer statements. This bank
transfer statement in front of you indicates that on September 24,
a deposit of $24,990 was made into the account of Mr. Jorge Cas-
tro. Is this one of the transfer statements that you were referring
to just a moment ago?

(Exhibit VEN-12 follows:]



6

scripts of the September 18, 1996, conversation, with appropriate
redactions for legitimate privacy concerns. I believe that this is
tape 118B. Mr. Chairman, I hope you'll be releasing that tape if
you're going to release others.

Mr. BurRTON. If the gentleman will yield briefly?

Mr. WAXMAN. Sure.

Mr. BurTON. Let me just say that we’re going to scrutinize Mr.
Hubbell’s types very carefully, and all these other tapes. We'll
make sure that we don’t release anything that’s of a personal na-
ture. Now, there may be a tape that there is something on it that’s
relevant to our investigation, which we'll have to release, but we’re
being very careful about getting into the personal aspects of Mr.
Hubbell’s family life.

Now, regarding what you’re talking about, give me that one more
time?

Mr. WAXMAN. It’s tape 118B. It’s a conversation that Mr. Hubbell
had that related directly to the subject of the investigation, and if
you’re going to be releasing tapes of any sort, which we don’t a

rove of, you ought to be releasing a tape that’s helpful to Mr. Hul
ell, not just those that are——

Mr. Burton. I'll certainly —

Mr. WaxMAN [continuing]. Technically harmful to him.

Mr. BuRTON [continuing]. Take a look at 118B and see if we can
include that.

Mr. WAXMAN. I do want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this
whole issue of these tapes came to our attention when we read in
the Wall Street Journal about a conversation Mr. Hubbell had with
his wife about what he was going to eat, and how the food was not
satisfactory to him, and subjects, of course, that had nothing to do
with this investigation. Yet, that information has already been re-
leased by our committee to the Wall Street Journal. And others,
Tm sure, will be appearing that have information not related to
anything to do with this investigation and that are personal.

To date, Mr. Chairman, you've released 60 depositions and inter-
rogatories, but only have provided 34 of these to the minority. The
Democratic staff has repeatedly asked your staff for copies of this
material which we must receive, under the rules, but your staff has
refused to provide the information. And I’m providing you a list of
34 depositions and interrogatories we have not received, and I'd
like to ask you to direct your staff to provide this information by
the close of the business today. Mr. Chairman, here is this list. Re-
view it with your staff. We’re entitled to the information, under the
rules. We request that you comply with the rules.

Mr. BurTON. If the gentleman will yield briefly, we certainly will
comply with the rules, and I was just talking to my staff about
this. If there has been anything that you haven’t received, we'll
make sure you get it right away. It’s not intentional if that did
occur.

Mr. WaxMaNn. Thank « You, Mr. Chairman. I also want to raise a
routine factual matter that I believe will be easy for you to correct.
There have been, of course, individuals who are not cooperating
with your investigation, and some have either asserted their fifth
amendment right under the Constitution, or left the country.
You've rele: a list of such individuals and repeatedly claimed


82

ough investigation of the Castro conduit payments to the Demo-
cratic Committee and to State Democratic parties?

Mr. Dawson. Well, I’m not a Fed ral prosecutor, so I may not be
as familiar with the Fed ral statutes in question to give you a pro-
fessional opinion in that regard.

Mr. WILSON. But given your review of the information that you
had discovered in your investigation and your cursory review of
Federal statutes, you thought there was something that should be
investigated, is that correct?

Mr. Dawson. That’s why we referred it.

Mr. WILSON. Before we get into some of the things that were dis-
cussed this morning, I'd ike to just ask you some questions about
Mr. Castro’s testimony this morning. I notice that you were sitting
in the back and heard all of Mr. Castro’s testimony. And Mr. Daw-
son and Mr. Preiss, you’ve both had a number of discussions with
Mr. Castro prior to today, is that correct?

Mr. Dawson. Yes.

Mr. WILson, Mr. Preiss?

Mr. PREIss. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. Has Mr. Castro ever told you anything about con-
duit contributions that has later proven to be false?

Mr. PREIss. No.

Mr. Dawson. No.

Mr. WILSON. In the testimony provided this morning to this com-
mittee, was Mr. Castro’s testimony consistent with what he has
told you in the past? Mr. Preiss.

Mr. PrREIss. Yes, for the most part. I mean not word for word,
but yes. I mean, the substance of what he said today is the sub-
stance of what I’ve heard on previous occasions.

Mr. Dawson. Yes, I would agree with that. There were some
matters, I suppose, that you didn’t ask, but he didn’t volunteer,
which is fine.

Mr. WILSON. And, again, I'll ask Mr. Dawson first. Is the testi-
mony that you heard this morning consistent with the documentary
evidence that you have reviewed in the past about the Castro con-
duit payments?

Mr. Dawson. Yes, I believe so.

Mr. WILson. Mr. Preiss?

Mr. PrEIss. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. If we could, I'd like to put up exhibit VEN-2 on the
screen in front of you and——

Mr. BurTON. I’d just like to ask, you indicated, Mr. Dawson, just
now that there might have been some things that Mr. Castro did
not cover. Were there any things that you thought should have
been illuminated during his testimony that weren’t regarding this?

Mr. Dawson. No, Mr. Chairman, the thing that I was thinking
about was the remark that he had made to us about the grand-
father saying something about wanting Intriago to be the Ambas-
sador to Venezuela. I don’t recall hearing that this morning. I don’t
think you asked.

Mr. BurTON. But you recall Mr. Castro saying that about his
grandfather asking——

Mr. Dawson. But the—yes, not Intriago, mind you. The grand-
father had said it to him at some point.


108

Mr. WaxmaN. And I want to reserve my time, just as your coun-
sel was permitted to reserve his time. Are we finished with the
hearing?

Mr. BurRTON. We're going to end the hearing now, so we can go
vote, right.

Mr. WAXMAN. Oh, OK.

Mr. Burton. So if you have comments, we'd like to da—

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me take my time and yield to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BarRRETT. Thirty seconds, if I could. I’m looking at the letter
dated—it’s stamped “October 17, 1997,” from Lee Radek, Chief, to
Mr. Preiss, and in it he states, “Based upon an interview’—oh,
“Mr. Barredo answered all questions put to him and otherwise co-
operated with the agents throughout a lengthy interview.”

My only question is, was this letter presented to the sentencing
judge?

Mr. Dawson. Yes, I presented it at sentencing.

Mr. PREIss. Mr. Dawson actually spoke at sentencing.

Mr. Dawson. I read it into the record at sentencing.

Mr. BarRRETT. Thank you.

Mr. BurTON. Are you finished?

Mr. WaxmaN. No, no. I’m just asking my counsel for clarification.

OK, I just want to say, for the record, Mr. Chairman, that it’s
our understanding that the Department of Justice has sent the FBI
to ask Mr. Intriago and an aide of his about this very issue. They
may have pursued other issues, but that’s my understanding. And
they also have interviewed members of the Castro family about
this whole question. I think that’s important to know, and it’s im-
portant to hear from the Justice Department more officially, if
this—if this whole hearing today was to try to accuse the Justice
Department of improprieties, I don’t think it’s anything other than
an unsubstantiated charge to that effect, and the best way to get
clarification of it would have been to have the Justice Department

ere.

I want to just also, since it’s my time, read again what you said
last night about what we should expect from this hearing, because
I didn’t know what we were going to get from this hearing today.
But you said, “Tomorrow we're going to have a hearing. We're
bringing in a fellow who laundered $50,000 from Venezuela.” And
I assume it isn’t either of you. It would have been Mr. Castro ear-
lier. “We think part of it might have been drug money.” Evidently,
that’s a statement for which there’s no evidence. “Mr. Morgenthau
the District Attorney in New York, a Democrat, referred some of
the information to us. We finally got this fellow in a safe prison so
he wouldn’t be stabbed or hurt when he testified.”

And then I didn’t read, but I should for all fair purposes—com-
plete that part which is relevant to this hearing. “We're also going
to have two of Mr. Morgenthau’s prosecutors before the committee,
and I think you're going to see a lot of evidence come out.”

Well, that’s what we were promised on the Larry King Show last
night about this hearing, and I have to say, about this hearing,
that I don’t know really what to make of it. Now I’m going to have
my staff double-check to make sure my information is accurate, be-
cause I don’t want to make any statement that’s inaccurate. I don’t
want to give innuendo and accusations and uncorroborated state-


93

Mr. Preiss. I mean I’ve heard that said about several lawyers,
actually.

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, was there any evidence in this whole bank
collapse business and fraud that there was drug money involved?

Mr. PREISS. It wasn’t in the indictment and it wasn’t part of the
trial, and there was nothing at all that was related to that as far
as our indictment or our trial were concerned.

Mr. Dawson. Right; we looked into some allegations.

Mr. WaxMAN. Now, do you know whether Mr. Castro, while he
was in Prison, was fearful for his safety?

Mr. Iss. We can tell you what he told us, which was that he
was concerned that he didn’t want something stuck in his back in
the showers, because he would be labeled as a rat or a snitch for
coming before anybody, whether it was a court or the Congress or
anybody else. He expressed concern for his physical safety if he
were to testify as a witness. He made that clear pretty early on.

Mr. WaxMAN. And you don’t know whether there was a reason
for him to feel that way, but that was the statement he made.

Mr. PREIss. Well—

Mr. Dawson. There’s always that concern.

Mr. PREISS. There’s always that concern. I don’t know if you're
familiar with the New York State correctional facilities, but there
are no Allen Woods in our State penal system. What I’m suggesting
to you is that, as it has been explained to me, whether you’re in
a low security facility, a medium security facility, or a high securit:
facility, you’re basically around people who have committed all
sorts of crimes, including murder and drug dealing, and some of
these people are not very nice people. If you have a reputation, if
you acquire a reputation as being someone who has cooperated
with law enforcement, you’re not going to be very popular.

Mr. WaxMAN. So his fear, as you understood it, was that some-
one would see him ratting on somebody else, just cooperating with
law enforcement—not that he thought Mr. Intriago or someone
else——

Mr. Preiss. He never expressed a concern about Mr. Intriago
harming him, if that’s what you’re asking me. He never did that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he express any concern that the President of
the United States or the Democratic National Committee would get
somebody in prison to hurt him?

Mr. Pretss. No.

Mr. WaxmaN. It’s a little ludicrous, isn’t it?

Mr. Preiss. Pardon me?

Mr. Waxman. I said it would be a little ludicrous, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Preiss. I can only tell you what he told me, Mr. Waxman,
and what he didn’t tell me, and he certainly didn’t say that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Were you surprised at his testimony this morning
when we asked him whether he would admit to having done the
things for which he had been accused and convicted?

Mr. Dawson. I thought he did admit it. OK, he may not have
stood up and said, “OK, everyone, I did it,” and thrown up his
hands, but I think you got as pretty close as you can get.

Mr. Waxman. If there’s a foreign contribution, it’s illegal. We
would hope illegal contributions, illegal acts would be prosecuted.
This isn’t really a question to you, but a statement. The fact of the


61

Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of order. It
was my request granted for unanimous consent.

Mr. BuRTON. Yes it was.

Mr. Mica. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BuRTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. Kucinicu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield
my time to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BarRETT. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich. I don’t have any ques-
tions right now for Mr. Castro. But since the argument du jour
seems to be the hearing last week pertaining to the immunization
of the witnesses, I just want to take a minute to comment on that.
From the perspective of someone who did not vote to immunize wit-
nesses, a vote that was clearly for me an easy vote, where some-
times when you vote in Congress and it’s a difficult vote, you don’t
know whether you're doing the right thing—you don’t know wheth-
er you're doing the wrong thing. 1 felt then, and I feel now that I
was doing the right thing. And I think it’s important for people to
understand why I’m so comfortable with that vote.

I think it’s important that we do have the investigation of allega-
tions of wrongdoing. I think it’s important that that investigation
be a fair investigation. I think that allegations that are levied
against both Democrats and Republicans should be investigated. I
am convinced, however, that this committee has absolutely no in-
tent in the world to have a fair investigation. As Mr. Waxman indi-
cated last fall, committee Democrats voted I believe unanimous;
to immunize three witnesses at that time. We did so not withstand-
ing our reservations about the fairness of this investigation. But
the events that have transpired since then have led me to the con-
clusion that this committee has absolutely no credibility. And I just
want to take a minute to explain why.

I think all of us have heard the.comments that the chairman
made. I do not feel comfortable repeating those comments that he
made about the President in public. My colleague, Mrs. Maloney,
last week said that if her kids had used that phrase their mouths
would have been washed out with soap. I think if I were a child
and I'd used those comments, my mother would have washed my
mouth out with soap. And I just am boggled how we can forward
with an investigation when the chairman has made it so crystal
clear that his No. 1 goal is to get the President.

When we walked into this hearing last week, I saw the wall. It
reminded me a lot of a homecoming float that I worked on when
I was a freshman in high school. And sadly, I think that it also is
about equivalent to the maturity level of a high school freshman.
This is a serious matter. And there’s not a person in this Capitol
who is going to walk into this room and look at that and say well
this is just a farce. There’s no attempt here to even have a sem-
blance of professionalism. To me, it’s a great device to show how
unfair this investigation is. I would note that the committee—
there’s no picture of the committee on that wall. Maybe that’s be-
cause this committee’s off the wall in terms of the seriousness with
which we are examining these allegations.

When someone comes to me and says why didn’t you vote to im-
munize those witnesses. I tell them because there’s no attempt to


57

Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman v Ty much for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, I simply want to put some things in that are in our
briefing book. One, there’s an article in the Miami Herald that was
written by David Lyons on the situation Mr. Halvorssen and the
Castro family. I’d just like that inserted at this point.

Mr. BurRTON. Without objection.

