by, The Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Guy ( Paul Collin )

LOS ANGELES – December 29, 2014 – For more than a quarter of a century

( 25-years ) United States intelligence cases read like something

straight out of the American motion picture “Mission Impossible” where

only through court cases may Americans ever know or hear much about

such remarkable operations rarely detailed publicly through mainstream

news media.

Hero or Devil – Details

Norbert Anthony Schlei ( DOB: 1930 – DOD: 23APR03 – POB: Dayton, Ohio,

USA ), former ( 1962 – 1966 ) U.S. Department Of Justice ( DOJ )

General Counsel who drafted the Civil Rights Act legislation under

U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson Administrations

became the U.S. Assistant Attorney General who advised President John

F. Kennedy on the U.S. Navy blockade of Russia military ships

surrounding Cuba amidst the “October Missile Crisis” ‘blocade’ that

nearly started nuclear World War III between Russia and the United


CIA Bond Stings

In the Spring of 1985, Norbert A. Schlei, who later represented Howard

Hughes as a lawyer for HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED ( Los Angeles,

California ) became ‘convinced’ $16,000,000,000 Billion ( face value )

international high-value financial instruments ( i.e. bonds and notes

/ cheques ) represented to him were ‘real’, especially after

consulting with U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ( C.I.A. ) General

Counsel Stanley Sporkin who later told Norbert Schlei the financial

instruments were a “personal matter” the CIA had “no interest” in.

Recycling Counterfeit Bonds

In the Spring of 2009, again Japan “Series 57” certificated bonds

reappeared in Chiasso, Italy at the train border crossing into

Switzerland where an additional $135,000,000,000 Billion ( face value

) in U.S. Federal Reserve Note coupon type bonds were also seized,

that the U.S. Secret Service declared “counterfeit.”

In 1992, Norbert Schlei, assistant chief law enforcement officer of

the United States of America was federally indicted by a U.S. Federal

Grand Jury seated in Tampa, Florida where a True Bill was returned

securing Norbert Schlei; arrested by federal agents. CIA Offer You

Can’t Refuse

With U.S. federal government prosecutors threatening Norbert Schlei

with bringing criminal charges against his own ‘son’, on June 7, 1995

Norbert A. Schlei pled guilty to federal crimes in Florida surrounding

counterfeit high-value international bank financial instruments ( i.e.

Japan Series 57 bonds, etc. ).

On August 4, 1995 Norbert A. Schlei was sentenced by a Tampa, Florida

U.S. District Court federal judge to serve 5-years in federal prison.

Intelligence Fraud Schemes

The following information was extracted from official U.S. federal

court records surrounding certain legacy international bank paper

financial instrument high-value asset certificates, one ( 1 ) or more

of which surrounds what was seized during the middle of 2009 in

Chiasso, Italy at the border of Switzerland, which was only briefly

mentioned by American and foreign mainstream media news broadcasts,

e.g. KYODO, BBC, Bloomberg, REUTER’S News Wire Service, Fox News, NBC,

CNBC, CBS, ABC plus many more.

Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned mainstream media news

outlets bothered to do their research to bring publicly more of the

truth, which is precisely what this particular report reveals and is

designed to warn the public about so fraudulent investments in

‘certain asset instrument securities’ begins to be curtailed.


COURTESY: Kentron Intellect Research ( [email protected] )

SOURCE: Unwanted Publicity Intelligence ( [email protected] )

Billions Of Federal Reserve Note Series 1934 Bonds & Japan Series 57

Bonds Case In U.S. Seizure ( 1985 )

by, Unwanted Publicity Intelligence – Staff Writer

October 18, 2010 08:58:22 Updated ( Original: October 7, 2010 3:22:06 )

WASHINGTON D.C. – October 7, 2010 – A former U.S. federal criminal

case ( immediately below ) is believed to have contained elements

surrounding the July 1, 2009 $135,000,000,000 billion dollar Chiasso,

Italy seizure that also involved, amongst U.S. Federal Reserve Bank

interest bearing coupon bonds, Japan government Series 57 bonds, Japan

Ministry Of Finance, Japan Prime Minister, U.S. brokerage / trading

houses ( in this case, SHEARSON LEHMAN, SMITH BARNEY, E.F. HUTTON ),

the CIA ( in this case the CIA Special Counsel ), Koreans, and what

surrounded ‘secret funds’, i.e. “Marquat Fund” ( also known as )

“M-FUND” versus the Black Dragon Society ( also known as ) White

Dragon Society “Dragon Fund” ), where the the latter Fund may have –

at some point – been confused with the HONGKONG SHANGHAI BANKING

CORPORATION ( HSBC ) “Dragon Fund” investment trading, nevertheless

what was amazing about this early U.S. federal criminal case (

official Apellate case text below ) was, that it involved criminally

prosecuting a former United States Assistant Attorney General (

Norbert A. Schlei ) who got caught-up with the U.S. Central

Intelligence Agency ( CIA ), U.S. Central Intelligence Group ( CIG ),

U.S. Office Of Strategic Services ( OSS ), U.S. Secret Service and

more in a case involving international high-value bank paper


[ NOTE: To enlarge image document ( on right side ), begin

“Slideshow,” click here:


The “Background” and “Source Of Instruments” ( below ) from this

particular former case may shock many to see how ‘not just any common

treasure hunter’ became so seriously involved with these high-value

international financial instrument bank paper document ( i.e. bonds,

checks, notes and certificates ) schemes.

– –


Eleventh Circuit

CASE NO.: 95-3004


Plaintiff – Appellee,



Defendants – Appellants.

September 18, 1997

Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

( Tampa ) CASE NO.: 92 49 CR T 17C, Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, Judge.

Before: BLACK, Circuit Judge, and FAY and ALARCÓN [ * ], Senior Circuit Judges.

Senior Circuit Judge: ALARCÓN

Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( ” Ah Loo ” ) and Norbert A. Schlei

have appealed from the judgments of conviction.

[1] Schlei also seeks review of the district court’s sentencing

decision. Norbert A. Schlei was convicted of conspiracy and securities


Schlei seeks reversal on numerous grounds, each of which we address below.

We VACATE the order denying Schlei a new trial and an evidentiary

hearing with directions that the District Court make express findings

regarding the alleged ‘witness intimidation’ claim.

We VACATE the judgment of conviction on COUNT 10 because we conclude

that the district court erred in denying Schlei’s Motion To Strike

‘duplicitous allegations’ regarding a ‘separate crime’ in a ‘different


We AFFIRM the District Court Order on the balance of Schlei’s contentions.

The ‘transactions’, that preceded the indictment in this case, ‘are

unusual – if not bizarre’.

Most of the ‘evidence was undisputed’.

The prosecution presented evidence that Norbert A. Schlei and others

attempted to sell certain financial instruments in the United States.

Norbert Schlei, and his sales persons, represented these financial

instruments had been issued by the government of Japan or the DAI-ICHI


The instruments were labeled “Certificates of Balance of Redemption,

Series 57″ ( the ” Bond Certificates ” ) [ Series 57 Japan government

bond ] with face amounts ranging from 10,000,000,000 Billion yen to

500,000,000,000 Billion yen, and Cashier’s Checks – allegedly issued

by the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK CO. LTD. ( the ” Bank Notes ” ) [ Cashier’s

Cheques / Checks ] – each drawn for 50,000,000,000 billion yen.

The bond certificates [ Series 57 Japan government bond ] were

purportedly issued by the government of Japan in exchange for money or

property received from the bond certificate Holders or payees.

The prosecution ‘theory’ at trial was that Norbert A. Schlei ‘had

actual knowledge’ or ‘deliberately closed his eyes’ to ‘the fact that

these financial instruments were worthless because they were not issued

by the government of Japan or the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK CO. LTD.

Norbert Schlei testified that he ‘believed that the instruments were

valid’ but that ‘corrupt officials of the government of Japan’ had

‘falsely claimed that they were not genuine’.

The ‘Jury was persuaded’ beyond a reasonable doubt that ‘the bond

certificates and bank notes were not genuine’ and that ‘Norbert Schlei

had the requisite criminal intent to defraud’ when ‘he represented to

prospective purchasers that these instruments were valid’.



A. Background

Schlei argues that the judgment must be reversed because the

government failed to present evidence that he intended to defraud

anyone in attempting to sell the bond certificates and the bank notes.

He asserts that the record shows that he informed each prospective

buyer that the government of Japan claimed that these financial

instruments were not valid.

He also maintains that fraud has not been demonstrated because no

reasonable person would have purchased these instruments without

receiving confirmation of their validity from the Japan government, in

view of their extraordinary face value and the disclosures made to

prospective purchasers.

[2] In addition, Schlei contends that the evidence is also

insufficient to demonstrate that he directly or indirectly

participated in the sale of a bond certificate to undercover officers

in Tampa, Florida.

In discussing whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the

judgment of conviction against Norbert Schlei, we are required to

review the facts produced at trial by the parties in the light most

favorable to the Government. United States v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 518,

523-24 (11th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3694

(U.S. Mar. 31, 1997) (No. 96-1557).

In reviewing a sufficiency claim, we “accept[ ] all reasonable

inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor, to

determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that the

evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 523. “We

also review de novo whether there was sufficient evidence to support

the convictions.” Id.

1. The Source of the Financial Instruments

In the early part of 1985, Sam M. Han, a Korean – American, met with

C.K. Lee, a fellow Korean – American, and T. Hiraki, a Japan national,

in Los Angeles, California.

Lee and Hiraki told Han that they represented certain persons who

wanted Han’s assistance in getting the government of Japan to

acknowledge the validity of the bond certificates and bank notes.

Han was told by Hiraki and Lee that the government of Japan claimed

that the financial instruments were not genuine and had refused to

honor them. Han urged Lee and Hiraki to seek legal advice.

In March of 1985, Han and C.K. Lee met with Norbert A. Schlei at his

law office in Los Angeles [ California, USA ] to discuss negotiation

of the financial instruments.

Sam M. Han and C.K. Lee informed Norbert Schlei that the ‘government

of Japan would not negotiate with them without pressure from outside

of Japan’.

Sometime shortly thereafter, Norbert A. Schlei met with Sam M. Han and

C.K. Lee, as well as a group of Japanese nationals, including Toshio


Norbert Schlei, Sam M. Han, and Takahashi later traveled to Japan and

‘interviewed persons’ who ‘possessed some of the bond certificates and

bank notes’.

The ‘Holders of these instruments’ informed Norbert Schlei and Sam M.

Han that ‘they received them from a woman’ named ” Hatsu Aoyagi “.

On April 8, 1985 Norbert A. Schlei and Sam M. Han met with Stanley

Sporkin, the General Counsel for the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ( “

CIA ” ).

At this meeting, Norbert Schlei told CIA General Counsel Stanley

Sporkin that he had been informed by a group of Japanese citizens that

a secret $2,000,000,000 billion dollar Fund [ ” Marquat Fund ” ( also

known as ) ” M-FUND ” ] had been accumulated by General Douglas

MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan.

Norbert A. Schlei stated the secret Fund [ ” Marquat Fund ” ( also

known as ) ” M-FUND ” ] came from ‘money confiscated from foreigners’,

‘the Imperial Family’, and ‘property seized’ during the ‘Japan

occupation of Korea’.

Norbert Schlei’s alleged ‘informants’ referred to it as the ” Marquat

Fund ” ( the, ” M FUND ” ).

Norbert Schlei told CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin that the Fund

[ ” Marquat Fund ” ( also known as ) ” M-FUND ” ] was ‘Administered by

the United States’ and the ‘Liberal Democratic Party’ in Japan.

Norbert Schlei related he was informed that in 1958, Vice-President

Nixon promised to give Okinawa to Japan and turn control of the [ “

Marquat Fund ” ( also known as ) ” M-FUND ” ] over to Japan in

exchange for Japan’s support in electing him President of the United


Norbert Schlei told CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin that ‘a woman

who had been indicted’ for the ‘forgery of these financial

instruments’ had been ‘acquitted of that charge’.

CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin testified that Norbert A. Schlei

declared that he ‘wanted the CIA to know he was going to try to

present these instruments for payment’ and “wanted to give [ Sporkin ]

a heads up to a possible political problem.”

CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin informed Norbert Schlei that he

knew nothing about the financial instruments [ ” Marquat Fund ” ( also

known as ) ” M-FUND ” ] and that the story Norbert Schlei had related,

“seem[ed] extraordinary.”

Sporkin also testified that he thought, “it was a crazy idea, preposterous.”

CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin promised Norbert Schlei that he

would call him to indicate whether the CIA had any interest in

Schlei’s ‘plan to attempt to sell the bond certificates and the bank


In a subsequent telephone call, CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin

told Nortbert Schlei that the ‘CIA had no interest in the proposed

sale of the financial instruments’ because “[i]t was a private


After returning to Los Angeles [ California ], Norbert Schlei ‘agreed

to provide legal representation’ to T. Hiraki, Toshio Takahashi, C.K.

Lee, and Sam M. Han “in relation to the negotiation and cashing of

certain checks and other instruments.”

– –


The undersigned parties agree as follows:

Norbert A. Schlei agrees to provide such legal services as may be

required in relation to the negotiation and cashing of certain checks

and other instruments with respect to which his assistance is sought,

including but not limited to cheques numbered A35261, A35262, A35263,

A35264, A35265 and A35266 drawn on the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK CO. LTD.

T. Hiraki and Toshio Takahashi, acting on their own behalf and on

behalf of ” Sadao Niwa ‘ and ‘other owners of the documents’ to which

this Agreement relates, and C.K. Lee and Sam M. Han, acting on their

own behalf, agree that the fee to be paid for such legal services

shall be a ‘contingent fee of 5% of the amount recovered on such

checks or other instruments’; provided, however, that T. Hiraki and T.

Takahashi shall have the option, for thirty ( 30 ) days after the date

hereof, to reduce the contingent fee (a) by 1% ( to 4% ) by paying a

retainer fee of $50,000 in cash, or (b) by 2% ( to 3% ) by paying a

retainer fee of $100,000 in cash.

Wherefore the undersigned have duly executed this agreement.



Norbert A. Schlei


T. Hiraki


Toshio Takahashi


C. K. Lee


Sam M. Han

– –

In May of 1985, Schlei and Lee tried to negotiate one [ 1 ] of the

bank notes at the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK in Japan. The bank notified

Schlei that it would not honor the bank note because it was a forgery.

In furtherance of the plan to sell the bond certificates and bank

notes, Schlei filed the Articles Of Incorporation of the JAPAN-AMERICA

FOUNDATION INC. ( ” Foundation ” ) in Panama on January 6, 1986.

Norbert A. Schlei was a designated board member – Secretary and

Treasurer – of the Foundation [ JAPAN-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC. ].

Takahashi was named as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive


Han was designated as the president of the Foundation [ JAPAN-AMERICA


Pursuant to the articles of incorporation, the Foundation [

JAPAN-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC. ] was formed to ‘arrange the assignment

of the bond certificates and bank notes’ from the ‘nominees’ or

‘payees’, and ‘to invest the proceeds of any sale’ “to benefit the

peoples of Japan and the United States or secondarily the ‘peoples of

the nations of the Pacific Basin and the world’.”

C.K. Lee, Michael Dow, and Jesse Levine were indicted on January 31,

1986 in the U.S. District of Nevada for attempting to sell some of the

bond certificates.

Upon being informed of the arrest of Lee, Dow, and Levine, Norbert A.

Schlei went to Nevada to help them.

Norbert A. Schlei also wrote a letter, to the U.S. Attorney for the

U.S. District of Nevada, demanding the return of the bond certificates

and bank notes to the Foundation [ JAPAN-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC. ] as

the owner of the instruments.

On February 17, 1986 – approximately 3-weeks after C.K. Lee was

indicted for attempting to sell forged bond certificates – Norbert A.

Schlei met with U.S. Ambassador Mike Mansfield at the U.S. Embassy in

Tokyo, Japan.

Also present were Daniel Russel, the U.S. Ambassador’s executive

assistant, and John Weeks, the Embassy’s assistant Financial Attaché.

At this meeting, Norbert Schlei related the alleged ‘genesis’ of the

‘bond certificates’ and the ‘bank notes’, as related to him by his


Russel testified at trial.

He summarized Schlei’s narration as follows:

“Well, he recounted a very elaborate tale of conspiracy involving some

hidden Japan war treasures that includes the systematic connivance of

such figures as U.S. Army General Douglas MacArthur and the first

Prime Minister of Japan as well as the complete pantheon of senior

Japan officials then in the Government, as I recall including – up to

and including – the Prime Minister of Japan in some elaborate cover-up

exploitation scheme.

At his meeting with U.S. Ambassador Mike Mansfield, Norbert Schlei

‘did not present any documents or other evidence to corroborate’ his

account of ‘the source’ of the financial instruments.

Schlei also failed to advise U.S. Ambassador Mike Mansfield that C.K.

Lee had been ‘recently indicted’ for ‘attempting to sell forged bond


Russel testified, that his position as executive assistant to the U.S.

Ambassador required him to be informed regarding Japan politics.