[The article referred to follows:]


19

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. Yes, yes, that’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And you, in fact, were in the Dominican Republic
when you received that fax?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. And then, I note that there are, for the record, Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Waxman, these are among the docu-
ments that we were provided by Mr. Morgenthau’s office. I notice
there’s Spanish writing at the bottom so, perhaps, if we can go over
to exhibit VEN-3 in the exhibit books, for the members of the com-
mittee, there is a translation of the Spanish at the bottom of that
exhibit and I want to make sure we have that correct, Mr. Castro.
According to the committee staff, that Spanish sentence reads to
the effect: “I want you to send me these today by Federal Express,”
is that a correct translation?

[Exhibit VEN-3 follows:]


48

Mr. KaNsorskI. You mean I am mistaken here with the commit-
tee that tells me you were convicted in February 1997?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. I spent all that time, since the day of the
indictment, the day of arrest, I was denied bail and I was in jail.

Mr. KANJORSKI. The State of New York didn’t think they could
allow you out on bail because what you said is you have no associa-
tion with the United States and you can’t wait to get out of jail,
use this committee to get you out of jail, and get out of this coun-
try.
Mr. Castro BarrEDO. I’m eligible for work release right away,
as it is. I’m eligible for work release as it is. That’s a program of
the New York——

Mr. KANJoRSKI. Will that be cleaning the yacht or the jet plane?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Horn, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sort of bemused by
some of the actions we've heard here in the last 15 minutes and
it sounds like they are the defense counsel for Mr. Intriago.

I congratulate you for having the guts to come here when you’ve
got this wall of shame of people who take the fifth, leave the coun-
try, and don’t cooperate with us, and say, just like that I’ve said
before, the Mafia, and you're a brave person to come here and take
those assaults from the other side which are simply trying to de-
stroy you as a credible witness as they protect people that are hid-
ing behind the fifth amendment or out of the country or wherever.
And so I thank you for coming here; you deserve a reward for that.

I am looking at some of the recent developments in the case and,
I believe, in the meeting, you, Mr. Castro, recall saying that the
October 15, 1993, meeting at the Department of State where there
was a grievance that your family had against a Venezuelan busi-
nessman, Thor Halvorssen, I believe that’s correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. Horn. Now Mr. Halvorssen was hired, I am told, by the
Banco de Venezuela to investigate Castro's.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn. I take it the feeling is you recall saying that was
worth $25,000 after the State Department meeting. Now did your
access to the Department of State mainly come through the dona-
tions you gave to the Democratic National Committee? What did
you feel on that?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I have no idea—confirmed—give us
$25,000 and you're going to the State Department, but I’ve been in-
volved in politics in the Dominican Republic, not directly as a poli-
tician but as a businessman, and I have my personal opinions of
many things.

Mr. Horn. Yes. It doesn’t hurt you to have been a donor and a
friend of so-and-so.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. It doesn’t.

Mr. Horn. Who arranged the appointment for you for that Octo-
ber 15, 1993, meeting with the State Department and who ar-
ranged it?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Charles Intriago.

Mr. Horn. Pardon?


52

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn. Yes, I think that sounds like an excellent journal. We
all ought to be subscribing to it to see where the money’s going in
Florida, and I will start looking it up. I’m fascinated by it.

Then you've got on exhibit VEN-27, Eric Sildon, director, Na-
tional Membership Services, to Dear Charlie. So you have the lead-
er of the Democratic National Committee calls Mr. Intriago who
has taken the fifth who we hear letters from the lawyer, but he
hasn’t had the guts to stand in that witness chair under oath.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Horn. You're welcome.

Mr. Burton. Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
missing some of the proceedings, so what I may be asking may be
redundant, but my friend Mr. Horn was complimenting you for
your bravery for coming here today.

the reason you are here today is you want to get out of jail isn’t
it?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. The reason I’m here today is?

Mr. BARRETT. You want to get out of jail.

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. Correct.

Mr. BARRETT. That’s really no other reason other than that.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Go down deep, that’s the reason.

Mr. BarRRETT. OK. And so I have an understanding of what
brought you here, and again I think you’ve gone over, did you or
your attorneys contact the committee or did the committee contact
you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. The committee contacted us.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. And what did they say?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That they—the first time we met?

Mr. BARRETT. Sure.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That they wanted to ask me some ques-
tions about campaign contributions being made by my family.

Mr. BARRETT. And where were you at the time?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Manhattan, Manhattan Detention Center.

Mr. BARRETT. OK, so you were in jail when they met you?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. BARRETT. And tell me a little bit more. They said they want-
ed to ask you some questions. What questions did they ask you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Questions about these checks, the fax doc-
ument, this paper, what was going on, the conversation, basically
what we've talked about here today.

Mr. BARRETT. And who brought up the possibility of a letter that
would be written on your behalf?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I did.

Mr. BARRETT. And what did you say?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. That the only way I would go forward
with any of this is if somehow I would be benefited from the situa-
tion.

Mr. BarrReETT. And why did you say that?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Why did I say that? Because——

Mr. BARRETT. If you thought that there was some injustice here,
one might think that you would have said, I want to clear up an


81

beginning the following week. I think the committee has a copy of
that letter, Mr. Chairman.

When I returned to the office on September 22, 1997, I called the
Task Force attorney’s office several times and left messages asking
what was happening with the case. In response, he left a message
on my voice mail one evening thanking me for my patience and
asking me to hold off on the sentencing. Defense counsel and I
again agreed to ask the court to postpone the sentence, this time
until October 20, 1997; and the court granted that adjournment re-
quest.

On October 10, 1997, I sent a letter to the Task Force attorney
stating, in substance, that Castro was scheduled to be sentenced on
October 20, 1997. I inquired whether the Department of Justice in-
tended to make any submissions to the sentencing court and re-
quested that a copy of any such submissions be sent to us before
the sentencing date. I also asked him to advise us if he wanted a
delay in the sentencing so that we could tell the sentencing judge.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, you have a copy of that letter as well.

Before I heard back from the Justice Department, defense coun-
sel for Jorge Castro and I agreed to postpone the sentence one
more time from October 20, 1997, until December 15, 1997, and
again the Supreme Court in our county granted the adjournment.

On October 17, 1997, I received a phone call from defense coun-
sel advising me that he had received a copy of a faxed letter from
the chief of the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.
He told me that the letter had been addressed to me and that he
had been cc’ed on the letter. I believe the committee also has a
copy of that letter. Defense counsel faxed that letter to me, and I
received it directly later the next week.

The letter stated that the Department of Justice would not be re-
questing another adjournment of Castro’s sentence and would not
be making a submission to the sentencing court. The letter went
on to state, and I quote: “we have concluded that there is at this
time no further role for him to play in matters under investigation
by the Task Force.”

On December 15, 1997, Mr. Castro was sentenced, and we've pro-
vided a copy of the sentencing minutes to the committee.

And I'll do my best to answer any questions that members of the
committee have.

Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Preiss.

Counsel.

Mr. WILson. Mr. Preiss, Mr. Dawson, thank you very much for
being here today.

Mr. Preiss, it’s my understanding that you’ve been a prosecutor
with the office of District Attorney Morgenthau for 18 years, is that
correct?

Mr. PREISS. It will be 18 years on August 18.

Mr. WILSON. And, Mr. Dawson, you’ve been a prosecutor in Dis-
trict Attorney Morgenthau’s office for approximately 10 years, is
that correct?

Mr. Dawson. It will be 11 in September.

Mr. WILson. Mr. Dawson, in your professional opinion, was there
enough evidence of illegal conduit contributions to justify a thor-


14

Mr. BENNETT. And what was the basis of Mr. Intriago having
that authority to tell you that your grandfather wanted to make
contributions?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Just knowledge that, of what he meant,
represented to the family group.

Mr. BENNETT. Was there any discussion about any other member
of your family also being utilized to make contributions?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes, my uncle. He lived in Dominican Re-
public with me.

Mr. BENNETT. And also your aunt, I believe, is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. His wife.

Mr. BENNETT. And what is her name, sir?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Maria Castro.

Mr. BENNETT. And is she also a U.S. citizen?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I believe so.

Mr. BENNETT. Was there any discussion about the importance of
you and your aunt being a US. citizen with respect to the making
of these contributions?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. It wasn’t a thorough discussion, it was
just curiosity and when I asked, I was told that because I was a
U.S, citizen and that’s the way it had to be done. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BuRTON. Mr. Castro, when Mr. Intriago asked you to make
these contributions, did he tell you why? I mean, with $50,000 in
contributions, there’s got to be some reason. Why did Mr. Intriago
ask for that money for the DNC?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I know $50,000 sounds like a lot of money,
and it probably is, but coming from Mr. Intriago, it had the author-
ization from my grandfather. I wasn’t supposed to question,
and——

Mr. Burton. So he did not give you any reason, he just said he
wanted $50,000?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I was told that because I was a USS. citi-
zen and it couldn’t be done any other way. That was basically a
reason.

Mr. BuRTON. But there was no reason given?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. BuRTON. In your opening statement, you said “that’s the way
they want it.”

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Correct.

Mr. BurTON. Did Mr. Intriago ever define who “they,” were?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, he did not.

Mr. BurTON. Did you ever ask him who “they” were?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No, I did not. I just thought it was the
Democratic party because that’s who we were writing the checks to.

Mr. Burton. OK.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at, you have
an exhibit up there before you, Mr. Campriello, for Mr. Castro to
review, and there’s also a TV monitor here in the hearing room,
but first of all, looking at exhibit VEN-4 for the members of the
committee, and then also VEN-16, looking at VEN-4, that’s in fact
the check you made payable to the Democratic National Committee
for $20,000 is that correct?

[Exhibits VEN—4 and VEN-16 follow:]


A36_NE

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAI

WR 30 Oe

The New York Cimes

Founded in 1881

[ADOLPHS OCHS. Publisher 1696-1935
ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER, Publisher 1995-1961
ORVILE DRYFOOS. Publisher 1961-1963
ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER Publisher 1969-1992

ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER IR, Publisher

JOSEPH LELYVELD, Entcutive Editor

Assistant Managing Editors
SOMAGOLDEN BEMR JACK ROSENTHAL
CAROLYN LEE ALLAN. SIEGAL

JANET L ROBINSON, Prenilent. General Manager
DANIEL H COMEN. Senior VP, Advertinng
RICHARD H.GILMAK, Senior VP, Operations
SCOTT H HEEKIN-CANEDY. VP, Planning
DENNIS L STERN, VP, Human Resources
4ASEES TERRILL, VP, Chae Financial Officer
DAVIDA THURM, WP, Production

PENELOPE MUSE ABERNATHY, President, News Series
‘MARTIN A NISENHOLTZ, President, Electronic Media

Janet Reno's Latest Trick

Last September, Attorney General Janet Reno
tapped a seasoned, respected prosecutor, Charles
LaBella, to invigorate the Justice Department's
directionless campaign finance inquiry. She used
Mr. LaBella’s reputation to fend off demands, by
F.BLL Director Louis Freeh and many others, for
appointment of an independent counsel. The depart-
ment hinted that Mr. LaBella would look into the
possible illegal use of “‘soft money” by President
Clinton's re-election campaign, opening a door Ms.
Reno had prematurely shut as part of her effort to
prevent a searching independent inquiry into the
Democrats’ campaign financing,

But now, just seven months later, Mr. LaBella
is planning to depart, making it plain that his
appointment was a public-relations masquerade.
James Desarno, the F.B.I. official who has super-
vised the agents on the case, is leaving too, further
broadcasting the fact that Ms. Reno has once again
‘snookered those citizens who wanted a full investi-
Bation of the most corrupt campaign fund-raising
operation since Watergate.

All along, Ms. Reno has used a contorted read-
ing of the Independent Counsel Act to avoid the
reality that she has an inescapable conflict of inter-
est when it comes to investigating the President

‘who appointed her. So this latest turn in her sorry
handling of the investigation is hardly surprising.
But it is especially deplorable in its use of public
employees to create the illusion of investigative
vigor.

There is no way to square Ms. Reno's pledge to
see the matter through to its conclusion with her
decision to elevate Mr. LaBella and Mr. Desarno to
new positions. With her final approval considered
just a formality, Mr. LaBella is scheduled to return
in July to assume leadership of the United States
Attorney's office in San Diego. Mr. Desarno is to
become the assistant director of the F.B.1.’s Crimi-
nal Justice Information Services Division.

This bailout in mid-nvestigation is just as
reprehensible as Kenneth Starr’s much-riticized
attempt last year to shuck his Whitewater inquiry
for an academic post in Malibu, Calif. Ms. Reno
should postpone the new assignments until these
two men complete the work the Government Is
paying them to do. She cynically used their reputa-
tions to create the illusion of a thorough and fair
investigation. Now that the heat is off they are
scattering, and the betting here is that the inquiry
will return to its earlier state of momentumless
disorganization. The lot of them should be ashamed.



3

Today, we will make public bank records and other documents
given to our committee by Mr. Morgenthau’s office that show that
the $50,000 was reimbursed by the Castro’s family business over-
seas.

Well, what happened then? Mr. Morgenthau’s office referred all
of the information on the illegal contributions to the U.S. Justice
Department. They informed the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami.
They informed the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Depart-
ment. They informed the Campaign Finance Task Force. They
wrote letters. They made phone calls. The Justice Department
interviewed Jorge Castro. They were given all of the documents.
The case was practically gift-wrapped for the Justice Department,
but for some reason, they simply decided not to pursue it. A year
later, they wrote back to Mr. Morgenthau’s office and told him that
they had no plans to prosecute the case.

Now, here’s what bothers me. In the Thomas Kramer case, the
FEC had evidence that a DNC fundraiser was responsible for solic-
iting illegal conduit contributions. Mr. Kramer’s secretary said that
if she was given immunity, she would name that person. The FEC
did not pursue it. They did not refer it to the Justice Department
so they could pursue it. The DNC fundraiser, who was instigating
illegal activities, gets off scot-free.