Russel testified, that he found “it totally unbelievable that such a

conspiracy could have been in progress for ‘decades without becoming

widely known’,” because “it involved such a massive conspiracy that

would have entailed the connivance of virtually every senior

politician in Japan.”

The day following his meeting, in the U.S. Embassy, Norbert Schlei

drafted a letter to U.S. Ambassador Mansfield in which Schlei related

– in greater detail – his clients’ representations regarding the

‘source’ of the bond certificates and bank notes.

Schlei’s message was typed on the letterhead of the U.S. Embassy in

Japan in two (2) separate formats.

One [ 1st ] statement, received as Exhibit 17 at trial, contained the

following words in the first [ 1st ] paragraph.

The following, is the ‘re-typed text of a letter’ received from

Norbert Schlei summarizing the information provided by him at the

meeting ( referred to above ):

– –

[ Exhibit 17 ]

“Dear Ambassador Mansfield,”

[ … EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY … ] ended with the words,

“Sincerely, Norbert A. Schlei.”

– –

The other [ 2nd ] statement, received into evidence as Exhibit 21, did

not contain the above-quoted language:

– –

[ Exhibit 21 ]


“Different policy was adopted, and a large number of holders were

utilized. At the present time about eighty ( 80 ) individuals hold

documents representing a ‘portion’ of the Fund.

When the individuals, holding the documents, representing the Fund

began to demand a voice in administering the Fund, the government

vigorously resisted.

At various times it forcefully demanded return of the documents, but

very few Holders responded.

In order to prevent these documents from being negotiated, the

government has at times advised persons making inquiry about these

documents that they are ‘forged’.

However, my clients assert that most of the documents presently

outstanding can be shown to have been printed at a factory of the

Finance Ministry in ‘1981’ by Order of Finance Minister Michio

Watanabe, now Minister of International Trade and Industry.

The ink used for the printing, they assert, is the ink used for

printing the old paper money, now no longer circulating, and is

totally unavailable except to the Ministry of Finance.

The face value of instruments, now outstanding, probably exceeds – by

a considerable margin – the amount of money actually in the Fund.

This results partly from the activities of a woman named Hatsu Aoyagi

who worked closely with Tanaka and had a role in selecting the Holders

of the securities representing the Fund.

Ms. Aoyagi was convicted of fraud and misappropriation of funds within

the past year in a Tokyo court.

One thing she apparently did was to charge people large sums to become

Holders of the Fund’s securities. She represented that the fees

charged would go to the Party, but in fact she pocketed most of them.

Also, although – in some instances – she was supposed to exchange one

[ 1 ] ‘set’ of securities for ‘another’, in some instances she simply

‘distributed the new ones without collecting the old’.

Because of this practice, and perhaps other irregularities, the ‘face

value’ of the instruments outstanding is approximately Yen

130,000,000,000,000 Trillion – whereas the actual amount of the Fund

is believed to be a maximum of approximately Yen 50,000,000,000,000


My clients assert that one of the reasons for their determination to

bring this matter to a head is that the ‘Fund has been productive of

impropriety and corruption’.

In addition to Mr. Kishi, they say that Mr. Tanaka misappropriated a

large fortune of 10,000,000,000,000 Trillion yen, which is invested


They state that Mrs. Hiroko Sato, widow of Premier Eisaku Sato,

‘cashed documents’ amounting to ‘300,000,000,000 Billion yen’ through


According to my clients, Secretary of the Cabinet Mr. Masaharu Gotoda,

who has somewhat impeded their settlement, has personally cashed three

[ 3 ] checques through the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK for a total sum of

60,000,000,000 Billion yen.

It is, of course, possible that some of these sums were further

transferred and applied to proper purposes.

With a view to testing the reliability of some of the assertions made

by my clients I asked how it was known that Mr. Gotoda had obtained

60,000,000,000 Billion yen from the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK.

The reply was, that a ‘member of our group’ is an ‘official of a

government agency’, which was engaged at the time in a ‘special

investigation’; that when Mr. Gotoda conducted his final negotiation

with a high official of the Bank [ DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK ], he did so

on a ‘telephone line that happened to be tapped’; that the Bank [

DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK ] asked Mr. Gotoda to accept 50,000,000,000

Billion yen but he adamantly refused, after which arrangements were

made on the telephone to pay him the full amount demanded.

I believe that the negotiations relating to this matter will be

concluded in any and all events by the end of the Japan government

fiscal year on March 31.

If the non-profit Foundation we have formed is indeed founded, it will

have an enormous potential for good.

Two [ 2 ] people, U.S. Senator Alan Cranston and Jack Anderson, the

syndicated columnist, have been asked by people in our group to serve

as Trustees and have agreed to do so.

I plan to ask [ U.S. Senator ] Ted Kennedy to join us.

You would be an ideal Trustee if your post [ Assistant U.S. Attorney

General ] would permit such service.

As you know, I am providing this information on the understanding that

it will be ‘kept confidential in the sense of not being disclosed to

the public’, and will ‘not be attributed to me’.

Any use of this information you may feel is in the interests of the

United States, in terms of ‘disclosure within the government’, is not

objectionable to me or my clients.

I will keep you informed.

Again thanks, and kindest personal regards.

Danny Russel


Desaix Anderson, DCM

Bill Breer, POL”

– –

AEX @5d

Agreements for the sale or lease of the bond certificates and

bank notes between the Foundation [ JAPAN-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC. ]

and HILL & ASSOCIATES for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 [

4-years ] were introduced into evidence at trial.

Han or Schlei signed these agreements on behalf of the Foundation.

Hill [ HILL & ASSOCIATES INC. ] promised to advise any potential buyer

that the Japan government disputed the authenticity of the bonds.

Hill [ HILL & ASSOCIATES INC. ] was also furnished a written

disclosure form for distribution to potential customers.[5]

– –

September ___, 1988

Dear ________________:

As you know we have discussed several times various Japan

‘Certificates of Redemption’ and ‘Cashiers Cheques’ denominated [ sic

] in Japanese Yen, that purport to be issued by, the:



Other leading Japan financial institutions.

It is the purpose of this letter to establish that HILL & ASSOCIATES

INC. has made ‘full disclosure of the problems that exist with respect

to these instruments’, and that ‘none of our discussions have been

based on any material misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material


The Payees of the instruments, here involved, have stated that they

believe the instruments were in fact issued by the institutions by

whom they purport to have been issued, and that the instruments

represent a Confidential Fund of money ( the so-called ” M-FUND ” )

which has been administered by the Liberal Democratic Party for some

three ( 3 ) decades [ 30-years ].

The Fund is believed to have been established during the U.S.

occupation, with the approval of [ U.S. Army ] General MacArthur, and

to have been the subject of several ‘secret agreements’ between the

U.S. and Japan or the Liberal Democratic Party culminating in the

giving up – by the U.S. in the late 1950’s – of any right to

participate in administration of the fund.

Although I have informed you of these matters and other details, I

wish to make it clear that this information is entirely hearsay [ sic

] so far as I am concerned and ‘I cannot and do not warrant the

correctness or completeness of this information’.

The Payees of the instruments have also stated that in their view

there is no legal obstacle to negotiation of the instruments by them;

that opposition by the Government of Japan or the Liberal Democratic

Party is merely political and not legally sustainable. However, it

certainly is clear that ‘the Government of Japan and those of the

institutions do challenge the genuineness and the enforceability of

these instruments’.

In the only case in which any of these instruments was formally

presented for payment, a cashier’s checque purportedly issued by the

DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK was ‘rejected as not genuine after being held by

the Bank for 35-days after presentation’.

HILL & ASSOCIATES INC. is, accordingly, ‘unable to warrant and does

not warrant the genuineness or enforceability of the instruments’.

Essentially, HILL & ASSOCIATES INC., is stating to you that ‘these

instruments are without warranty other than a warranty that it has

duly acquired the proper Power Of Attorney in and to these


By your signature below, you acknowledge receipt of the information

set forth above and your understanding of the ‘severe limitations on

the warranty’ in ‘relation to any proposed transactions’ between

__________________ and HILL & ASSOCIATES INC.



Roger A. Hill, President


Acknowledged: September ____, 1988″

– –

The language contained in the ‘disclosure form’ was virtually

identical to that contained in the April 24, 1986 letter to Hill,

quoted above, making no reference to Lee’s ‘earlier arrest’ for

‘attempting to sell forged bond certificates’.

On July 2, 1991 Hill called FBI Agent Phil Rence at the request of a

law firm he had contacted regarding an attempted sale of the bond

certificates. Hill informed Agent Rence that he had been involved in

the sale of these instruments for approximately 6-years.

Hill stated he previously had offered Japan bond certificate number

1261 for sale.

FBI Agent Rence notified Hill he had taken a copy of Japan bond

certificate 1261 to the Japan consulate in San Francisco where a

Ministry of Finance representative provided the FBI with a letter

stating the certificate was ‘not genuine’.

Approximately 1-week after his conversation with FBI Agent Rence,

Hill received Japan bond certificate 1261 from Bobby Chamberlain,

the accountant of Takahashi.

In November 1991, Hill asked FBI Agent Rence whether he was doing

anything wrong in continuing to try and sell the bond certificates

in view of the fact he intended to have any prospective buyer sign an

agreement in which the purchaser acknowledged that he or she had been

informed that the genuineness of the bond certificate was ‘in dispute’.

FBI Agent Rence told Hill the bond certificates were “bogus” and no

“buyer beware clause” would help him if he continued to try to sell

the bond certificates.

During Hill’s negotiations with the Foundation [ JAPAN-AMERICA

FOUNDATION INC. ], he met with Han and Takahashi in the office of

Norbert Schlei where Hill saw at least fifty ( 50 ) of the bond

certificates on Schlei’s coffee table.

Hill made several attempts to sell the bond certificates and the bank

notes prior to January 18, 1992. None was successful.

b. The Role of Ah Loo and Howard Olson in Attempting to Negotiate the

Financial Instruments

Beginning in December 1986, Ah Loo conducted business in Hong Kong as


In September 1987, Ah Loo negotiated with John Blomfield of MERRILL

LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER and SMITH regarding sale of “Japan debentures.”

During the course of their correspondence, Blomfield sent Ah Loo a

copy of an unsigned letter he had received dated February 28, 1987

from Minoru Yoneda, an associate advisor in the Tokyo BANK OF JAPAN

Government Bond Department.

This letter provided in pertinent part, that:

“in Japan, the Government do [ sic ] not issue the ‘Certificate of

Redemption Balance’ that you sent us in copy-form. Such Certificate is

not a true bond, but a fictitious one, and we regret to inform you that

the Certificate is often used in fraudulent practices.”

On October 1, 1987 Takahashi granted Kelly Chang and Lau Jim Koon his

Power Of Attorney [ POA ] to “negotiate on [ his ] behalf with

investment consultant firms, financial consortium, banks and trust

body [ sic ] as may be deemed qualified and necessary for the investment

of these Debentures.”

On October 15, 1987, Koon and Chang ‘assigned’ bond certificates to

TRANSFIELD to assist “in the disposition of said Bonds.”

On October 28, 1987 Schlei wrote to Ah Loo’s bank in Hong Kong, “at

the request of [ his – Schlei’s ] client, Mr. Toshio Takahashi,” to

verify funds were available to pay for the ‘assignment of the bond

certificate’ to TRANSFIELD.

Schlei also attached an Affidavit, in which he alleged possessing bond

certificates 1276, 1280, 1354 and 1664, plus advised that pursuant to

instructions from his client, he was prepared to deliver the bond

certificates to a Buyer.

Over the ensuing months, Ah Loo and her attorney Alistair Robertson

communicated with Takahashi and Schlei regarding her efforts to sell

the bond certificates.

In January 1988, Ah Loo contacted Howard Olson, a resident of Minot,

North Dakota, to discuss his interest in obtaining financing for a

proposed real estate development.

Ah Loo had met Olson when she resided in Nevada in 1985.

In 1985, Olson and Ah Loo had discussed Olson’s plans for a

condominium project in North Dakota, and his need for $2,000,000 to

$3,000,000 million dollars in financing.

When Ah Loo moved – in December 1986 – to Hong Kong, she continued to

assist Olson in attempting to obtain financing for Olson’s real estate


Ah Loo also authorized Olson to serve as a special representative of

TRANSFIELD. She gave him a Power Of Attorney [ POA ] with respect to a

bank account in the name of TRANSFIELD at FIRST AMERICAN BANK & TRUST

( ” First American ” ) of Minot [ North Dakota, USA ].

Ah Loo first mentioned the bond certificates to Olson in January 1988.

Olson told Ah Loo that he thought he could use one of the bond

certificates as collateral for a loan on his development project.

In February 1988, Ah Loo sent Japan bond certificate number 1395 to

FIRST AMERICAN BANK & TRUST [ Minot, North Dakota, USA ].

Olson then transferred Japan bond certificate 1395 to E.F. HUTTON

SECURITIES ( “E.F. Hutton” ).

E.F. HUTTON served as his broker in negotiations concerning the instrument.

E.F. HUTTON requested SHEARSON LEHMAN determine whether the instrument

was valid.

After making an inquiry through its Tokyo [ Japan ] office SHEARSON

LEHMAN informed E.F. HUTTON the bond certificate was forged.

E.F. HUTTON immediately advised, Olson, they would not accept the bond

certificate because it was “no good.”

Shortly thereafter, the FBI ordered Olson to cease and desist his

attempts to negotiate the bond certificate.

Olson informed Ah Loo of the FBI warning, as well as the E.F. HUTTON

refusal to deal with the bond certificate.

Once the Olson plan to use the bond certificate as collateral for a

bank loan failed, Olson began negotiating with Paul Bennett, who

indicated that a pension fund he represented was interested in

purchasing the bond certificate.

In the first half of March 1988, Olson and Schlei had several

telephone conversations regarding the potential sale of the bond

certificate to the pension fund.

Olson testified that he informed Schlei that E.F. HUTTON “didn’t want

to deal with [ the bond certificate ].”

In addition, Olson advised Schlei of the FBI warning.

Nevertheless, Schlei told him to continue his efforts to sell the bond


On March 9, 1988 Takahashi sent a letter to Olson demanding either

$2,362,205 in payment for bond certificate 1395 or immediate return

of the instrument to Schlei as Takahashi’s representative.

On March 11, 1988 Schlei sent a letter to Ah Loo, which included the


“Mr. Takahashi has asked me to advise you that, because of repeated

failures by you and your representatives to carry out the terms of

your agreement for the purchase of the [ bond certificate No. 1395 ],

he has terminated the agreement and hereby makes demand on you to

return the Certificate or cause it to be returned forthwith.

Since the certificate is now in the United States in the possession of

Howard Olson, Mr. Takahashi asks that the certificate be delivered to

me as his representative.”

On March 18, 1988, Olson informed Schlei that Olson would be dealing

directly with Schlei regarding bond certificate 1395, and that Ah Loo

would no longer participate in the pending negotiations with the

pension fund.

That same day, Schlei sent a letter to Takahashi concerning Olson’s

efforts to sell the bond certificate. It reads in pertinent part as


“I have your FAX of today and understand fully your concerns. I will

cancel the transaction with Olson if you feel we must do so. However,

before canceling as you have requested I would like to report my

latest communications with Olson.

Mr. Olson states that he knows almost nothing about the history of

this matter in Hong Kong.

I have told him some of the bad things done by Ah Loo and Taguchi and

he says he cannot blame you for being angry. However, he adds, he did

not participate in those things and feels he has been completely fair

and honest with us.

Olson readily admits that the form of this transaction has changed

since he first became involved. Originally, he says, he had arranged

to do a transaction involving the SHEARSON LEHMANN [ sic ] firm. This

transaction also involved Mr. Searcy’s bank and was at one time ready

to close. However, SHEARSON withdrew as a result of its contacts with


Therefore, Olson had to make different arrangements.

Olson says the transaction he has arranged is the same one he

described to me when I first called him, namely, a transaction

involving a pension fund. Olson’s company would be buying our

certificate and using it ( and certain mining properties being pledged

by Olson ) to borrow money from a pension fund headquartered in

Denver, Colorado.

The money being lent by the pension fund would be used to pay the

purchase price to us.

. . . [ EDITED-OUT ] . . .

For all of the above reasons, I recommend that you ‘hold off

canceling’ Olson’s transaction. ( emphasis added ).”

Olson’s proposed sale of Japan bond certificate 1395 to the pension

fund fell through in April 1988. At that time, bond certificate 1395

was in Bennett’s possession.

Olson instructed Bennett to mail the instrument to Schlei who also

directed Bennett to return the bond.

Bond certificate 1395 was never returned to Schlei.

Olson had no further direct contact with Schlei after April 1988.

On April 22, 1988 Olson wrote the following letter to Dr. Carmelo

Profilo and Chang, Ah Loo’s business associates:

“Once again I have experienced a rejection of a proposed sale of one

of the Certificates of Redemption due to influence created by the

Issuing Government.

The Certificate had been sold and an escrow opened subject to the

Buyer checking with the government of the Issuing Country.