We have a similar situation with the Castro case. It will become
clear during the course of the hearing that instructions for Jorge
Castro’s illegal contributions were coming from someone associated
with the Democrat National Committee. Jorge Castro was getting
detailed instructions about which State parties to make contribu-
tions to. Calls were being made to take one State off the list, and
put another on in its place. These directions could have only come
from a Democrat party strategist who knew which States needed
money and which didn’t. Since the Justice Department decided not
to pursue this case, that person gets off scot-free.

at we are seeing is a disturbing pattern of Democratic
operatives getting mixed up with illegal contributions. If the Jus-
tice Department and the Federal Election Commission don’t vigor-
ously pursue these cases, we wind up with the conduit contributors
getting punished, but the party operatives behind the contributions
getting a walk. This is clearly not acceptable. If political party offi-
cials are behind illegal contributions schemes, they must be
brought to light, and they must be punished. If the Justice Depart-
ment won't do it, and if the FEC won’t do it, then maybe the Con-
gress needs to do it. That’s one of the reasons we're holding these
hearings.

Anyone who has attended these hearings has heard me talk
about the unbelievable number of people who have taken the fifth
amendment or fled the country. There are now 92 people and many
of their pictures are on that wall over there. You can see on that
“Wall of Shame” photos of the friends and associates of the Presi-
dent who have taken the fifth and fled the country. This committee
has run into a stone wall of stalling and obstruction.

The Castro case has been no exception. Once again, we have a
key witnesses take the fifth to avoid testifying. That person is
Charles Intriago. Mr. Intriago is the Castro family’s lawyer. He is
a DNC trustee. We will introduce into the record today, the sheet


73

evidence of a crime. And all of this is turned over the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice in what year?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. 97—1997.

Mr. Cox. 1997. So this isn’t old stuff as the ranking member was
indicating. This is 1997, after the 1996 elections when all of this
stuff had hit the fan publicly about illegal campaign contributions,
is that right?

So, in this context, the Department of Justice writes a letter that
says, “there is at this time no further role for you to play” with this
evidence that you provided “in matters under investigation by the
task force.” And that’s the task force that’s investigating illegal
campaign contributions. Why do you think that happened?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I have no idea. I just know that a letter
was received by the judge and shown to me.

Mr. Cox. Now you're aware that there is a statute of limitations
that was going to run on these crimes?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. Cox. And what year was that statute going to run?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I think it was told by my other attorney
that it was at the end of October 1997, November 1997.

Mr. Cox. So if the Department of Justice did nothing throughout
1997, their ability to prosecute, say, Mr. Intriago would disappear,
right?

Mr. CastTRO BaRREDO. According to the statute of limitations,
yes.

Mr. Cox. Because the statute of limitations would run. Now this
committee sought from the Department of Justice their cooperation
in our putting questions to Mr. Intriago, and we got a letter back
just a few days ago that says they oppose this: They oppose grant-
ing immunity even though the statute of limitations ran in 1997,
and even though they didn’t lift a finger when all this information
was provided to them. Mr. Chairman, I think it’s remarkable that
we can have this kind of documentary evidence that a crime has
been committed; that we can have the DA in New York serve this
stuff up on a silver platter; that we can have a judge of the New
York Supreme Court tell us, “It appears as if a corroborated pros-
ecution of political contributions that were illegal was provided to
the United States Department of Justice,” and there’s nothing to
show for it. And on top of that, then to have the Department of
Justice, after the expiration of the statute limitations, after their
opportunity to prosecute has lapsed, oppose our questioning this
witness I think is absolutely remarkable. And so, for obviously dif-
ferent reasons, I agree completely with our ranking member that
we ought to be able to put these questions directly to the Depart-
ment of Justice.

And I thank you for the opportunity to cover these matters,
which bear directly on what has happened since 1996 at this De-
partment of Justice. Let me ask one final question. The fellow u
there with Mr. Clinton in that picture, is that your grandfather?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Cox. And your grandfather was a big contributor to the
Democratic party and to Mr. Clinton, is that right?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. These amounts are considered big for U.S.
standards.


un
ee th BA oes oa oa
entliee iodice otivee uarietemus oneleiioom — atmecanon

contamina OMG

Qoe nIsrore  IeviuMrruTviy bee este rece



71

of Mr. Gore, the Vice President. Now why is that? You’ve got to say
it raises a few of your antennas.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BurRTON. Now just a minute. I’m not going to yield to you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I yielded to you.

Mr. BurTON. You keep talking about how we have been just fo-
cusing on all the Democrats and that 80 percent of our subpoenas
have gone to six people. One of those is Ted Sioeng, who gave
money to both the Democrats and the Republicans. We've also
looked into the Young Brothers. We’re looking into other things re-
garding Republicans. The problem is the vast part of the investiga-
tion is focused on Democrats because that’s where the biggest part
of the problem is. That’s where the money was going for. Millions
of dollars. We don’t know how many millions.

But we do know the Democratic National Committee has re-
turned a large amount of that money. We do know Charlie Trie’s
been indicted. We do know that John Huang brought illegal con-
tributions in, we believe, from Indonesia. We do know that Webb
Hubbell got $700,000, but for what, we know not.

And so you know there’s a lot of things that need to be looked
into. We are going to bring the Justice Department before this com-
mittee and ask them why they didn’t pursue this case involving
Mr. Intriago. They didn’t need to make this a public thing. They
could have had the FBI go talk to Mr. Intriago, and said, were you
aware that Mr. Castro was bringing this money in. Did you ask
him to do it. But they chose not to do it.

And the thing that bothers me today, and Mr. Mica’s put this in
the record, is when we asked Janet Reno to appoint an independ-
ent counsel and FBI Director Louis Freeh said we should have, she
said, no and that they were going to clean up this mess. She
brought in Mr. LaBella to head the investigation. Now that every-
thing’s cooled off, they’re sending Mr. LaBella to California. They’re
going to make him a U.S. Attorney out there—I guess that’s the
carrot their using to get him out of here—and this investigation by
the FBI or by the Justice Department is just going to go right
straight down the tubes and they’re going to cover up for this ad-
ministration again.

Janet Reno, in my opinion, has been like Horatius at the bridge,
protecting the administration. And I think that anybody who clear-
ly looks at this would have to question whether or not that state-
ment I made is valid. And we intend to keep pursuing this and
were going to bring Justice over here and ask them to explain
that.

And with that, I yield back my time, and yield to Mr. Cox.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, would you give me a chance to say
a word on this?

Mr. BuRTON. Mr. Cox has the time.

Mr. Cox. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

I thank you, and I’d like to thank our witness for staying with
us for the better part of the day. I’d like to ask you, Mr. Castro,
to refer to exhibit VEN-3, which is the memo that you got from
Intriago that tells you precisely how to make out checks to the
DNC Victory Fund Federal Account, to the Ohio Victory Fund Fed-


64

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. As I told Mr.—I think it was Mr., one of
these—this gentleman over here—I never asked myself why they
didn’t they go after Charles Intriago, did this, or did that. Because
that was not basically wasn’t my main concern. Frankly, I don’t
want anyone to go to jail—gone through what I’ve gone through.
I wouldn't.

Mr. Horn. Well, I appreciate your testimony, as I said earlier.
It’s nice to have someone here that looks us in the eye and says
yes, no, or this, or that, and gives us a reasonable explanation, and
doesn’t just dance around it, even though you’ve had a lot of people
that seem to be working for the defense counsel, rather than doing
a congressional duty. It amazes me on some of the questions you've
been asked today. Thank you so much for coming here.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Horn. I yield to Mr. Mica.

Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request
and I'll just outline it here. I think the other side had indicated
that Mr. Charles Intriago was not a Government employee. And I
do have a background on him I’d like made part of the record that
indicates, in fact, that he went to work for former Congressman
Danny Purcell as a staff member of the Government Operations
Committee, the predecessor to this committee; and also worked in
private practice until hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
southern District of Florida in 1975; and additional information re-
lating to his background. I'd like that submitted to the record, if

may.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object. Could you just clarify
the years in which Mr. Intriago worked for Mr. Purcell, or worked
at the U.S. Attorney’s office?

Mr. Mica. Yes, I'd be glad to.

Mr. BARRETT. Excuse me, could we get a copy of that too, please?

Mr. BurTON. Be glad to give the minority a copy of that. I think
it’s in your folder.

Mr. WaxMAN. The gentleman was going to tell us the dates.

Mr. Mica. Do you want the dates?

Mr. WaxMaN. Yes, please.

Mr. Mica. From the South Florida Business Journal, December
25, 1989, Mr. Intriago worked for the Government Operations Com-
mittee from 1968 to 1973.

Mr. WAXMAN. That wasn’t during the time when this contribu-
tion was made.

Mr. Mica. Pardon?

Mr. WaxMaN. That was much earlier than this contribution.

Mr. Mica. This is a matter of fact. I’m just stating it for the
record the period of time that he was a Government employee.

Mr. WaxMaN. I have no objection to this going into the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

(The background information referred to follows:]


21

Mr. CASTRO BaARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And did you know what the urgency was, why Mr.
Intriago wanted these checks?

Mr. CASTRO BaARREDO. I don’t know what the urgency was at that
time? Everything we did was urgent so it was just another——

Mr. BENNETT. But for some reason there was some urgency on
September 15, 1992, as to these checks, is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. There was an urgency but, I repeat, every-
thing we did was always in urgencies and I wasn’t surprised that
this had to be done yesterday.

Mr. BENNETT. Looking at exhibits VEN-2 and VEN-3, the fax
communication, did you have communications with any other mem-
ber of your family as to the checks to be prepared by your Aunt
Maria, $20,000 to the DNC Victory Fund, separate from your
check, as well as $5,000 to the Maryland Victory Fund 1992? Did
you talk with any other member of your family?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. After I received the phone call, I spoke to
my uncle, and I told him what to do because I was told what to
do, and that’s the way it was done.

Mr. BENNETT. And did you also explain that this had been au-
thorized by your grandfather and that they were to be reimbursed
as well?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Now looking at, then, reviewing exhibit VEN-6,
then VEN-5, in the exhibit book, for the members of the commit-
tee, they are in fact the checks, copies of checks prepared by your
Aunt Maria, do you see those?

{Exhibits VEN-6 and VEN-5 follow:]


38

Mr. BuRTON. We will allow this in the record, but let me just
point out that Mr. Intriago has taken the fifth amendment.

Mr. WaxMaN. But his attorney is giving you a statement that he
is denying it, and, I guess, refusing to answer further questions.

Mr. BurRTON. He is denying it but he is taking the fifth amend-
ment. We've asked him to appear and he won't do it.

Mr. WaXMAN. Mr. Intriago denies that he told you you were
going to be reimbursed. You say you were going to be reimbursed.
So basically it comes down to your word whether or not you are
telling us the truth. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I’m here. He’s not here.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Castro, why are you currently in prison?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Why? I was convicted in Manhattan of
grand larceny scheme to defraud.

Mr. Waxman. Let me ask you directly, Mr. Castro. Do you be-
lieve that you are guilty of the crimes you have been convicted of?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I took this matter to trial and I was con-
victed by 12 New York citizens. And I live with that.

Mr. WaxMAN. Your uncle, Orlando Castro Castro, and your
grandfather, Orlando Castro Llanes, were also convicted of bank
fraud, weren't they?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Now, before the three of you were pros-
ecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, your family
controlled the Banco Progresso Internacional in Puerto Rico. Is that
correct?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. That is correct.

Mr. Waxman. In fact, you served as president of that bank, didn’t
you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. How old were you when you became president of
the Banco Progresso Internacional?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I would say 25, 26-years-old.

Mr. WAXMAN. Here’s what Assistant DA Richard Preiss said
about you. I’m quoting him, “Simply put, these defendants were in-
dividuals who thought they could fool other people, their employ-
ees, their customers, their regulators, and their auditors,” end
quote. Do you think that is a fair description of you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. If that is what the prosecutor says, that
is what was taken to trial. I won’t—I don’t want to comment about
it after it’s done.

Mr. WAXMAN. According to prosecutors, you took $300,000 from
the bank for your personal use. I understand you bought a yacht,
repaired your executive jet, and purchased a number of other lux-
uries. In other words, you are accused of taking your customers’ de-
posits and spending them to live a lavish lifestyle. Is it correct?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. Is it correct that I was accused of that?
I was accused of that. I was convicted of that.

Mr. WaxMaN. But you're not admitting it.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Admitting that it was done?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.
eva CasTRO BARREDO. The members of the jury found that it was

e.


tions were listed with the Fed-
eral Elections Commission
from Miami lawyer Charies
Intriago, publisher of the .

Miami-based __ newsletter,
Money Laundering Alert, and
from Jorge Castro, who is a
US. citizen.

It is illegal for foreigners
and overseas companies to

Fe:
iz
iL
fe
oS

?
i
"
Ee



24

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes, I do.

Mr. BENNETT. And are they consistent with the instructions you
gave her and your uncle as to $5,000 to the Maryland Victory Fund
and $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. At any point in time did you have specific discus-
sions with Mr. Intriago about the illegality of this process?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. At that time?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. BENNETT. You knew that they were using you as an Amer-
ican citizen to make foreign campaign contributions. Did you, your-
self, know that this was illegal at that time?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I did not.

Mr. BENNETT. Looking back at exhibit VEN-16, which has two
checks on that exhibit, Mr. Intriago, Mr. Castro, excuse me, sir, I
apologize. I won’t make that mistake again. I apologize.

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. I appreciate that.

Mr. BENNETT. I didn’t mean to defame you. I’m sorry.

With respect to the $5,000 check to the Ohio Viebory Fund, for
the record, that check was never, in fact, cashed, was it?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, it was not cashed.

Mr. BENNETT. You sent it to Mr. Intriago, but it was never
cashed, according to your records.

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. That’s right.

Mr. BENNETT. Now looking at the second check, on the bottom
of VEN-16, the second check to the Kentucky State party, I note
that that’s dated about 2 weeks later. Do you recall the cir-
cumstances surrounding your preparing that second check to an-
other State Democratic party?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes, he called me again.

Mr. BENNETT. He, Mr. Intriago?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Mr. Intriago called me again, I would say,
no more than a week later and he gave me instructions to change
the check from Ohio to Kentucky. I didn’t receive a fax for that be-
cause it was quite obvious it was just a change of State.