The reason for checking was that this Buyer ( a Prince ) is involved

on another deal with them of several billion dollars on a different

Project, and he needed to know that this purchase would not change

their relationship or nullify any of their plans.

The response was very negative, and the Buyer was forced to drop this

purchase immediately and stay clear of those Certificates.

The Buyer was also partners with several Senators in the deal and gave

strong repercussions back to me, and I was again notified by the

Federal authorities to cease [ sic ] and desist all operations

concerning these Certificates.

I have begun [ sic ] the process of returning the Certificate and all

the Supporting Documents to Transfield immediately.

On October 7, 1988 Ah Loo was informed by an attorney, whom she had

been dealing with respect to the sale of the bond certificates, that

officials at the BANK OF JAPAN determined they were forgeries, and

“exactly the same copies used in a previous case of fraud in Hong


c. The Attempted Sale of Bond Certificates to Kazimir Golac by Schlei

and Takahashi

The record shows that, late in 1988, Schlei and Takahashi attempted to

sell several bond certificates to Kazimir Golac.

In a letter to Schlei, dated October 14, 1988 Takahashi set forth a

proposed distribution of the proceeds from the anticipated Golac sale.

The letter provided that half of the income should go to the

Foundation from the sale of “your and my shares” of the 10,000,000,000

billion yen bond certificates.

Takahashi also suggested that the Foundation should get 15,000,000,000

billion yen “from our share of the sale of the 300,000,000,000 billion

yen bond certificates.”

Takahashi explained that “personally and privately your income will be

1.8bs + 3.0bs = 4.8 billion Japanese yens. Mine is the same.”

Takahashi also recommended that the proceeds of the sale, excluding

those designated for the Foundation, should be divided equally among

Han, Schlei, and Takahashi.

The Golac transaction was never consummated.

d. Craig Ivester Role in Attempting to Negotiate the Financial Instruments

Sometime during 1987 or 1988, Ah Loo was introduced to Craig Ivester,

a locator of commodity transactions, employed by BANCORP INTERNATIONAL.

Ivester informed, Ah Loo, he had prospective buyers for the bond certificates.

Ah Loo furnished Ivester with a copy of a bond certificate.

Ivester sent the copy of the bond certificate to BANCORP INTERNATIONAL.

BANCORP INTERNATIONAL presented the copy of the bond certificate to

UBS [ UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND ] Switzerland. UBS Switzerland later

reported to BANCORP INTERNATIONAL that the bond certificate was

fraudulent. Ivester relayed this information to Ah Loo.

3. The Sting Operation

In August 1991, Ah Loo was reintroduced to Ivester by Dallas Thompkins.

Ivester was assisting Thompkins in attempting to obtain financing for

Thompkins’ company, MID-WAY CAPITAL.

Ivester and Ah Loo discussed the bond certificates.

Thereafter, Craig Ivester contacted Special Agent Noonan of the United

States Customs Service [ now, U.S. Department of Homeland security (

DHS ), to determine whether he was interested in investigating Ah

Loo’s involvement with the bond certificates. Ivester had previously

worked with Agent Noonan as a confidential informant.

After Agent Noonan expressed interest in pursuing the investigation,

Ivester arranged to meet Ah Loo on September 11, 1991. At this

meeting, Ivester told Ah Loo that he represented a group interested in

purchasing bond certificates.

On September 12, 1991, Ah Loo sent Ivester a copy of a document

entitled “Private Placement Procedures,” and copies of two ( 2 ) bond

certificates. Ivester forwarded these documents to Agent Noonan. Agent

Noonan shared the information he had received from Ivester with Secret

Service Agent Jack Fox.

Ivester arranged the initial meeting between Ah Loo and his alleged

prospective buyers. This meeting occurred in Reno, Nevada in October

1991. In attendance were Ivester, Ah Loo, Agent Fox, and Customs

Service Special Agent Michael Sankey.

Agent Fox introduced himself as an officer of FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO.

Agent Sankey identified himself as Michael Montclair, the President of

a large international investment company.

The conversation was surreptitiously recorded by the agents.

During the Reno [ Nevada ] meeting, Ah Loo explained to Agent Fox and

Agent Sankey that General MacArthur – in an attempt to shorten the

supply lines for the Korea War – created a fund to permit Japan, which

at the time was prohibited from developing its military, to

manufacture munitions for use in the Korean War. She stated that the

proceeds for the fund were obtained from the money and property of

certain persons who had been loyal followers of the Emperor of Japan.

In exchange, these investors received bond certificates.

Ah Loo also informed Agent Fox and Agent Sankey that the bank notes

had been issued as payment for redemption of the bond certificates,

but that someone had printed an overrun of these bank notes. She told

the agents that the ‘excess bank notes were fraudulent’.

Ah Loo warned Agent Fox and Agent Sankey that they might not want to

purchase the bond certificates because, some persons had been

‘arrested’ and others ‘killed for dealing in these financial


She also represented that the bond certificates would not be redeemed

at maturity, but would be rolled over.

Agent Fox and Agent Sankey expressed interest in purchasing one bond

certificate, but no agreement was reached during the Reno [ Nevada ]


In early September 1991, Hill was introduced to Ah Loo by J. Maillian

who informed – Ah Loo – that he was representing Hill in his efforts

to sell bond certificates. At this time Ah Loo did not have any of the

bond certificates in her possession. Hill agreed to make a bond

certificate available to Ah Loo for sale to Agent Fox and Agent


On September 20, 1991 Hill signed a handwritten agreement drafted by

Takahashi in which Hill agreed to sell three [ 3 ] bond certificates

and one [ 1 ] bank note.

This agreement provides that Hill and Takahashi “should keep strict

secrecy from anyone regarding this agreement and should not disclose

to any one [sic] else for ever [sic] without written agreement by

Both.” The agreement is signed by Hill as “Party A,” and Takahashi as

“Party B.”

Takahashi provided Hill with three [ 3 ] bond certificates, including

number 1261, and bank note 59155.

On September 20, 1991 Takahashi placed nine (9) calls, to Schlei, from

his hotel room at the Sheraton Grande in Los Angeles. The record also

shows that Schlei paid Takahashi’s hotel bill.

Hill testified that he did not inform Takahashi that Ah Loo was

involved in the transaction.

Hill also testified that Takahashi had informed him that Schlei did

not want Takahashi to deal with Hill.

Ah Loo met again with Agent Fox and Agent Sankey in early December 1991.

Ah Loo represented to the agents that the bond certificates could be

redeemed, but not everyone could redeem them.

She told the agents that the bonds had already been certified as valid

in the Japan courts and that “she had originally obtained one [ 1 ] of

these instruments in Hong Kong from Schlei, a former Assistant United

States Attorney General.”

During this meeting, they did not reach an agreement on the terms of

the sale of the bond certificate.

In late December 1991, Agent Fox informed Ah Loo that he preferred to

use the SMITH BARNEY office in Tampa [ Florida ] as the escrow agent.

Throughout the early part of January 1992, Agent Fox and Ah Loo

communicated by telephone to discuss final arrangements for the sale

of the bond certificate.

On January 7, 1992 Ah Loo, Ah Loo’s son Bruce Hansberry, and Lee met

at Ah Loo’s residence in Los Angeles to discuss the acquisition of

additional bond certificates by Lee.

Hansberry testified that during this meeting “the validity or

authenticity of these bonds were [sic] brought into question regarding

[ Lee’s ] involvement in an effort by the FBI to confiscate the bonds

from [ Lee ].”

Although this meeting was unrelated to the sale of the bond

certificate to Agent Fox and Agent Sankey, Hansberry testified that

“[t]he [ bond certificate ] series was the same. The question was

implanted, there were doubts.”

On January 9, 1992 A. George Saks, executive vice president and

general counsel of SMITH BARNEY, signed a proposal letter at Agent

Fox’s request that set forth the SMITH BARNEY purported willingness to

purchase three ( 3 ) “Series 57 Certificates of Balance of Redemption

Japanese National Bonds” from Ah Loo for $140,000,000 million.

In return, the SMITH BARNEY fee for its services – as escrow agent –

was set forth as $1,400,000 million.

Ah Loo assured Agent Fox that at the closing someone would explain to

him how to certify the bond certificate’s authenticity.

Hansberry told Agent Fox that he had already sold three [ 3 ] of the

bond certificates. Hansberry admitted after his arrest that this

representation was false.

The parties agreed that the purchase price for one [ 1 ] bond

certificate would be $100,000,000 million dollars. Of that amount, Ah

Loo was to receive $19,000,000 million dollars, SMITH BARNEY would be

paid $1,000,000 million dollars for its services, and Hill was to

receive $80,000,000 million dollars. Hill agreed to pay Takahashi

$20,000,000 million dollars.

On January 16, 1992 Hill and Takahashi met in Takahashi’s hotel room

at the Sheraton Grande in Los Angeles. Takahashi told Hill that his

$20,000,000 million dollar share of the proceeds from the sale to

Agent Fox and Agent Sankey would be divided between Han, Schlei,

Sakai, Horiguchi, and himself. Takahashi notes reflecting this

division of the proceeds were described at trial as the “payout

sheet.” Takahashi told Hill at the January 16, 1992 meeting that

Schlei knew that a bond certificate transaction was closing.

On January 17, 1992 Hill and Hansberry traveled to Tampa [ Florida ]

to deliver the bond certificate to Agent Fox and Agent Sankey. Because

of medical problems, Ah Loo did not attend the meeting, but

participated by telephone.

On January 18, 1992 Hill handed bond certificate 1291 to Agent Fox.

Immediately thereafter, Hill and Hansberry were arrested.

At the time of their arrest, Hill and Hansberry admitted that they

knew that bond certificate 1291 was fraudulent. Hill consented to a

search of the safety deposit box assigned to him at the Embassy Suites

Hotel in Tampa [ Florida ].

The search disclosed additional bond certificates, ‘bank note 59155’,

the ‘disclosure form’, a copy of the ‘United States Embassy letter’

identified at trial as Exhibit 21, and Takahashi’s “payout sheet” for

the Tampa transaction.

Hill placed a telephone call to Takahashi following his arrest. On the

same date, Takahashi made eleven ( 11 ) phone calls to Schlei, including

two (2) that were placed immediately after he spoke with Hill over the


On January 19, 1992 agents searched Takahashi’s Los Angeles hotel

room. The room was registered to Osamu Sakai. It was vacant, although

food, clothes, and documents were scattered throughout. Takahashi made

4 phone calls to Schlei on January 19, 1992; 21 on January 20, 1992;

and 20 on January 21, 1992.

At the time of trial, Takahashi was a fugitive.

4. Proof that the Instruments Were Forgeries

At trial, the Government presented the testimony of Hideo Inoue, the

special officer for research at the Government Bond Section of the

Ministry of Finance in Japan, regarding the authenticity of the bond

certificates. He testified that the bond certificates were not


Inoue compared the bond certificates with genuine Japan government

bonds. He identified the following distinguishing characteristics:

[ UPI GUY NOTE: Were these how Japanese instruments appeared ( below

) in 1957 or the 1980s? ]

(1) The bond certificates did not contain the term “Government of

Japan,” which appears on genuine Japanese bonds;

[ UPI GUY NOTE: Wasn’t the “Government of Japan” earlier named, “The

Imperial Government of Japan” even ‘after World War II’? ]

(2) The Japanese government has never issued an instrument termed a

“certificate of redemption”;

(3) The bond certificates contain the letter “A,” which does not

appear on genuine Japanese bonds;

(4) The numbering on the bond certificates appeared to have been

‘rubber stamped’, whereas genuine bonds contain a “very clear number”

because of the ‘special technology’ that is ‘used’;

[ UPI GUY NOTE: What possible “special technology” could possibly

have been ‘available to have even been used’ back in “1957” or “1958?”


(5) The bond certificates used ‘four- digit numbers’, whereas genuine

bonds contain six- digit numbers;

(6) The bond certificates contained the words “DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK,”

but genuine bonds do not refer to any private bank;


share a role ‘immediately before’ and/or after World War II’ as being

‘issuing bank authorities’, much in the same way BANK OF CHINA had for

decades printed ‘all’ China government money and other financial

instruments? ]

(7) The bond certificates contained ‘Japanese / Chinese characters’

with a ‘horizontal line through them’, that genuine bonds do not


(8) The bond certificates had the ‘name of the nominee’ and genuine

bonds do not bear the name of any person as the bondholder;

[ UPI GUY NOTE: ‘All’ instruments such as these ‘do’ possess the

‘nominee name’, however ‘Bearer’ instruments ‘do not bear the name’ of

the “bondholder”. The aforementioned statement may be misleading

somewhat in that the ‘verifier’ may have simply ‘included’ this

mention in his ‘list of determining verification factors’, since it

does ‘not’ make any specific mention as to the instruments he ‘may’

have viewed being falsely represented in this ‘specific’ regard. Even

a ‘low grade forgery’ would ‘not place a name’ where ‘a name should

not be’, and consequently vice-versa. Hence, by stating ‘what the

instruments had’ – no mention as to what they ‘were suppose to have

had’ verses ‘what they did have’- is less than adequate, plus the fact

that the ‘expert made no distinction’ between ‘bearer bonds’ and the

‘instruments presented’, was misleading. ]

(9) The seal on the bond certificates was ‘slightly faded’, ‘not as

clear’, and a ‘less-bright red’ than genuine Japan bonds, and the

‘lines around the seal’ of the bond certificates were’ thicker’ than

around that of genuine bonds;

[ UPI GUY NOTE: Almost 30-year old Japan ‘paper and ink coloring’ of

that vintage does ‘not’ withstand fading even after 7-years. Seal

stampings varied according to either the ‘tool and die’ used or

whomever used it to make the impressions on the instruments would be a

determining factor, and since the manufacturer had long since been

closed, perhaps only ‘the best sample’ was used to compare it with the

ones in this case. Keep documents in cold storage and out of any

harmful ultraviolet ray light and the document can look like ‘brand

new’. There is nothing provided by the verifier of the instruments

that might indicate any comparison as to ‘where’ his ‘specimen’ may

have been pulled from. ]

(10) The bond certificates had face amounts of between ’10,000,000,000

billion yen’ and ’50,000,000,000 billion yen’, but ‘the government of

Japan’ has ‘never issued a bond in an amount greater than

1,000,000,000 billion yen’;

(11) The bond certificates did not have the ‘raised print’ and

Ministry of Finance ‘watermarks’ that ‘genuine bonds contain’; and,

(12) The reverse side of the bond certificates did not contain the

same ‘design’ and ‘warning’ as that on genuine bonds.

Takashi Iwanaga, a vice president of the Manhattan branch of the

DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK, testified regarding the authenticity of the bank


Iwanaga described the physical differences between the bank notes and

a genuine DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK Cashier’s Check issued in 1982.

Iwanaga told the jury that the bank notes were counterfeit.

5. Proceedings in the District Court

Schlei was charged in Count One of the second superseding indictment

with conspiring with Ah Loo, Hill, Hansberry, Takahashi, and Alan


(1) to utter and pass falsely made, forged and counterfeit Japanese

bonds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479;

(2) to possess and deliver false and counterfeit foreign bank notes in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 480;

(3) to use interstate wires in execution of scheme to defraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343;

(4) to execute a scheme to defraud a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

2 and 1344;

(5) to offer or sell securities by employing a scheme and artifice to

defraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 77q; and,

(6) to engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction in

criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.

The jury was furnished with a special verdict form. The jury found

Schlei guilty of conspiracy.

The jury found that the object of the conspiracy in which Schlei

participated was “[t]o possess and deliver false and counterfeit bank

notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 480.”

The jury also found that it was not an object of Schlei’s conspiracy

“[t]o utter and pass falsely made, forged, and counterfeit Government

of Japan Series 57 M-Bonds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479.”

Schlei was found not guilty of uttering or passing false, forged, and

counterfeit bonds, five counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and engaging

in a monetary transaction involving unlawfully derived property.

Schlei was found guilty of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C.

§§ 77q and 77x.

The jury found specially that “[ Schlei ] obtained money or property

by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to

state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made

in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not


B. Discussion

1. The Evidence Demonstrates that Schlei Affirmatively Misled

Potential Purchasers Regarding Material Facts

Schlei argues that the evidence presented to the jury is legally

insufficient to demonstrate that he committed fraud – an essential

element of conspiracy to commit fraud and the substantive offense of

securities fraud charged in Count Ten of the second superseding

indictment. Schlei contends that the Government failed to present

evidence that he was involved in a scheme “reasonably calculated to

deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” He argues

that pursuant to the rule announced in United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d

1550 ( 11th Cir. 1996 , we must reverse. We disagree. The facts and

circumstances presented to the jury in this matter are readily

distinguishable from those reviewed by this court in Brown.

In Brown, the defendants represented to prospective customers from

snow- belt states that the homes they were selling in Florida were a

safe business investment and could be rented for an amount greater

than the mortgage payments. Id. at 1554. In fact, the houses were

being sold at a higher price than an almost identical home next door.

The houses were not a good investment because they were overpriced.

The rental income was less than represented. Some of the purchasers

resold their homes for much less than they paid. Id.