Mr. BENNETT. And you can identify your handwriting on both of
those checks; you, in fact, prepared those checks, correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct, yes.

Mr. BENNETT. Then, in fact, Mr. Intriago, according to our inter-
view with you, Mr. Castro, and, for the record, Mr. Chairman, Con-
gressman Waxman, Mr. Castro was interviewed jointly by counsel
for both majority and minority yesterday, isn’t that correct, Mr.
Castro?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. In fact, Mr. Intriago called you again, and if you
will look at exhibit VEN-7 in your exhibit books, this check is
made payable to the Florida Democratic party and it is dated Octo-
ber 13, 1992.

(Exhibit VEN-7 follows:}


91

for Mr. Castro’s grandfather to get a picture taken with the Presi-
dent, and in return, a contribution from Mr. Castro. Now that
would be unseemly if he went out and got a contribution from Mr.
Castro and then told the grandfather that I’m going to go and ar-
range for you to get a photo with the President at this big gather-
ing. But it wouldn’t be illegal—that wouldn’t be illegal.

‘he third possibility is that Mr. Intriago solicited a contribution
from his friend’s grandson, who was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Intriago
had given money himself to the Democratic party in the election
campaign, and he went to young Mr. Castro and said, “I want you
to give some money to the Democrats.” He knew he had money,
and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that because that’s how
fundraisers work. They go out and solicit contributions.

So, what I want to know is, what evidence is there other than
Mr. Castro’s testimony that leads you to conclude that what hap-
pened might be that first possibility, as opposed to the second or
the third?

Mr. Dawson. Can I have a moment, please?

Mr. Waxaw. Sure.

Mr. WaxmaN. In other words, the question I’m asking is: Do we
have a case that we have one person’s word against another?

Mr. Dawson. Well, it depends on how vigorously you pursue
leads that are out there, I suppose.

Mr. WaxMaN. So you think ——

Mr. Dawson. There are certain leads that might have been pur-
sued——.

Mr. WaAxMAN. Or might——

Mr. DAWSON. Or might not have been pursued, or may have led
nowhere.

Mr. WAXMAN. Or might be still being pursued.

Mr. Dawson. Or—exactly—might still be being pursued.

Mr. PREISS. Anything's possible; anything’s possible.

Mr. DAwson. I can’t really answer which one of these three
alternatives you’ve posed it definitely is, but when you say, “Is
there any evidence out there?”, I can answer that question several
different ways.

Mr. WAXMAN. There is evidence. There’s evidence, and you can
draw conclusions from the evidence, but as a prosecutor, in your
case, and then the Justice Department—they have to look at the
evidence and see how strong a case, pursue other leads, to see if
they can get some more information.

Mr. DAWSON. Correct, and those leads have been sup lied to the
Justice Department, and what they’re doing with it, I don’t know.

Mr. WAXMAN. It takes time, sometimes, for the Justice Depart-
ment to move, and it’s frustrating. I know from my own experience,
I chaired a hearing where the CEO’s of the major tobacco compa-
nies came in. They raised their hands to tell the truth and then
sat there and lied—that was 4 years ago—and the Justice Depart-
ment is still investigating whether to bring perjury charges.

And I understand perjury is a very definitive criminal offense;
you’ve got to prove all the elements as you do in any criminal pros-
ecution. They don’t want to move precipitously. I could respect the
fact that they want to make sure the case is going to stick if they’re
going to bring the charges. But I must say, 4 years is a long time


45

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No. I think that is coming up now. He is
saying that now, to create an atmosphere of revenge or hostility,
but it is not true.

ir. WAXMAN. Well, your grandfather did fire you from the bank
presidency, didn’t he?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Of Puerto Rico. I was president still of the
Bank of Dominican Republic, so if Charlie had so much information
of one bank, why didn’t he have so much information of the other

a] £

Mr. Waxman. I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. We're still going to baseball games to-
gether so if we were so hatred, you'll have to ask him that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, he, his statement speaks for itself. I just
wanted to give you a chance to respond.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS. You were prosecuted by the Manhattan District At-
torney’s Office—I just would like to finish this question if I may.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. Lantos. Do you know about the political affiliation of the
Manhattan District Attorney?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I have no idea.

Mr. Lantos. You have no idea?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. Lantos. He’s a very prominent Democrat.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Mr. Morgenthau?

-Mr. Lantos. Yes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Castro, when did it first come to your atten-
tion that you were actually involved in a potential violation of cam-
paign contribution laws? When did you first realize this, and how
did you realize it?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. When I was in the middle of the material
that was given to us for our trial.

Mr. KANJorsKI. So, this would have been in February 1997, last
year, about 14 months ago?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. No. It would have been the end of, it
would have been the fall of 1996.

Mr. KaNgorSKI. OK, the fall of 1996. How did this information
come to your attention? Did your attorneys give it to you?——

Mr. CASTRO BaARREDO. It was given to us by Mr. Morgenthau’s
office as part of the discovery material, I think is what they called
it.

Mr. KANJoRSKI. OK. This is the very first time in your life that
you learned of this, that your attorney in Miami had 5 years before
advised you to commit a crime.

Mr. Castro BARREDO. He didn’t advise me to commit any crime.

Mr. KANJoRSKI. Well, you learned that it is a crime if you im-
properly give foreign money to a campaign.

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. I learned that when I looking at these doc-
uments and I asked my attorney at that time.

Mr. KaANgoRSKI. So, I return. In late 1996, for the very first time
in your life, you learned that your attorney, some 4 years before,
had advised you improperly to participate in a conspiracy to com-


86

Mr. Dawson. Yes. What you have to realize is that we had sub-
poenaed bank records and had them coming in separately. This
says miscellaneous credit. I don’t recall whether we got this one
first or the Maria Sire Castro one first, but when zou get the Maria
Sire Castro one, you realize that it’s a wire transfer through Chase
New York through something called Inversiones Latinfin. We see
the same date, same amount on Jorge’s statement. What we then
do is subpoena Chase Manhattan Bank and actually get the wire
transfer documentation, and then we find with respect to both ac-
counts both amounts came through wire transfers, through Chase
New York by order of Inversiones Latinfin in Venezuela.

Mr. WILSON. I'll take a break for a moment. Chairman Burton
has some questions.

Mr. BuRTON. Yes, I have a couple of questions on another sub-
ject. You made a lot of calls to and contacts with various members
of the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney in the southern part
of Florida, and the people up in Washington. Can you give me in
your own words, your feeling? Was there a sense of frustration be-
cause they weren’t taking proper actions when you knew that the
statute of limitations was about to run?

Mr. PREISs. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the Department
of Justice was doing. What I was trying to do was to accomplish
two objectives. The first objective was to keep my superiors in my
office informed as to what was going on based upon a matter that
we referred to the Department of Justice—well, actually originally
referred to two U.S.—one U.S. Attorney's Office in the southern
district of Florida. The second problem I had was that the other
two defendants had already been sentenced, and the sentencing
judge, as is his province, wanted to know if he was ever going to
get around to sentencing Jorge Castro. And so I wanted to be able
to come back to him and give him an answer as to why—whether
he would be sentencing him, and if not, why. So, since I didn’t get
an answer to those questions, I guess you could say I was a little
frustrated.

Mr. BurTON. So, in your opinion, what actions should have been
taken by Justice in that case?

Mr. PREISS. Well, that’s a very hard question——

Mr. BURTON. You've probably been through this before with the
Justice Department in other cases, have you not?

Mr. PREISS. You know the Justice Department does business in
a certain way—in various ways really. And we do business in var-
ious ways, too. It’s hard for me to answer your question because
I really don’t understand how things work inside the Justice De-
partment. I’m a State prosecutor in New York State. My office is
run in such a way where if I need to speak to someone in a higher
position, I’m granted relatively easy access. I think our office obvi-
ously is a little smaller than the Department of Justice. So, I really
don’t—I don’t know how I can answer your question other than to
say I don’t understand how they do—what their decisionmaking

rocess is, how the bureaucracy works, how they organize. So it’s
ard for me to answer that.

Mr. Burton. OK, let me put it another way. How many times
did you contact people at the Justice Department regarding your
concern about the statute of limitations running?


63

Mr. Horn. All right. If that’s available, Mr. Chairman, Id like
that put in the record at this point.

Mr. BurRTON. Without objection.

Mr. Horn. What was the nature of your discussion with the Jus-
tice officials? Was it generally what you've told this committee?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. [Nodding head.]

Mr. Horn. OK. Did anyone from the Department of Justice in-
quire why you specifically contributed to the Florida Democratic
party and why your aunt, a resident of the State of Florida, con-
tributed to the Maryland Victory Fund?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. They asked me the same questions, yes.

Mr. Horn. They did ask you that?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. Horn. Very good. You were initially directed by Charles
Intriago to make your $5,000 donation to the Ohio Democratic
party, not the Florida Democratic party, were you not?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. The first check was made to the Ohio
party, correct.

Mr. Horn. All right. And that, Mr. Chairman, is VEN-2, and if
we might have that in the record at this point.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[NoTEe.—Exhibit VEN-2 may be found on p. 18.]

Mr. Horn. When you inquired as to why you were directed to
make the contribution in that matter, Mr. Intriago stated, “that’s
the way they want it.” Is that correct?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn. Did anyone from the Department of Justice ask you
for any documents regarding the political contributions, either you
or your aunt made?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I think they already had it at that time,
because the district attorney's office had given them copies of the
same copies we have in front of us.

Mr. Horn. When you used the word, district attorney, are you
talking about Mr. Morgenthau in New York?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. That’s correct, Mr. Morgenthau’s office in
New York.

Mr. Horn. So they had the xeroxes of your checks that showed
these various contributions that we have in our witness exhibit
book and that have been put on the screen.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn. OK. Have you been contacted this year from anyone
from the Department of Justice?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I have not.

Mr. Horn. Well, it’s fascinating to me that in a way this is such
an open and shut case of where conduits were used, who were U.S.
citizens, to take foreign money and put it into American political
campaigns. And obviously, Mr. Intriago knows exactly what he was
doing. He was in the business of publishing a paper about launder-
ing money. So when he was laundering money, it’s sort of ironic
that with all that evidence, the Department of Justice simply sat
by idly and didn’t do anything. Is that your sort of reaction to the
situation? Why they didn’t do something? I know I’m sure you're
glad they didn’t, but I’m curious as an oversight committee, why
didn’t they?


87

Mr. PREISS. Well, I spoke to—Mr. Dawson spoke to an Assistant
U.S. Attorney in the southern district of Florida on March 11. I
happen to remember that date because that’s the date I went on
vacation, to England, after having spent 10¥%2 months working 7
days a week preparing for and trying this case. So I remember that
date. I wasn’t in New York, so I wasn’t privy to that conversation.
Several other conversations I had with that Assistant U.S. Attor-
ney, we talked about the statute of limitations; we talked about
whether the 3-year statute applied or the 5-year statute applied. It
was lawyer talk. I mean, the Federal prosecutors obviously are law-
yers. We're lawyers. We talked about that. We talked about it—I
spoke to the second Assistant U.S. Attorney, who came up from the
southern district of Florida on May 28, 1997. That’s the date when
various Federal prosecutors came to our office. We produced Mr.
Castro for interview, and I did discuss the statute of limitations
with him on that day.

Mr. Burton. Did you at any time indicate to them that since the
statute of limitations was about to run out, that they ought to look
into Mr. Intriago and maybe have him at least talked to by FBI
agents?

Mr. PREIsS. The answer to that question is, no, I didn’t, and nor
would I have thought that to be an appropriate thing to do, Mr.
Chairman, anymore than I’d want a Federal prosecutor telling me
how to run my investigation, frankly.

Mr. BurTON. Well, I understand, and I think that’s probably
good advice, but were you concerned about that?

Mr. PREISS. I was concerned about two things: keeping my supe-
riors informed as to what was happening with the referral and let-
ting the judge know what was going on. The judge that tried this
case is, I think, known as fairly independent, and he has a point
of view about certain things, and I wanted to be able to answer his
questions. And my immediate concern was to be able to tell my su-

riors what was going on with the referral because we had re-
ferred the case—I Feligve in the fall of 1996—as we were getting
cranked up to try this case, which was going to be a major-league
production. It was a long trial.

Mr. BuRTON. Sure.

Mr. PREISS. So, my main concern, frankly, was to accomplish my
two objectives. I wasn’t really paying attention to what was going
on inside the Department of Justice because I didn’t know.

Mr. Burton. I understand. Were you concerned that Mr. Intriago
may have been a major part of this money-laundering operation
and should have been looked at, in your own mind?

Mr. Preiss. Well, I can tell you that the reason that the case was
referred to the Federal prosecutor in the southern district of Flor-
ida was because we thought it was something they might be inter-
ested in. So, that’s why we gave it to them. We said, here’s the doc-
uments that we have.

Now, remember, there are two steps to this, OK? Step one is the
documents. The documents go down in the fall of 1996. Mr. Dawson
can speak to what the documents said because he found them.

Mr. Burton. Right.

Mr. Preiss. Then, later on, Mr. Jorge Castro, the gentleman who
testified here earlier today, he comes into the picture.


32

Sune 21, 1995

Mr. Charles tntriago

Alert Pulbication Partners
1401 Brickell Street
Suite 570

Miami, FL 33131

Dear Charlie:

Recently, I discovered several photographs of Orlando Castro and you that were taken at past
DNC events. Although these pictures were taken some time ago, { knew both you and Orlando
would still enjoy having these copies. I would be very appreciative if you would forward to
Orlando the photos that I have enclosed for him.

As always, if I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Eric Sildon
Director
National Membership Services

DNC 4025939



8

nas and release information. As a result, we've had over 600 sub-
poenas issued unilaterally by you, Mr. Chairman, without concur-
rence from the Democrats in any way, shape, or form. And not even
a vote of the committee. You might also remember that last Octo-
ber, you asked Democrats on this committee to vote for immunity.
Well, even though you had never extended any gestures of biparti-
sanship to us, we agreed, and we immunized three witnesses. We
voted for it. Because you are conducting this investigation in an
unprecedented way, and control all the power yourself, that vote
was the only time Democrats had a voice in your investigation.
And, notwithstanding how partisan you have been, we voted with
you.