In reversing the judgment of conviction, this court held that “[a]

“scheme to defraud’ under the pertinent criminal statutes has not been

proved where a reasonable juror would have to conclude that the

representation is about something which the customer should, and

could, easily confirm – if they wished to do so – from readily

available external sources.” Id. at 1559.

Applying this rule to the facts before it, this court concluded that

potential home buyers were encouraged to travel to Florida at the

expense of the developer to visit the properties offered for sale. The

court noted that “this matter is not a “sale of distant property’

case: the kind where the purchaser has no chance to investigate the

property’s condition and value.” Id. at 1560.

The court held that reliance on the value representations was

unreasonable because a person of ordinary prudence could have easily

discovered the cost of buying or renting comparable properties in

Florida. Id. at 1551.

Here, unlike the situation in Brown, we have a “distant property” case.

The conspirators represented that “a secret fund to be used for

various purposes not suitable for public view” was created in Japan by

General MacArthur and Japan officials approximately 50-years ago.

They also claimed that the government of Japan issued the financial

instruments to persons who contributed to the secret fund, but that

corrupt Japanese officials were now falsely claiming that they were

not genuine.

In making these representations, the conspirators told prospective

purchasers that a former Assistant Attorney General of the United

States had determined that the financial instruments were genuine and


Furthermore, a document typed on the letterhead of the United States

Embassy was shown to potential customers to persuade them that “the

United States was supporting Mr. Schlei.”

Under these circumstances, a reasonable juror could be persuaded

beyond a reasonable doubt that a potential customer could not easily

confirm the truth of the representation that a secret fund allegedly

created by persons who have since died is now being covered up by a

corrupt government of Japan.

The conspirators represented that the financial instruments were

genuine, but that the government of Japan would deny that the

financial instruments were genuine.

Had any potential customer of the conspirators and their salespersons

attempted to contact the government of Japan, he or she would have

been confronted with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Because the instruments were not genuine, the Japan Minister of

Finance would undoubtedly inform any person who inquired that the bond

certificates and bank notes were worthless.

The exercise of ordinary intelligence would not have assisted a

potential customer in confirming from a readily available external

source that the conspirators’ representations were truthful.

We decline to extend Brown to the false representations made by the

conspirators to this fraudulent scheme.

2. Sufficient Evidence Was Presented to Support the Judgment of

Conviction for Conspiring to Sell the Fraudulent Bank Notes

Schlei also maintains that “[n]o evidence was presented at trial

showing that Schlei or anyone else engaged at any time in fraudulent

behavior with respect to the “bank notes.’ “

The record does not support this argument.

Schlei entered into an agreement with Hiraki, Takahashi, Lee, and Han

concerning the negotiation and cashing of bank notes drawn on the

DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK in the spring of 1985.

In May 1985, Schlei and Lee attempted to cash one (1) of the bank

notes at the DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK in Japan. They were informed that

the bank note was not genuine.

Nevertheless, on May 7, 1986 Schlei, as secretary and treasurer of the

JAPAN-AMERICA FOUNDATION INC., assigned a bank note described as

“cashier’s check No. A35240” to HILL & ASSOCIATES INC.

The disclosure form letter that Norbert A. Schlei presented to Hill

for distribution to potential purchasers expressly referred to

cashier’s checks “that purport to be issued by the DAI-ICHI KANGYO


Thus, contrary to Schlei’s assertion, members of the conspiracy

entered into an agreement to sell fraudulent bank notes after Schlei

and Lee had been informed by a representative of the DAI-ICHI KANGYO

BANK that they were not genuine.

The record also discloses that Hill was furnished an additional bank

note by Takahashi on September 20, 1991.

Takahashi was aware that Hill was involved in the proposed sale of a

bond certificate to Agent Fox and Agent Sankey.

One of the bank notes was seized from Hill following his arrest in

Tampa, Florida.

This evidence was sufficient to persuade a rational juror that the

members of the conspiracy, including Schlei, had not abandoned their

agreement to sell bank notes that were known to be worthless prior to

January 18, 1992.

The fact that no bank notes were successfully negotiated does not

affect the validity of the judgment of conviction for conspiracy to

sell them. See United States v. Cuni, 689 F.2d 1353, 1356 (11th

Cir.1982) ( ” [W]hether the object of the conspiracy is achieved is

immaterial to the commission of the crime of conspiracy. ” ).

3. The Evidence Is Sufficient to Demonstrate that Schlei’s

Misrepresentations and Concealment Were Material

Schlei asserts that the representations made by the alleged

conspirators did not relate to a material fact. He argues that the

only fact that is material to a prospective purchaser of a financial

instrument is “whether the instrument will be paid when due.” Schlei

contends that where it is represented that a financial instrument will

not be paid “other information that might indirectly suggest a

possibility or probability of nonpayment becomes merely cumulative and

is immaterial.”

Schlei’s argument ignores the fact that he and his co-conspirators

represented that the financial instruments were genuine. Clearly, a

representation of genuineness is material to a prospective purchaser

of an alleged negotiable instrument.

Perhaps of more significance, however, is the fact that Norbert Schlei

and his co-conspirators concealed the fact that Norbert A. Schlei knew

that Aoyagi had been convicted in a Japan court for participating in

producing forged bond certificates and bank notes.


Star-Banner ( Ocala, Florida newspaper ):,1707972

– – – –RESEARCH NOTES ( Other ) –

CIRCA: 1985 – 1992


For The

Middle District



CASE NO.: CR-92 49 T 17C

SOURCE: Reuter’s News Wire and The Los Angeles Times

Courts –

Florida Federal Jury Finds:

2 Convicted In Sale Of Counterfeit Bonds

January 7, 1995

TAMPA, Florida — An investment company owner from Irvine and a former

U.S. Department Of Justice official have been convicted of charges

stemming from the sale of $400,000,000 million worth of counterfeit

Japan government bonds, prosecutors said.

In a verdict returned late Thursday, a Tampa federal court jury found

Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo guilty on 10 counts of conspiracy, bank

fraud, securities fraud, money-laundering, wire fraud and passing

counterfeit Japan bonds.

Norbert A. Schlei was convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy to

possess and deliver counterfeit foreign bank notes.

Schlei, a 65-year-old attorney from Beverly Hills, was an assistant

attorney general during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and

was an adviser to then-Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and Attorney

Generals Robert F. Kennedy and Nicolas Katzenbach, according to U.S.

Attorney Charles Wilson.

Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( 66 ) of Irvine, is the managing


Two ( 2 ) other defendants, Bruce Hansberry and Roger Hill, changed

their pleas to guilty during the trial.

Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo’s ‘son’ Bruce Hansberry lives in Tampa,

Wilson said.

Roger Hill ( 58 ) of Mesa, Arizona is an independent securities

broker, the prosecutor said.

A fifth ( 5th ) defendant, Alan Reedy, was found ‘not guilty’ at trial.

A sixth ( 6th ) defendant, Toshio Takahashi, remains a fugitive from justice.

Ah Loo, Hansberry and Hill were arrested 2-years ago during

negotiations to sell a counterfeit 50,000,000,000 billion yen Japan

bond to undercover federal agents posing as purchasers. At the time,

50,000,000,000 billion yen was worth about $400,000,000 million,

Wilson said.

Federal agents seized more than $2,000,000,000 billion worth of

counterfeit Japan [ Series 57 ] bonds and DAI-ICHI KANGYO BANK

cashier’s checks from the defendants.

Federal authorities began investigating the defendants in 1991 after

receiving a tip that Ah Loo’s company [ TRANSFIELD INVESTMENTS LTD. ]

was offering to market up-to $16,000,000,000 billion worth of

counterfeit Japan securities, Wilson said.

According to trial testimony, the conspiracy began in 1986 when Schlei

and others obtained counterfeit Japan government bonds and cashier’s

checks [ cashier cheques ].

“Prosecutions of fraud cases such as this ‘preserve the integrity of

the financial markets’ in this country and globally,” Wilson said.

Ah Loo, Hansberry and Hill face sentences of up-to 200-years in prison

plus fines of more than $200,000,000 million.

Schlei faces up to 6-years in prison and $350,000 in fines.


– – – –

On September 14, 1999 Norbert Schlei ( a 71 year old resident of Santa

Monica, California ) had his license to practice law suspended for

6-months but received 38-months credit from the lawyer’s Bar

Association that crediting Schlei’s earlier Bar Association ‘interim

suspension’ while federally imprisoned.

The Bar Association then provided Schlei with a 1-year probation Order

to be run concurrently while completing his MPRE, whereafter the Bar

Association Ordered Norbert Anthony Schlei reinstated to practice law

once again in good standing on September 14, 2000.