You might understand then, Mr. Chairman, that it is odd, with
that factual backdrop, to see you pretend that none of that hap-
pened. If you want Democrats to consider your request for immu-
nity votes, you should go back and review a letter we sent you last
October. ‘Al the committee Democrats signed that letter. That let-
ter set out procedural reforms that we believe are necessary for
this committee to conduct a fair, bipartisan, and effective investiga-
tion. That letter was sent to you, all the Democrats signed it, and
the response we got was, “go take a hike, it’s a partisan investiga-
tion by the Republicans.” You were not interested in changing the
way the investigation was being conducted.

Now, today’s hearing, today’s hearing is about an issue from a
1992 campaign contribution, and I look forward to hearing the tes-
timony that we'll receive. The hearing we had before this one was
about a 1994 campaign finance issue. Although, it seemed to me,
that what we were supposed to be investigating are abuses from
the 1996 election.

Now, last time, you accused the Federal Election Commission of
acting improperly because in their discretion, they didn’t prosecute
a matter that they didn’t think was reasonable for them to pursue.
Today, you're going to accuse the Justice Department of not pursu-
ing a prosecution for a 1992 contribution.

our statements this morning are filled with unsubstantiated al-
legations. They’re theories. They're accusations. The test ought to
be what the facts are, not what the theories are. The test ought to
be what the truth is, not what you believe the truth to be. I now
understand what you meant wher. you said, back home, if you
could prove 10 percent of what you believe to be true, the President
would be out. But the question is not whether it’s 10 percent of
what you believe to be true, but whether it’s actually true, whether
we're really getting information that is accurate.

This hearing today is unusual because it goes all the way back
to 1992. At this rate, Mr. Chairman, it will probably be some time
in June, I expect, that we'll be focusing on the 1960 election, and
I suppose the topic will be whether President Kennedy stole that
election.

I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and seeing wheth-
er the facts, in any way, bear out all the accusations that you’ve
made which I think are unfounded.

Tyield back the balance of my time.

ir. BURTON. I’ve just been informed that there’s a vote on the
floor, and before we start talking to Mr. Castro, I think we prob-


47

Mr. KaNJorsk!. How old are you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Thirty years old—

Mr. KANJorsK!. You really have a tough life; $350,000 to fix your
luxury aircraft and the yacht, and participating in the transfer of
$13 million of depositors’ accounts. You're really under a hardship
and, instead of getting 40 years, you got 3 years, and you are ready
to get out. If only Willie Sutton had known about you. He didn’t
have to use a gun. Do you know who Willie Sutton is?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. KANJoRSKI. He’s a very famous bank robber. He made the
mistake of going into banks with guns. You didn’t make that mis-
take. You went in as an officer of a bank and defrauded your de-
positors, and therefore defrauded the U.S. Government.

But you seem to be without remorse. I mean, Mr. Waxman asked
you——

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Remorse in what sense?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Did you commit this crime or didn’t you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I stated, and if you look at the tran-
scripts——

Mr. KaNngorski. I know you were indicted and you were con-
victed. I’m not asking you the formal process of the law. You are
asking the State of New York to exonerate your sentence, and you
are asking this committee’s chairman to recommend that you're so
helpful. And yet you can’t tell us straightforward on the record, did
you or did you not commit the crime?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. I feel sorry for everybody who lost their
money. I told that to the sentencing judge. I feel sorry to all the
employees who lost their jobs. And that is as much as I can say.

Mr. KANJoRSKI. You just feel sorry for people who lost their jobs
and the depositors who lost their money. Do you feel that you com-
mitted the act you were convicted of or are you improperly incar-
cerated in New York, in your estimation? [Pause.]

It seems like the simplest question I’ve ever asked a witness.

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. It’s not that simple, sir. It’s not that sim-
ple when you have family out there with wife and kids and you're
coming out in front millions of people, national TV, it’s not that
simple, especially when you’ve been in jail—

Mr. KANJORSKI. You’re continually claiming, as a convicted felon,
that a reputable attorney—who is for all purposes that we know,
in Miami—conspired with you to commit a crime against the U.S.
Government. You don’t find that’s offensive at all and take no ac-
tion to prevent that from happening in the future. But, you can’t
reconcile in your own mind something you were convicted, and they
could have given you 40 years, and by this soft shuffle you got
yourself down to 3¥2 years and only 1 year after conviction you are
getting the chairman of this committee to get you released.

Mr. CasSTRO BARREDO. Two years I’ve been in jail, not 1 year.
Two years. And being in jail is hard enough.

Mr. KaNnyorsk!i. That was prior to the conviction, Mr. Castro.
You've only been in jail 1 year since you’ve been convicted. The fact
is you were held-—

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s incorrect. I’ve been in jail since
April 1996. We are now in May, or late April 1998. That——


7

that it’s over 90 individuals. Even a quick review of your list, how-
ever, indicates obvious inaccuracies. You're still counting Manlin
Fong, Joseph Landon, and David Wang, for instance, despite the
fact that they appeared before our committee and answered every
question that any Member asked of them. Whether they answered
it accurately or not, is another question. But they have not refused
to cooperate. Given that, is there any reason that you would in-
clude them on your list of individuals who've left the country, or
are asserting their fifth amendment rights? I think it’s a mistake.
I think, in addition, there are at least 20 other individuals who
seem to be inaccurately included in your list. Mr. Chairman, I’m
sure you agree, that accuracy in this matter is important, and I'd
like to ask you to direct your staff to revise the list accordingly.

Mr. BurTON. I'll be happy, Mr. Waxman, to give you a list and
you can go over it and send me corrections if you think they’re de-
sired. If you would yield just a moment, regarding Manlin Fong,
and the others that you mentioned. They did take the fifth amend-
ment, and we had to immunize them, as you know, before they
would testify. That’s why they were included on the list.

Mr. WaxMAaN. They, nevertheless, have already testified so they
shouldn't be in the category of people who are not cooperating with
this committee. They did cooperate. I also want to correct a series
of misstatements that have been made about the cooperation you’ve
received from Democrats on this committee. You seem to have for-
gotten some basic facts, and I want to take a moment to refresh
your memory.

You might remember, that as soon as the committee convened
last year, I wrote you and asked that you structure this investiga-
tion so that we could work in a bipartisan way, and investigate all
fundraising abuses. You might also remember that you specifically
rejected that request, and told me you wanted to pursue your own
investigation. You promised to keep me informed of your actions,
but you didn’t want to work with me or the minority in any form
or way.

But you might also remember that, in a New York Times op-ed,
which I'll be glad to give to you for your memory to be refreshed,
in that New York Times op-ed, in February of last year, I called
for an independent counsel to investigate the President and other
fundraising abuses, and proposed creating a joint House/Senate
committee to conduct one comprehensive campaign finance inquiry.
It was obvious at the time that the administration wasn’t pleased
with my decision, but I thought it was the right thing to do, and
Republicans didn’t waste any time trying to exploit my views on an
independent counsel for their own political purposes. At the same
time, the Republican leadership refused to combine the House and
the Senate investigations and coordinate their work which resulted
in redundant investigations and a lot of taxpayers’ money bein,
wasted, a lot of witnesses having to respond separately to two dif-
ferent committees.

In addition, last April you adopted rules for the conduct of this
investigation. It was on a straight party-line vote. The Democrats
all voted against it because the Republicans delegated to you, as
chairman, powers that had never been given to any chairman be-
fore. It gave you the power to unilaterally go out and issue subpoe-


41

Mr. Waxman. Did Chairman Burton promise to help you get out
of jail before you agreed to come before the committee?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. No. I was never promised anythi: g.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would you have agreed to appear today if he had
not promised to help you?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Maybe.

Mr. WAXMAN. Maybe?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Yes. I didn’t get promised anything, first
of all, but I would have probably been here anyhow.

Mr. WAXMAN. But, on the other hand, you thought it might help
you.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Of course.

Mr. WaxMaN. When this investigation began last year, Chairman
Burton told us this committee would be, quote, “investigating a
possible massive scheme of funneling millions of dollars in foreign
money to the U.S. electoral system and that we are investigating
allegations that the Chinese Government, at the highest levels, de-
cided to infiltrate our political system.” That’s a quote. I didn’t read
it as well as I might have, but the chairman says that is what
we're doing. We're going to look at this massive scheme of contribu-
tions from Chinese Government and people at the highest levels
trying to infiltrate our political system.

Do you have any evidence of a massive scheme to funnel millions
of dollars into the U.S. elections?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Do I have any evidence?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I do not.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Do you have any evidence about a Chinese
Government decision to infiltrate our political system?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I do not.

Mr. WaxMaN. Do you have any evidence that the Democratic
party or the Clinton-Gore campaign knew that you were going to

reimbursed for your contribution or that the money came from
outside the United States?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, you made this contribution because you are
a US. citizen and it would appear to them that this was a legal
contribution. Is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Appear to whom?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, it would appear to the Democratic party, to
President Clinton, the Clinton-Gore campaign, or anybody who got
your money that you are a USS. citizen writing a check to the

emocratic party.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WaxMAN. On the surface, to them, it would appear to be
legal.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That is correct.

Mr. WaxMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how much time we
have, but I'll reserve the balance of my time, and let me yield to
Mr. Lantos if he wants to pursue questions at this point, and, go
on to other Members.

Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much. I want to discuss this prom-
ised letter from Mr. Burton. I'd advised that there was a discussion
between your attorney and the majority’s attorney during the


_—

ALERT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

is
1401 Brickell Avenue
‘Suite 570
P.O. Box 011390
Miamit, FL 33101 U.S.A.
Fax: 308-530-9434
Phone: 305-530-0500

FAX #: YOP-SYl- BIB FE _ Numrercttys__¢

DATE: G-16-P Qn



15

3 RER/

nes ra Velsaceia
THE INTERIRIONAL GAN GF MIAMI, BA
TOR me 2

By ey en
32 Baebele.due Tie
avant

ilar.



4

of instructions that Mr. Intriago faxed to Jorge Castro on how to
make these illegal contributions. It details to whom to make the
contributions, and for how much. We will hear testimony from
Jorge Castro that Mr. Intriago called him to change the instruc-
tions, to take one State off the list and put another State on the
list. It is clear that Mr. Intriago was acting as a go-between for the
Castro family and the Democrat National Committee. It seems
clear that Mr. Intriago could inform us from whom he was getting
these instructions, and whether that person was aware that illegal
contributions were being made. Unfortunately, Mr. Intriago is not
talking. He has taken the fifth amendment. One more stone on
that wall.

What did the Castro family get for their money? They got a
meeting with a high-level State Department official, and other offi-
cials, to discuss money-laundering. They got to attend the Presi-
dent’s Inauguration. Apparently, Mr. Intriago was angling to be the
United States Ambassador to Venezuela. ‘Well, that at least didn’t

jappen.

It is clear that the only way the American people are going to
learn the truth is if we begin to immunize some of these witnesses
and compel their testimony. Last week we voted on immunity for
four important witnesses, a close business associate of Ted Sioeng,
two employees of Johnny Chung, and a political associate of Gene
and Nora Lum. In each case, the Justice Department was carefully
consulted. In each case, the Justice Department had no objection
to immunity. But in each case, every one of my Democrat col-
leagues voted against immunity. Immunity was blocked and the
witnesses will remain silent because of this obstruction.

My colleague, Mr. Waxman, has consistently attacked this inves-
tigation. He will tell you in a few minutes that I have run a par-
tisan investigation. He will say that I have abused my powers. Of
course, none of this is true, but apparently my colleagues on the
Democratic side voted against immunity to punish me. But the
truth is, their votes don’t punish me. When they block immunity,
they are punishing the American people who have a right to know
what happened. They have a right to know who broke the laws.
When you block immunity, and you don’t allow witnesses to testify,
you keep the truth from the American people.

Now my colleague, Mr. Waxman, thinks I have my mind made
up. He does not think I’m objective, and that’s fine. He has a right
to his opinion. But I don’t think the American people have their
minds made up. Let’s let them hear the testimony of these wit-
nesses and make up their own mind. Blocking this testimony by
the Democrats only hurts the American people who we were sent
here to represent.

Ted Sioeng has been accused of being a Chinese agent. Is that
true? Kent La may be able to shed some light on this. Sioeng and
his family have given hundreds of thousands to both Democrats
and Republicans. This isn’t partisan. It affects both parties. Let’s
give Kent La immunity. The Justice Department doesn’t oppose it.
Let’s let the American people hear his testimony and make up
their own minds.

We have a lot of good people on this committee, both Republicans
and Democrats. I know that everyone, on both sides of this commit-


70

partment of acting improperly. But I see no evidence of that, and
they haven’t been given a chance to come in and be questioned
about it.

So, Mr. Castro, I appreciate your being here. I can understand
why you’re here. I have no criticism of your being here. Your state-
ments as to why you're here is you hope to get some benefit be-
cause you're being cooperative, and I appreciate that fact that you
are here and giving us this testimony.

But it just seems to me that this is a very odd hearing to be held
when the whole investigation had been trumpeted as one going
after the President of the United States, the Democratic party, et
cetera. Mr. Barr made the statement that it’s not unusual for peo-
ple in the administration not to do this or that. Mr. Intriago was
never part of this administration and I don’t think anyone ought
to be misled by that fact. He may or may not have broken the law.
There are a lot of other people who may or may not have and this
should be prosecuted if there’s enough of a case to win.

Mr. BuRTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Before I yield to
Mr. Cox, I’d like to take 5 minutes of my own.

Mr. Waxman well knows that we, when we started these, and
our protocol and our discussions, that our hearings were going to
involve campaign contributions—illegal campaign contributions—
all the way back to 1992. The committee’s investigation of subject
areas have always included the 1992 campaign and our deposition
authority specifically discusses the 1992 campaign. Key figures,
such as John Huang, the Riadys, Maria Hsia, and others, began
their donations in 1992. So, this is all baloney.