Less than 2-1/2 years later, on April 21, 2003 Norbert Anthony Schlei

died in Los Angeles, California.

On June 3, 2009, Japan Series 57 Bonds reappeared during the bond

seizure in Chiasso, Italy afterwhich the U.S. Secret Service declared

such to be “counterfeit.”


In 2010, I received an e-mail from Neil Francis Keenan informing me

the Chiasso, Italy bonds previously entrusted to him were genuine and

had been verified according to his sources, one of which I learned

from Keenan happened to be Howard Edward Wales who poses as a

high-value international bank paper asset instrument trader of

securities tied to fraudulently claimed “secret trading programs”

supposedly tied to, amongst other things, U.S. Department Of Defense (

DOD ) Pentagon defense and space Programs.

International “Master Traders” ( also known as ) ‘master fraudsters’

and their ‘promoters’ have a routine of offering ‘high-net worth’ and

‘ultra-high-net worth individual investors’ what are termed “High

Yield Investment Programs” ( also known as ) ” HYIP ” ( pronounced:

‘Hype’ ) promising exhorbitant rates of interest returns that never

materialze, which few people in the world know anything about.


“Prime Fraud Trading Program Representations” ( March 25, 2008 ):

This subject is a field of international financial intelligence (

FININT ) operations I am keenly familiar with involving a whole

variety of ‘believeable personages’, including:

– Former Government Officials ( see Norbert Anthony Schlei – as above );

– Former Federal Reserve Bank Officials;

– Billionaire Moguls and Magnates; and,

– Members of Knighted Orders ( e.g. O.S.J. Knights Of Malta, et. al. );

– Other Prominent Personages.

The purpose of the “Master Fraudster” is to locate prominent entity

names or individual personalities of high-net-worth and/or

ultra-high-net-worth ( UHNW ) individual investors whom are then

tricked sophisticatedly into supporting an investment that ends-up

becoming nothing more than a ‘black-hole investment schemes’.

There are even ‘global fraud’ “clubs” ( the “1888 Club” ) that plan

such schemes at special convention center meeting places around the

world, an exclusive topic I wrote about years ago.


“Mafia Goes Global With Clubs Targeting Rich” ( June 23, 2008 ):

The most prevalent of such a scheme, which the mainstream news media

never broadcasted anything meaningful to the public public about,

involved Bill Gates ( founder of the MICROSOFT CORPORATION ) where his

“Internet In The Sky” ( a global broadband internet communication

system ) Project fraud involved likewise high-net-worth and

ultra-high-net worth ( UHNW ) ‘individual investors’, e.g. Middle East

Royal Family members, military generals, et. al. whom were all

defrauded by what appeared to be a ‘legitimate’ “investment program”

that tantamountly stole over $1,000,000,000 billion dollars based on

what began as an article in TIME Magazine covering a company named

TELEDESIC HOLDINGS LTD. promoting the sale of an ‘old super-high

technology’ U.S. National Security Agency ( NSA ) satellite

constellation system then-comprised of only fifty-two ( 52 )

satellites earmarked for replacement by a ‘new system’.

Much of the scandalous portions of TELEDESIC, the NSA, Arab Royal

Family Saudi Arabia His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin

Abdul Aziz Alsaud who was later tied by former New York Mayor Rudolph

Guiliani to al-Qaeda financiers has all but been completely erased

from the internet, however a few remnants of information surrounding

the fraudulent EAGLE RIVER INC. investment Special Purpose Vehicle (

SPV ) may still be found in places other than my global

mini-intelligence network database files.

Government Non-Official Cover ( NOC ) Agents

And, last but not least, are the NOC foreign nationals whom, as U.S.

and British ‘government intelligence operative fraudsters’, operate

with “Global Immunity” from prosecution anywhere in the world simply

because that in the course of their “service” can say and do anything

“in the interest of national security” – provisions underwhich they

operate worldwide.

A classic case, one ( 1 ) of so very many, was the CIA led DOJ “Squad

Six” ( Portland, Oregon, USA ) missioned NOC foreign national

intelligence operative Gabriel Francis MacEnroe ( see immediately

below ) who eventually crossed that ‘very fine line’, was eventually

federally indicted, prosecuted in a federal criminal court, sentenced

to a U.S. federal prison term, and then released to return home to


– –














7. It was a further part of the conspiracy that JOSEPH SILVESTRI,


interstate and international telephone calls to the witness, and met

personally with the Witness [ i.e. Vernon Shifflet, of Ohio ], during

which they made false and misleading representations about various

proposed investments, their backgrounds and expertise in

sophisticated investment programs, their association with

select international traders who could effectuate participation in

guaranteed high-yield investment programs, and their relationship

with and licenses from various governmental agencies sponsoring

projects which could result in high investment returns.

Such false statements and misrepresentations included, but were

not limited to the following, that:

– one proposed investment program was a National Security Agency

( NSA ) approved venture involving 52 satellites, which would be

audited during the first three months by the NSA and then

certified by the NSA;

– the witness’s $60,000,000 investment would be part of a

$500,000,000 block of funds, and that the $60,000,000 would

quickly rise to $100,000,000;

– if the witness wanted the Central Intelligence Agency [ CIA ] to

control his investment, then that could be arranged;

– the witness’s investment would initially earn between 5% and

7% per week, then subsequently 20% per week, and that it could

earn over 1,000% and up to 1,500% per year;

– there would be no risk to the witness’s money, that his money

could be taken out of the bank account at any time, that the

account was very liquid and that the witness must always be

in control of his money;

– Government authorities would approve such investments;

– GABRIEL MACENROE worked with the U.S. Treasury;

– Federal Reserve Bank engages in negotiations with GABRIEL MACENROE

and/or his associates regarding the investments;

– Federal Reserve Bank sets up “mirror accounts” through which

investments can be traded without any risk to the principal investment;

– GABRIEL MACENROE had a license from the NSA;


– GABRIEL MACENROE was an FBI collector and that MACENROE’S father

was also an FBI collector;

– GABRIEL MACENROE was “1 of 5 traders in the world” who handle

these types of investments;


J. RENE JOSEY, U.S. Attorney

DAVID C. STEPHENS, Assistant U.S. Attorney

JAMES R. PAVLOCK, Trial Attorney

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.



“Spies Use IMF Fraud Overseas” ( March 17, 2006 ):

– –

H. Edward Wales, was one of many such “Traders” with a long history of

involvement with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ), and as

for Ed Wales many files originate straight out-of U.S. federal court

records also retained in my intelligence files.

Why would Neil Francis Keenan, who claims Benjamin Fulford hund the

jacket of Keenan being connected to the CIA, have anything to do with

Ed Wales?

Who handed Neil Keenan the portion of bonds seized in Chiasso, Italy

that the U.S. Secret Service declared “counterfeit”?


“Mystery of Fake U.S. Bonds Fuels Web Theories” ( June 25, 2009 ):

Did H. Ed Wales pass the other portion of bonds given to Keenan to

Danielle dal Bosco for sake-keeping, and if so, where did Wales get

those bonds from in the first place?

Did those Japan Series 57 bonds in 2009 come from the 1992 Norbert A.

Schlei federal court case file file custodial officer whom turned it

over to the federal U.S. Attorney who either turned it over to KROLL

ASSOCIATES INC. on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or

did it come from an even earlier ( 1986 ) federal U.S. court criminal

case involving Edison Damanik?

I have researched cases that involved seized securities labelled

“counterfeit” that somehow magically ‘reappear’ in another part of the

world 2-years later, and then reappear about 2-years later in yet even

another part of the world in yet another case instance, and I’m not

talking about “copies” but “originals” of the same exact financial

instruments that were to have been turned over to the U.S. government.

Unfortunately, the U.S. fovernment has a poor record of holding on-to

high-value securities, even when they are out ‘on loan’ by the U.S.

Department of the Treasury to ‘institutes’ for higher learning where

mysterious robberies have taken place over a period of decades.

Are U.S. and other foreign national government intelligence agencies

circulating ‘certain bank paper instruments’ for use in ‘global sting

operations’ around the world? My experience and files indicate the

answer. Yes, but not necessarily in ‘all cases’, and the only way one

can know is to keep track of what instruments were used where, which I

happen to know a little more about than most is all.

The best investment bet? If anyone wants ‘you’ or ‘someone you know’

to ‘invest monies’ in-to any ‘investment program’, just say: “No”!

Respectfully submitted for review and commentary by,


The Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Guy

Paul Collin

E-MAIL: [email protected]

WWW: KentronIntellectResearchVault.WordPress.Com

About The Author –


– – – –

– – – –



Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.