Now, in addition to that, let me just say that there’s a pattern
here that started back in 1992. This is just one manifestation, in
my opinion, of the funneling of illegal foreign campaign contribu-
tions into this country. We know the DNC had returned millions
of dollars and probably will return more. We know that Charlie
Trie, who’s been indicted, brought $700,000 in illegal contributions
to the President’s legal defense fund. So this is just baloney—that
this is something that we shouldn’t even be talking about.

We know that foreign contributions were funneled into this coun-
try. And we're establishing here today is it started in 1992. We
don’t know how pervasive it was, but we know it came from South
America, from Southeast Asia, and from all over the world. Any
place they could get a buck. And we've got 92 people that have ei-
ther taken the fifth or fled the country. A few have been immu-
nized and testified.

4 So, when they pooh-pooh this investigation, it bothers me a great
eal.

Now, you did say one thing, Mr. Waxman, that rings a bell with
me and rings true, and is of great concern to me. Did the Justice
Department do it’s job. Were they dust incompetent, or did the de-
liberately not pursue Mr. Intriago? They knew in the fall of 1996
that money laundering had taken place. It was referred to them by
the southern district of Florida Us. Attorney’s Office. In May, it
was then sent to the Public Integrity Section, before the statute of
limitations had run out. And yet, they didn’t do anything. It was
tied up with a bow around and given to them, and they didn’t do
a thing. They didn’t even talk to Mr. Intriago, and he was a friend


25

[Ban OF MAM MA

oS ;
ROB7001699: 3003505 —s sono00?,



ll

Mr. BENNETT. And in fact your grandfather, Orlando Castro
Llanes, and your uncle, Orlando Castro Castro, were convicted with
you in connection with the administration of a bank in Puerto Rico,
is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And your incarceration now is for bank fraud and
larceny, is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And, indeed, you were prosecuted by the office of
New York City District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Representa-
tives of his office are here today and will testify later. Is either
your grandfather or your uncle, those individuals with whom you
were convicted, is either one of those gentlemen an American citi-
zens

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, they’re not.

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to your cooperation with the
committee, you understand that your cooperation with State and
Federal authorities is apparently including cooperation with re-
spect to your testimony as to political contributions of foreign
money in 1992, is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And, again, Mr. Castro, as you’ve noted in your
statement, and Mr. Chairman, as chief counsel for the committee
and for Congressman Waxman, as the ranking minority member,
I would just note, Mr. Castro, that you have been advised that the
chairman of this committee, with a copy to Congressman Waxman,
will write a letter on your behalf to the appropriate officials when
notified by your attorney at the appropriate time, do you under-
stand that?

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. I do understand.

Mr. BENNETT. And for the record, I’m sorry, Mr. Austin
Campriello, from the State of New York, is here as your defense
counsel. Mr. Campriello, welcome, sir.

With respect to Mr. Intriago, the Miami attorney whom you just
mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Castro, what relation-
ship did Mr. Intriago have with your family, the Castro family?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Mr. Intriago, for many years, besides
being the legal adviser family, he was the person in the United
States that was always asked in every business transaction to re-
peat advice that we ever had.

Mr. BENNETT. And I understand that your grandfather is pres-
ently incarcerated in a New York State prison, but prior to his con-
viction and incarceration, he was, in fact, a resident and citizen of
Venezuela, is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And what about your uncle, was he Venezuelan or
Puerto Rican in his residence?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Venezuelan.

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to your own citizenship, you
have dual-citizenship, sir?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I’m a USS. citizen. I was born in
Miami, and I’ve always been a U.S. citizen.

Mr. BENNETT. But with respect to your dealings with Mr.
Intriago, where were you residing at the time, or where were you




99

nally got this fellow in a safe prison so he wouldn’t be stabbed or
hurt when he testified.”

Well, it may be accurate, but part of it’s not. First of all, I guess
it wasn’t $50,000. We have no evidence it was drug money. It
sounds like the implication of that is that he’s about to be assas-
sinated for courageously coming before this committee when, in
fact, the only evidence we have is that he feared for his safety be-
cause nobody likes anybody in prison to cooperate with law enforce-
ment whatsoever. So maybe that’s technically accurate, but I think
the impression is that something more is there than the reality of
it.

it.

I yield back to you, and thank you for letting me object to that.

Mr. BARRETT. Again, I guess just to sort of get your view on this,
do you have confidence that the Justice Department is doing its job
adequately?

Mr. Dawson. Throughout the United States? Absolutely.

Mr. BarreETT. In this instance.

Mr. PREIss. Don’t know.

Mr. Dawson. I can’t answer that question because I don’t know.
All I know is, and I believe all Mr. Preiss knows is, we gave them
a witness, we gave them the documents. That’s it as far as we're
concerned. We gave them a lead, a very, very good lead, and what
they chose to do with it is their business, not ours.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. Were you surprised that you were asked to
come up here?

Mr. Dawson. I was.

Mr. Preiss. I was, too. I thought that when we spoke to the ma-
jority staff and minority staff that that would be it. I mean, I have
to tell you that this is the last place I ever expected to be.

Mr. BARRETT. It’s a beautiful day.

Mr. Preiss. I wouldn’t know; I’ve been in here all day.

Mr. BaRRETT. Well, I think—and maybe you were here earlier;
I was commenting about the state of this committee—I think you
can see what a cutting edge discussion this is by the number of
people who are in attendance here, that this committee just, frank-
ly, isn’t taken particularly seriously.

I yield back to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our
time.

Mr. BurTON. I will take 5 minutes briefly, and then I'll yield to
counsel for his 10 minutes. Did you want to speak? Well, why don’t
T yield to you right now then, Mr. Horn.

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’ve enjoyed your testimony today. You’re obviously professional
prosecutors and the way I read it is, while its the Federal Govern-
ment prosecutors’ problem, you felt you were doing the best you
could to give them a case, really on a platter. There was the wit-
ness, there was the evidence, and all the rest and, in a sense, they
blew it because they didn’t act within a time period, at least under
what was thought to be the time period at that time.

Now whether they’re doing anything now, none of us know. We'll
eventually find out, but I take it you weren't exactly happy with
your hard work and the time you spent. I don’t know if you flew
to Miami, did you? Or did you just talk to them on the phone?


92

and I wish they would bring the charges if they’re going to bring
them. But if I ask the Justice Department what they’re doing, their
response is, “We're investigating.”

Mr. Dawson. Right.

Mr. WaxMaN. And evidently they are still investigating because
they haven’t said that they have closed the case.

ir. DAWSON. In your case or in this case?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, in the tobacco case.

Mr. Dawson. OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. And as I asked you earlier, they haven’t made any
announcements that they closed an investigation in this case.

Mr. Dawson. Right. All they've said is they don’t want to use a
certain witness.

Mr. WaxMaN. And there appears to be a good reason that the
Justice Department would want to be cautious, and they don’t
want to make accusations that are not supported by the evidence.
So they may look at this case as coming down to one person’s word
against another, and that’s awfully tough to bring, isn’t it?

Mr. PREISS. Well—.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m not confronting you, I’m just speculating with
you.

Mr. PREIss. Oh, if you’re speculating then you're not asking me
a question, so—

Mr. WaxMaN. I’m speculating with you because I don’t know and
you don’t know what's going on in the Justice Department.

Mr. PREIsS. I think we can agree that you and I don’t know what
is going on in the Justice Department. At least I can agree that I
don’t. it you know, I don’t know.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t know; I don’t know what’s happening. I
don’t know why they weren’t asked to come today, because actually
we could ask them directly as to what’s happening with their inves-
tigation. The chairman didn’t invite them, and he says he’s going
to invite them. I don’t know why we need another day of hearings
on that, but we don’t know what theories or charges the Justice
Department may be considering in this case, and that’s where
things stand.

But I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions. When you
talked to Mr. Castro early on, and he talked about Mr. Intriago,
was he hostile about Mr. Intriago?

Mr. PREIss. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. You didn’t see it?

Mr. PREIss. No.

Mr. Dawson. No; in fact it came out only a bit later, probably
in the second, maybe the third time that we spoke to him, that I
got the definite impression that he didn’t like him. As he said, he
didn’t like him professionally; he liked him personally, as far as I
could tell.

Mr. Preiss. He didn’t express any hostility toward Mr. Intriago
on a personal level. I think he—I remember him saying one thing
along the lines of he charged a lot of money but didn’t do very
much. He charged his grandfather a lot of money but didn’t do very
much, and that’s probably —

Mr. Waxman. It sounds like that’s what his grandfather thought
about him.


12

when Mr. Intriago contacted you—and I'll get into more detail in
a minute?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. I lived in the Dominican Republic. I was

approximately 10 years old.

ir. BENNETT. And with respect to Mr. Intriago’s representation
of your grandfather’s business interests, where are those business
interests?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Can you repeat that?

Mr. BENNETT. With respect to Mr. Intriago’s representation of
your frandfather, Orlando Castro, where are his business inter-
ests? They are in Venezuela, is that correct?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And in Puerto Rico?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. And the Dominican Republic.

Mr. BENNETT. And is it safe to say that he handled all legal mat-
ters, Mr. Intriago, handled all legal matters for your grandfather
in the United States?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. With respect to your own political involvements,
you’re here before this congressional committee testifying to illegal
foreign campaign contributions in the 1992 Presidential election.
As to your own political involvement, have you been politically ac-
tive yourself, sir?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Not in the United States, no. .

Mr. BENNETT. Have you ever made any political contributions in
the United States prior to 1992, when requested by Mr. Intriago?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I have not.

Mr. BENNETT. Have you made any political contributions since?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I have not. :

Mr. BENNETT. In terms of your own personal financial situation
in 1992, were you in a financial position to make contributions to-
taling $25,000 in September 1992?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I was.

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to those contributions, again,
we'll get into more detail later, but you were, in fact, reimbursed
by a Venezuelan company immediately by your grandfather, cor-
rect?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That's correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Do you have any particular interest in politics,
apart from the fact that you haven’t been a contributor, have you
been active politically in the American political process?

Mr. CASTRO BaRREDO. Not in the American political process, no.

Mr. BENNETT. Have you ever voted in an election in the United
States?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, I have not.

Mr. BENNETT. Directing your attention to 1992, you did, in fact,
write checks out to the Democratic National Committee and you
were reimbursed by your grandfather with respect to those con-
tributions. When and how quickly did you determine that you were
going to be reimbursed for your contributions?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I knew it beforehand.

Mr. BENNETT. It was even before you wrote the checks out, you
knew you were going to be reimbursed?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.


98

Mr. BurTOoN. I wanted to answer your question. It’s the position
of the Chair that there should have been a thorough investigation
of the whole matter, and Justice was given ample time to look into
it and they chose not to, and the statute ran. That was my concern
and still is my concern. Why didn’t Justice followup on this? Why
didn’t they have a complete investigation?

Mr. BARRETT. Well, if I may reclaim my time.

Mr. BuRTON. Sure.

Mr. BarreETT. They did look into it. They did interview people in
Florida, and I am not convinced that this is the question I'll have
if the Justice Department is here—that they haven’t completed it.
I find it somewhat ironic when I sort of juxtapose this with the
Whitewater grand jury that’s now been meeting for 4 years—and
talk about the speed with which one has to complete an investiga-
tion—that there’s criticism here that it hasn’t been completed, and
we're now 4 years down in Little Rock and we haven’t completed
that. So, again, what I’m asking you, and I’m just-—

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Barrett. I would yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. The crux of the matter is whether the chairman
is correct that the Justice Department is not acting properly. That’s
his accusation. It’s just so peculiar to have an accusation like that
which he has not been able to establish except to allege, and then
not have the Justice Department here to tell us what they’re doing.

We know that they’ve sent FBI agents to talk to Mr. Intriago and
his former assistant, Wendy Brown. We know that they've done
that. We know that they’ve asked the chairman not to give immu-
nity to Mr. Intriago. We understand, I think, from them—at least
I have it on my notes—that they say that they’ve also interviewed
members of the Castro family and that they are proceeding. They
haven't closed this case as far as we know. So, it’s just so peculiar
that we have this hearing on this issue, especially when we are
told that what this investigation is all about is massive funneling
of money from China to influence American foreign policy.

Even if we acknowledge in this case that there was Venezuelan
money improperly brought into a fund to reimburse a contribution
to the Democratic party, there’s no evidence that the Democratic
party knew anything about it. There’s no evidence that even, cer-
tainly, that the President would have known about it.

And we’ve heard a couple of statements. We’ve heard that Mr.
Intriago is a friend of Vice President Gore. There’s no evidence to
support that accusation. That was a statement the chairman made.
Another Republican member said Mr. Intriago is a part of the ad-
ministration. Well, I guess he was in the late sixties, early seven-
ties, but what does that have to do with it when he’s in private
practice in the 1990's?

And then of course—I’m going to read the chairman’s statement
in the Larry King Live show last night. He was asked whether his
investigation was in disarray:

“Burton: It is not in disarray. We’re moving ahead. Tomorrow
we're going to have a hearing. We're bringing in a fellow who
laundered $50,000 from Venezuela. We think part of it might have
been drug money. Mr. Morgenthau, the district attorney in New
York, a Democrat, referred some of this information to us. We fi-


103

Mr. BarreETT. Given what you've said about the statute of limita-
tions, would you be surprised now if there was any indictment aris-
ing out of this case?

Mr. DAWSON. Well, in one sense, yes. Because if, in fact, as I be-
lieve some Members have speculated, if, in fact, the potential de-
fendant were to be Mr. Intriago, the witness who had direct con-
versations with Mr. Intriago has now been sentenced, and has little
incentive to cooperative, I imagine.

Mr. BaRRETT. Other than getting out of jail?

Mr. PREIss. Well, no, I mean, you have to understand that it’s
standard operating procedure among prosecutors that, if you’ve got
a cooperating witness, the last thing you want is to have him sen-
tenced before he’s finished testifying completely, not just in a grand
jury, but a trial or any trials that he’s going to be testifying, and
only then, after then, would you want him to be sentenced.

Mr. Dawson. And in New York it’s actually a little more—in
New York we don’t have a rule 35. I don’t know if you’re familiar
with it. We can’t get a reduction of sentence after sentencing. In
New York, once you’re sentenced, you are sentenced; there’s a stat-
ute that says the sentence shall not be changed, period.

Mr. BarRETT. Do you know whether that rule applies in the Fed-
eral sentencing of Mr. Castro? Or——

Mr. Dawson. There is no Federal sentencing of Mr. Castro.

Mr. BARRETT. Oh, OK.

Mr. Dawson. It’s a State case, so, in other words, rule 35 would
not apply, and once he’s sentenced, his sentence can’t be changed.
So you’d want him to testify before he’s sentenced.

Mr. BarrETT. I understand.

Mr. Waxman, I don’t know if you—if not, I would yield back
my—Mr. Waxman, I yield to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. You're saying that you don’t think there could be
a prosecution because Mr. Castro might not testify?

Mr. Dawson. No. The question was whether I would be sur-
prised.

Mr. Waxman. Uh-huh.

Mr. Dawson. And the answer was, if Mr. Intriago were to be a
potential defendant, I would be surprised because whoever’s the
Federal prosecutor will have waived his right, basically, to have
Mr. Castro testify against this potential defendant. Of course, all
of this is speculative. I don’t know if there will be a prosecution——

Mr. PrEIss. We're telling you—we’re telling you what our experi-
ence is. Our experience is that, if you’ve got a cooperating witness,
the last thing you want is to have that cooperating witness sen-
tenced before he gives the evidence in trial.

Mr. WAXMAN. The cooperating witness you're talking about was
Mr. Castro that testified —

Mr. PREISS. Any cooperating witness.

Mr. WAXMAN. But, in this case, it would have to be Mr. Castro.

Mr. PREISS. Yes. That’s—when he asked, when the gentleman
asked, were you—would you be surprised, that’s what we were re-
sponding to. We were assuming he was talking about Mr. Castro.

Mr. Waxman. Mr. Castro testified this morning in a way that
seemed to incriminate others in sending foreign money through to


66

become the growth industry of the 1990s. The
newsletter has 1,600 subscribers at $345 a year.

3's petersberg Timer, 10/20/97. “Intriago launched the publication in 1989 while
working full time as a civil litigator in a Mlami law firm. Working nights and on
weekends, he and his legal secretary combed wire service reports, contacted
rovernment sources for Inside tips and researched legal cases dealing with money
laundering. Six months after the first issue, Intriago quit his law practice to work
full time on the newsletter.” Flerde Trend, 7/1/95.

walt Srreet Journal, 12/18/97.

Siam Herald, 2/21/98.


72

eral Account, to the Maryland Victory Fund Federal Account, and
so on. This is all in Intriago’s handwriting, is that right?

[NoTE.—Exhibit VEN-3 may be found on p. 20.]

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. It could have been his or his secretary. ’'m
not quite——

Mr. Cox. But there’s no question that he sent you the memo, and
he gave you these directions?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. Now at the time that you were writing these checks in
response to his instructions, was it your understanding that you
would be reimbursed?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. And why did you think that? Why did you think you’d
be reimbursed? What gave you the idea?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Because if not, I would have—I wouldn’t
have given the money out.

Mr. Cox. And did your understanding arise from conversations
with Intriago?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. So he made it clear to you that you would be reim-
bursed?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. And did he give you any indication from whom the re-
imbursement would come?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. It was going to come from one my family’s
group companies in Venezuela.

Mr. Cox. So it would be overseas money?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. Now when you made all of this information available
to the DA in New York, what did he do with it?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I didn’t make it available to them. It was
part of their investigation. They made it available to us.

Mr. Cox. I see. Did you end up having your bank account infor-
mation turned over the DA?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. They had it all.

Mr. Cox. They had it all. So they had bank account information,
they had banking records.

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. Since I was 9 years old—every bank ac-
count I’ve ever owned.

Mr. Cox. OK, and that included all of the bank records that
would be necessary to corroborate all this check writing, right?

Mr. Castro BaRREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Cox. And according to the documents that we have here, at
your sentencing, a judge of the New York Supreme Court said, “It
appears as if a corroborated prosecution of political contributions
that were illegal was provided to the United States Department of
Justice, and there’s nothing to show for it.” Is it your understand-
ing that Judge McLaughlin felt that he saw evidence of a crime
from what he said?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Cox. And so we have all of this information provided by the
DA in New York, who apparently believed there’s evidence of a
crime. The judge of the New York Supreme Court thinks there’s


17

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. That’s correct, that’s correct.

Mr. BENNETT. And then VEN-16 contains a copy of another to
the Ohio Victory Fund for $5,000, do you see that?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. How quickly were you to be reimbursed for these
checks?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. How——

Mr. BENNETT. How quickly were you to be reimbursed for these
checks?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I actually wasn’t given a time span be-
cause I had the money, I had money in my account, or, if not, I
wasn’t going to starve if I didn’t receive the money immediately.
But I was promised and told that I was going to be reimbursed. It
wasn't going to come out of my personal account.

Mr. BENNETT. Did you take—you mentioned a fax communication
and taking steps to make sure you had the instructions, correct?

Mr. CasTRO BarREDO. Correct.

Mr. BENNETT. Looking at VEN-2, exhibit VEN-2, is that, in fact,
a copy of the fax communication which you received from Mr.
Intriago?

[Exhibit VEN-2 follows:]


100

Mr. PREISS. Well, the first—an assistant district attorney in our

office—not one of us—went to Miami and met with the Federal
rosecutor in the southern district of Florida in the fall of 1996. We
aven’t been to Florida on this case.

Mr. Dawson. Well, no, that’s not true.

Mr. PREIss. I haven’t. Excuse me; I have not.

Mr. Dawson. I had to fly to Florida to—I appeared in connection
with the extradition.

Mr. Horn. Did you talk to the person that the other member of
the staff had talked to?

Mr. Dawson. No; this was long before we referred the matter.

Mr. Horn. Who was the Assistant U.S. Attorney to whom you
talked?

Mr. Dawson. The one that I spoke to was Dick Gregorie of the
southern district of Florida.

Mr. PREIss. That’s the gentleman that I spoke to on the phone
down there, but there was a second Assistant U.S. Attorney as
well.

Mr. Horn. Afterward?

Mr. Preiss. Afterward.

Mr. Horn. That was——

Mr. PREISS. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who came up and inter-
viewed Mr. Castro with two other AUSA’s from the southern dis-
trict of New York was a gentleman by the name of Bruce Udolf.

Mr. Horn. How do you spell the last name, do you think?

Mr. Preiss. I think it’s U-D-O-L-F.

Mr. Horn. U-D-O-L-F. Now in the case of the southern district
in New York, you probably have very well-known contacts there in
the U.S. Attorney’s office because of the joint jurisdiction matters.
When you have a case like this, how do you go about finding the
right Person in the U.S. Attorney’s office who might have an inter-
est in it?

Mr. Dawson. We don’t assign particular Assistant U.S. Attorneys
to matters. We refer matters, and then an Assistant U.S. Attorney
contacts us or we’re given a name.

Mr. Horn. And you just send it over to the U.S. Attorney and
say, “We'd like to talk to somebody that knows something about
this.”

Mr. PREISS. We don’t—when you say “you”, if something like this
is going to be referred out of the office, it’s not a decision that Mr.
Dawson or I would make. It’s a decision that would be made by our
superiors. In this case, the first assistant D.A. that I was telling
you about who actually went down to Florida?

Mr. Horn. Right.

Mr. Preiss. He’s a member of the executive staff of the district
attorney. He’s the one who actually referred the case.

Mr. Horn. Would that case ever rise to Mr. Morgenthav’s level,
that was handled by the first assistant?

Mr. Dawson. No, the gentleman that Richard was just referring
to is not the first assistant; he meant first in terms of the first one
to talk to someone.

Mr. Horn. I see. But he’s a supervisor, obviously

Mr. PrEtss. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn [continuing]. In the hierarchy.


22

Beskgsdeggsreoret!:

+ Aeoateas



ALERT
International, Ine.

Daishe
Maney oon Ne
Ca A ge

Leta

101 Sch ame
Mi, Hon 2137

roy Atos
‘aon tend 93101

3055200300
fac os soeue

51

December 2, 1992
Mr. Ronalé Brown

Chsirman

Democratic National Committee

430 South Capital Steet, SE.

Washington D.C. 20003,

Dear Roa:

Just a brief note to tell you tha I enjoyed mesting you during the eampaiga
in Linde Rock and Middleburg. Apparently, Iam oow a “trustee” of the DNC, and
am looking forward to assisting in any way I can

So that you will know a litle more about me, } enclose a couple of receat
Issues of my publication, Money Laundering Alert, together with some backgrouod
information. I think this is an issue on which President Clinton can make some
headway in dealing with the drug and white collar crime probleras.

‘ook forward to seeing you s000. Best regards

aks

if DNC 1359488



96

that because the date of the fax was what it was that that would
be the cutoff. Arguably you could say that until the checks were ac-
tually paid, when the funds were actually drawn out of the ac-
counts, arguably that may have been October. But in the conversa-
tions I had with the Assistant U.S. Attorney from the southern dis-
trict of Florida, we never discussed tolling provisions. It never came
up, and frankly I don’t know if there would have been any reason
for it to come up.

Mr. Barrett. OK, but is it possible that the Justice Department
here looking at the case might take a different interpretation, even
though it wasn’t something that was discussed by the Assistant
U.S. Attorney in Florida?

Mr. PREISS. You should probably ask them. I don’t know. I mean,
you should ask them.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. Who would have been the likely target of an
indictment here?

Mr. PREISS. You should ask them.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, there are obvious targets. There is Mr. Cas-
tro—he would be a part of a money-laundering conspiracy—his
grandfather, his aunt, right? These are people involved-—and Mr.
Intriago.

Mr. Dawson. Well, I don’t know if I’d call it a money-laundering
conspiracy. I don’t know if the election violation is a predicate act
for purposes of that statute. The problem is we're not Federal pros-
ecutors, so we're not in a position to really opine for you what the
state of Federal law is.

Mr. BarRRETT. If I may, Mr. Chairman, to let you know what I’m
driving at. If Mr. Intriago was——

Mr. Dawson. Intriago.

Mr. BARRETT. Intriago—thank you—was a likely defendant, or
person who could be indicted, I read the letter that we received, or
that I’ve got a copy of here—April 16th—saying that the Justice
Department does not want immunity given to him, I read that as
saying that he is still someone that the Justice Department is look-
ing at. Am I reading that incorrectly? What would be the—

Mr. Dawson. It’s one way to read it, certainly. I mean, that
would make sense to me, but what’s in their minds, I can’t testify
about that.

Mr. PREISS. And I can’t either because they’re the ones that have
to make these decisions. They're the ones that if they're thinking
about these things, maybe they can come in here and tell you or
maybe they can’t. I don’t know.

Mr. BaRRETT. OK. Well, again, I’m asking you to help me in the
sense that if the Justice Department—again, this is 2 weeks ago
today—told Mr. Bennett that it was opposed to granting immunity
to Mr, Intriago, am I incorrect in inferring that he may still be a
arget?

Mr. Dawson. I think that what you have to recognize is that we
referred two matters to two different offices. We referred the cam-
paign matter to the southern district of Florida, and we referred
other matters to the southern district of New York. I don’t know
what’s happening in the southern district of New York. Perhaps
the immunity letter relates to that; I don’t know. Again, you’d have
to asl lem.


34

Mr. Waxman. Did he ever ask you to write checks for any other
purpose?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No.

Mr. Waxman. For business purposes?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No, but I did give him $100,000 about a
year afterwards, and I do have that fax somewhere and my attor-
ney probably has it. I gave him $100,000 that was instructed by
my grandfather directly for personal purposes, so it was nothing
out of this world.

Mr. WaxMaN. Mr. Chairman, I want to put in the record a letter
from Robert Plotkin, from the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky,
& Walker. They represent Charles Intriago. It’s a letter to you and

e says,

Dear Chairman Burton, I’m counsel to Charles Intriago. According to press re-
leases issued by the Committee as well as news reports and editorials, the Commit-
tee’s hearing on April 30, 1998, will accuse my client of campaign law violations,
charges that he vigorously denies.

This letter, and there is a statement attached to it from Mr.
[ntriago’s lawyers, says Mr. Intriago denies the allegations against

im.
[The letter referred to follows:]


18

EXHIBIT

ALERT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

¢
"1401 Brickell Avenue
Suite 570 -

P.O, Box 011390
Miami, FL 33101 U.S.A.
Fax: 305-530-9434
Phone: 305-530-0500

FAX #: YOP-SY/- 3/3 F _vunrerotta |

DATE: F-[6-F.2 {including cover sheet)
To: Pu. Sage Cot.
AFFILIATION:

FROM: . a Aliage :
COMMENT: , : * Qaske “

20 - DNC Vids, FI 92a Dead. — a)
hue! Litt Aol Ce fal, oct! yes)



62

find truth here. This is simply an attempt to try to throw as much
mud at the President of the United States as possible. Now that
doesn’t even go into the merits of the immunity.

Mr. Kanjorski was asking whether there had been proffers of tes-
timony. Maybe some people prior to this year didn’t know what a
proffer was, but we all know from the Starr investigation of Miss
Lewinsky, what a proffer is. And there really hasn’t been any prof-
fers, as least as far as I can tell. And in the immunity that we
granted last fall, one of the witnesses it appeared obviously should
not have received immunity.

Granting immunity is not something where you're voting to pass
a bill or not pass a bill, or to designate a stamp or something.
You're telling someone, legally you're off the hook, that whatever
you say, whatever you've done, you’re off the hook. I don’t take that
lightly. That to me is not a vote on a bill. That to me is whether
someone who has committed injustice against our society should be
allowed to walk.

I don’t think that this committee has shown the credibility, the
maturity, or the integrity to grant those types of motions. And for
that reason, it was a very comfortable vote. I’ll do it again when
it comes up next week. And I think that if this Congress is serious
about having a professional investigation, it’s got to be done some-
where else, because this committee has shown time and time again
it’s unable to do so. And that is why you've had professionals from
that side of the aisle—Republicans, good Republicans—who have
left the staff. They can’t take it. You have to have integrity. And
I don’t think that this committee has it and for that reason, again,
Tm very, very comfortable with my actions.

I yield back to Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KucINIcH. Yield back.

Mr. BurTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Snowbarger.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to yield time to Rep-
resentative Horn.

Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Castro, in the examina-
tion by our general counsel, Mr. Bennett, you reviewed and said
yes to which donations were made and how you’d been asked by

ir. Intriago so forth and that you’re aunt Maria Castro contrib-
uted $20,000 to the DNC Victory Fund. Now, what I want to get
to, after all that has been admitted, did anyone from the U.S. De-
partment of Justice, such as say the U.S. Attorney perhaps in the
southern district of Florida, contact you regarding any of these con-
tributions that were made by you or your aunt? Did any of them
come to interview you or ask any questions about it?

Mr. CasSTRO BARREDO. I had a meeting in the district attorney’s
office—the members of this committee spoke with me. I think they
were from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Florida and New York.

Mr. Horn. So you were interviewed. What interests me is even-
tually it was determined that there was no further role to play in
the investigation. Is that correct?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Horn. Do you remember who at Justice contacted you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No, I don’t remember that. There was a
letter written to the sentencing judge by that person.


5

tee, have been shocked by some of things that have happened dur-
ing the last election. I think everyone wants the truth to come out.

if you don’t like me or if you don’t like my style, that’s fine. I’ll
accept that. But you’re not punishing me, you're punishing the
American people who have a right to know. We're going to vote on
immunity for these same witnesses again next week, and I hope ev-
eryone on the committee will think long and hard about their vote
over the weekend.

Returning to today’s hearing, I would like to welcome our wit-
nesses. Mr. Castro will provide a firsthand account of how these
contributions were made and why. We have two prosecutors from
the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. These two gentlemen
were involved in prosecuting the Castro case, and they were the
people who were in communication with the Justice Department.

Welcome, Mr. Castro, I’m glad you're here. Before we hear from
you, we will now hear from Mr. Waxman, the ranking minority
member.

Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to clarify the
record on a couple of points about this investigation. At our last
hearing on March 31, P reminded you that your investigation has
already cost $6 million of taxpayer’s money. You disputed that
number, and agreed to provide a full accounting of the funds spent
by the majority on this investigation by April 3. It’s now 4 weeks
later, and you still haven't provided that accounting. Mr. Chair-
man, the public does have a right to know all the information, es-
pecially how their dollars are being spent. This is already going to

e the most expensive congressional investigation in history, and
one that has produced the least amount of new information. I,
again, ask you to provide to the minority, and to the public, a pre-
cise audit of all the tax dollars you’ve spent on this investigation
since November 1996.

Mr. Chairman, by not Providing that information, you’re punish-
ing the American le. Will you provide it to us?

Mr. Burton. I think it’s already a matter of pubic record, but I'll
make sure that you get a complete accounting of the expenses.

Mr. WAXMAN. you very much, Mr. Chairman. You've also
made it clear that you’re intentionally violating the committee’s
rules and releasing transcripts and/or reportings of conversations
that Webb Hubbell had with people on the telephone while he was
in prison. It is also clear, however, when we read the newspapers
that your staff, or you, told reporters that you haven't yet released
the most relevant and detailed tapes.

Coincidentally, there’s a tape that contains some exculpatory in-
formation regarding Mr. Hubbell and does have specific informa-
tion that relates to this committee’s investigation. Our serious ob-
jections to releasing the tapes is that most of these tapes, 99 per-
cent of them, have nothing to do with this committee’s investiga-
tion. They’re personal. ‘Theyre private conversations, in many
cases, intimate conversations that Mr. Hubbell was having with his
wife. I’m offended at the idea that they would be released. I think
it’s inconsistent with the rules for the chairman to release those
tapes. I think they should be reviewed by the committee, and by
our working group on document disclosure. But, Mr. Chairman, if
you’re going to be releasing tapes, I hope you'll release the tran-


94

matter is that that should be pursued no matter where it may have
come from, and my complaint with this investigation is I don’t hear
anybody talking about foreign contributions that might have come
to Republicans.

The chairman said most of them would be to Democrats. Well,
I can’t accept that. We know about a couple of examples. We know
that Haley Barbour, who was head of the Republican National
Committee solicited a contribution from a foreign national by the
name of Ambrous Young. There was the case of Mr. Thomas Kra-
mer, who gave to the Republican party in Miami.

I believe that there are illegal campaign contributions that go on
in elections, and I don’t like it. I want to reform this whole cam-
paign finance system. But I can’t understand why anybody would
reach the conclusion that if you’re going to investigate foreign con-
tributions it ought to only be with respect to Democrats.

There are Members of Congress that receive contributions be-
cause of their activities on foreign policy issues, and they could ad-
vocate the cause of Pakistan or Cuba or some other country, and
they may receive contributions from, presumably, Americans, who
support that point of view, but they don’t know for sure if they re-
ceive a contribution that it came from an American citizen; it could
have been laundered. Well, there’s no way you would know unless
you did know, but there’s just no way that a Member of Congress
would know it, and it doesn’t appear there’s any way the President
or the Democratic party would ow from the face of having re-
ceived that contribution from Mr. Castro.

I thank you for your testimony. I think you’ve been giving us
your views, and I want to yield some time to Mr. Barrett to pursue
any questions he may have.

Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. One of the discussions
earlier today that I think someone would be concerned with is the
whole issue of the statute of limitations, and I think, Mr. Preiss,
you spent more time talking about the statute of limitations. Help
me with it. It’s my understanding that there is a 5-year statute of
limitations on the illegal contributions. Is that correct?

Mr. PREIss. No.

Mr. Dawson. No, that’s wrong. It’s a 3-year statute.

Mr. PREISS. We looked it up.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. So how did that 5-year statute—when you
looked it up, you looked it up just now, or you looked it up?

Mr. PREISS. We looked it up before, but, actually, I think Mr.
Dawson is in a better position to answer your question——

Mr. BaRRETT. OK; whatever.

Mr. PREIss [continuing]. Since he actually did some of the legal
research on this, more of this than I did.

Mr. Dawson. Actually this relates to something that someone
had asked earlier about a conversation with one of the U.S. Attor-
neys in Florida, I believe—my first conversation. We had discussed
all of this—what you had just raised. My concern when I spoke to
him was that this is in fact a 3-year statute, and, therefore, before
T even found this fax in the Dominican Republic the statute would
have been blown—or run.

I also did some research, though, and the law seems to be that,
yes, this is a 3-year statute, but one can prosecute under the gen-


39

Mr. WAXMAN. But you don’t admit that you took bank money and
used it for your yacht, your jet, and other luxuries. Do you deny
it?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. It goes further than that. It is more com-
plicated than just accepting that that was done. But that was what
the indictment originally was brought up by the Manhattan pros-
ecutors, and I was convicted of it.

Mr. WaxMaN. But you were convicted of it.

Mr. CasTRO BaRREDO. Yes.

Mr. WaxMaNn. And you can’t be tried again on the same offense,
so don’t worry about what you say, but what I want to know is did
you take money from the bank and use it for your own personal
purposes?

Mr. CasSTRO BARREDO. Yes. Let’s just say yes.

Mr. WaxMAN. All right. Mr. Castro, we spoke to your grand-
father’s attorney who told us that your grandfather fired you when
he found out that you had been stealing from the bank. He also
told us that you blamed this on Mr. Intriago because it was Mr.
Intriago who showed your grandfather the audit that proved that
you had been using the bank’s deposits for these personal luxuries.

Would you like to respond to that?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO That I would be blaming Mr. Intriago for
what? For this?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, he said that you blamed Mr. Intriago for
your grandfather firing you when you were 25 years old, president
of the bank, and using bank money for your luxuries.

Mr. CasSTRO BARREDO. I don’t blame Mr. Intriago for anything
that was ever done. I didn’t like him professionally, that I would
admit, but I wouldn’t blame him for anything.

Mr. WaxMaN. You're not hostile to him because your grandfather
fired you?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. No, of course not. I don’t think he had
anything to do with it.

Mr. WAXMAN. You talked to the staff of our committee and you
told the committee staff, at least I understand that you did, you
didn’t really care for Mr. Intriago. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I’m sorry. Can you——

Mr. WaxMan. Did you tell the staff when they interviewed you
that you didn’t care for Mr. Intriago?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No. I never did. Professionally. I was
friends with him. We had Marlin tickets together in the baseball
stadium. We had dinner once in a while, but professionally I don’t
think he was worth what he was selling to my grandfather and my
family.

Mr. WaxMAN. Your grandfather’s attorney suggested that you
may be implicating Mr. Intriago as a way to get even. What do you
respond to that?

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. Get even with him? To get even with
Charlie? I have nothing against him. I don’t have to get even with
him or anybody. So it’s not a personal, it’s not a personal thing be-
tween him or any other person that I can think of.

Mr. Waxman. After you were convicted of the bank charges——

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. Right. .


101

Mr. Preiss. That’s correct. He’s the supervisor. He’s the deputy
chief of the investigations division. He was the person who made
the referral, and I suspect he consulted with people above him be-
fore he did that.

Mr. Horn. Yes. And I know you've got a big office. It’s probably
one of the largest law offices in America, isn’t it?

Mr. PREIss. It’s pretty big.

Mr. Horn. What is it—1,000 people?

Mr. PREISS. There’s at any time between 550 and 600 assistant
D.A’s, give or take a few.

Mr. Horn. Plus support staff.

Mr. PREISS. Plus support staff.

Mr. Horn. And Mr. Morgenthau’s reputation is well known for
a man of integrity, so 1 appreciate you doing all of this. But when
you deal with the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, do you have
some well-worn contacts or was this person that discussed it with
you a new face to you?

Mr. Dawson. I don’t mean any disrespect, but the matter that
we referred to the southern district of New York, for all I know,
is still ongoing, so I'd prefer not to really discuss it.

Mr. Horn. OK, that’s fine.

Mr. PREISS. And it’s not related to what we’ve been asked about
and what I’ve listened to today since I’ve been in attendance. It has
nothing to do with that as far as I know.

Mr. Horn. OK. Was there any evidence in this case of conduit,
that we saw the checks this morning on, where New York would
have any jurisdiction in the U.S. Attorney’s office since they were
involved in bank fraud and everything else?

Mr. PREISS. Do you mean the U.S. Attorney in the southern dis-
trict of New York?

Mr. Horn. Yes. Would they have any cause for jurisdiction of
this case?

Mr. Dawson. There are various ways to look at jurisdiction. In
fact, when we did the Castro case in the first place we, as New
York prosecutors—New York State prosecutors—were asked _fre-
quently, why are New York State prosecutors prosecuting Ven-
ezuelan bankers in connection with a fraud in a Puerto Rican
bank? The bottom line is that New York is basically the financial
capital of the world, and a lot of transactions go through New York.

‘Now you know from some of the evidence that’s been supplied to
you in the documents that some of these transactions went through
Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. Whether someone could par-
lay that into a jurisdictional basis for proceeding in the southern
district of New York is again something that you’d have to ask the
Federal prosecutors.

Mr. Horn. And now the Public Integrity Section, you didn’t have
much luck with them, as I understand it. Was that just not return-
ing phone calls or did you ever get a human being that could make
a decision on it?

Mr. PREIsS. Well, to this day, I do not know how the Public In-
tegrity Section and the Campaign Finance Task Force inside the
Department of Justice are connected, whether they are, whether
they aren’t. You would know more about that than I would.


42

course of your deposition with respect to that letter. And Mr. Ben-
nett assured your attorney that Mr. Burton will write a letter that
would facilitate your release. Were you present during that discus-
sion?

Mr. CAMPRIELLO. Excuse me. There was no deposition so I’m not
sure——

Mr. Lantos. There was an interview? Did you have any discus-
sion—were you present at any discussion during the course of
which your attorney and Mr. Bennett discussed the letter by Mr.
Burton?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I met Mr. Bennett yesterday and——

Mr. LANTOS. I understand that. Was there any discussion of a
letter Mr. Burton was going to write on your behalf during that
meeting?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. Yesterday? No, there was nothing talked
about that.

Mr. Lantos. There was no discussion of any letter?

Mr. CastRO BARREDO. There was discussion—they said the
chairman and somebody on the Democratic side would write letters
to the correction department saying that I was here and I was say-
ing the truth, but nothing more than that.

r. LANTOS. Who from the Democratic side was going to sign
that letter?

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. I don’t know. I have no idea.

Mr. LANTOS. Who said that someone from the Democratic side
would write the letter?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I don’t know. There were seven people in
that room. I don’t remember.

Mr. Lantos. Was there a letter discussed during that meeting?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No, there was not.

Mr. Lantos. You just said a moment ago that Mr. Burton and
someone else——

Mr. CaSTRO BARREDO. It was referenced to because I am very in-
terested in the letter. That’s my main objective, is the letter, obvi-
ously.

Mr. Lantos. But a minute ago, you said there was a reference
to a letter that would be sent by Mr. Burton and someone on the
Democratic side.

Mr. CasTRO BARREDO. That’s correct.

Mr. Lantos. Who said that, that someone on the Democratic side
would sign the letter?

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. No one on the Democratic side said any-
thing, or I don’t remember who said it exactly, or maybe I heard
things, maybe I’m hearing too many things.

Mr. Lantos. So you think this may not have happened at all?

Mr. Castro BARREDO. No, no. I do remember, not a discussion
about any letter, but it was talked, it was mentioned.

Mr. Lantos. Mr. Burton will write a letter.

Mr. CASTRO BARREDO. I don’t know who would write the letter.
I have no idea who was going to write a letter, I don’t know who
the letter was going to go to, I don’t know who was going to handle
it. I have no idea.

Mr. Lantos. But a minute ago you said something very different,
Mr. Castro. Do you want to consult with your attorney?