Argentine Economy

First of all, you are probably right, corruption should be done the american way, a quick wire transfer to a numbered swiss bank account. Though I am sure many suitcases of cash still come in AND out all the time.

Second of all MANY countries do have tight restrictions on taking money out of the country. Take Ukraine for instance, you have to declare anything over 3000 dollars. It is called tax evasion if you don't declare it and as a citizen, good luck taking more than that out. Bottom line is, they don't care what you take out of a country UNLESS it is a lot of undeclared black money or priceless antiquities, drugs and so on. Coming from Eastern Europe, where there is a long list of things you CAN'T take OUT of a country, I find your statement laughable. I am sure all those drug smugglers will be happy to know that.

Again interesting banter, I still find the hysteria over money laundering and or POSSIBLE corruption pretty hypocritical coming from those who taught the world about political and corporate corruption. BTW I have a very good concept of the gravity of this and that is why I am laughing at your fake ass concern. It's 800,000 dollars, you probably couldn't even bribe a supreme court judge for that.

I still think this will blow over pretty quickly, just like all the US scandals in the last 6 years, which dwarf this by comparison, Kirchner is safe. If anything as Thomaso stated the IRS might have questions for the American implicated, but other than that, it is just something to fill your dumbed up news hour with.

Keep up the good work.

Bad

NY Times article on the incident.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14argentina.html?ei=5090&en=59e30e08eba0ba9f&ex=1344744000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1187092930-OFfzU6nOYtFpTlBdWmpmwg[/url]

[QUOTE=Sidney]One of the funny but sad sentences is: 'In a news conference late last week, María Luz Rivas Diez, the Argentine attorney general, said Mr. Antonini Wilson had made 12 trips to Argentina in the past year, some for less than a day.'[/QUOTE]At minimum, a money laundering operation, and probably with a nice "commission" doled out to the Argie fellows in the know.

[QUOTE=Exon123]

Try driving down any road in America get pulled over and let the law enforcement officer find $800,000 in cash in your car and see what happends, Your going to jail. The Fed's would be all over you and they wouldn't quit until they had a Federal "Rap" on you that would put you in "Club Fed" for quite sometime.

Exon[/QUOTE]Exon this is patently absurd and you KNOW it. You are telling a board full of Americans nonsense about American law. Why?

[QUOTE=BundaLover]Exon this is patently absurd and you KNOW it. You are telling a board full of Americans nonsense about American law. Why?[/QUOTE]Because its the truth, thats why I'm telling it.

One or more Federal Government agencys would be all over it. Possibly Treasury or maybe DEA, but most likely it would be the Criminal Division of the IRS. Not the local county Sheriff or a traffic Cop, the Fed's don't Fuck around.

They'd trace every cent of that money, where it came from and where it was going. They'd go threw your bank accounts using their computers and know every transaction you've ever made no matter what country it was made in or going too. They would find the exact source of the cash and then they'ed prosecute the shit out of you until you rolled on the next guy and then you'd go to jail, after you rolled.

At the very least they'd hang a Income Tax charge on you and you still go to jail for not giving the Fed's their share of what ever scam you were involved in.

Exon

This absolute bullshit about it being illegal to have cash shows how unwordly some people on this forum are. It is not illegal to have cash. Period.

I am reminded when I see such ill-informed nonsense of an incidence when I was a younger man. In partnership with another 2nd hand dealer, we sold some stock at an auction and were paid out by the auction house immediately after the sale. It being late at night, we were dividing the money up inside my car, outside the local police station, the advantage being good light and good security. We were arrested by an officious young policeman and taken inside the station, where he proudly announced to the duty sargeant, that he had arrested us for having a large sum of money in cash. The sargeant looked bemused, told him to give us back the money and apologized to us and told us we were free to go. As we left, we could hear him telling the young officer, that possession of cash was not illegal, and that it was highly unlikely that we would be divving up money outside a police station if it was stolen. He did not ask us a single question.

So for those who didn't know, money does happen to be legal, whether it is $80 or $800,000. The offence was in not declaring it on entry to Argentina, something you do not have to do in your own country.

Exon's just acting like a fruit, next thing he will tell us he does this " shit " for a living or that the hooker is just his "good" friend. Give it up Exon and just admit you are wrong, WORST case scenario they confiscate it and tell you you can pick it up once you show just cause for having the cash.

That's all. No big deal, show's over. And BTW the scandal fizzled.

Bad

Argento & BadBoy your both full of Shit.

Course its not illegal to have cash, by law it has to be taken in a transaction. Matter of fact its written on our money, "Good for all debts, Public & Private"

In the case mentioned by Argento, he had a very legimate reason for having a large amount of money, (though I dought it was $800,000) and the Police eventually excepted the reason which could have been verified had they taken the time to do so.

But here's two cases I know of personally. Both guys had spotless criminal records, nothing more than minor traffic violations.

First case, the guy, a "Bagman" was driving up I-5 in Northern California. He's pulled over by the highway patrol and they find $750,000 in cash in his car. He couldn't explain where it came from and he got 10 years in a Federal slammer.

The second case, a Drug Dealer, again with a spotless record. He was never with in a mile of his Drugs. Always paid someone else to do his dirty work. Was driving down I-10 not all that far from the Mexican border. He's pulled over and they find $45,000 in cash in his car. He got 3 1/2 years with the Fed's.

In both cases they "Rolled" for lighter sentences by the way.

So heres what we're arguing about.

Its OK to have as much money in cash as you can carry what ever the amount. But You'd better have a "God Damned" good reason the Fed's are going to buy before they let you walk. They love investagating shit like this because its so easy to check and find out where the money came from if the transaction is legal.

Thomaso276 said it best.

It won't take long for the Feds (USA) to look into Wilson. Although the flight started in Caracas he is a US citizen and was in possesion of the cash. Think there will be questions about his overseas accounts (which you must declare) How he got the money? Does the fact the he was in possesion mean he must declare it somewhere in his return and the source? If not he will have to say it belonged to someone else - who will he name?

Some talking points for our USA tax / attorney experts?

They'll look into Wilson big time, on their own, without talking to the Argentines, just because he owns property in the USA. The deal stinks, the Feds know it and they'll stop at nothing to find out where "The bodies are buried"

Exon

Mongers-

I have got to agree with Exon here, possession of an inordinate amount of cash is not a crime of in itself, however, it IS probable cause for a law enforcement official to move forward with further investigation. In the United States today there is simply no legitimate reason to be carrying that kind of cash (six figures) as the banking system is so secure and every merchant (with few exceptions) accepts credit and debit cards. The only people carrying that sort of cash are 9 times out of 10 likely to be drug dealers, mobsters, or someone planning serious tax evasion. The United States today is just not a cash economy much anymore, its an electronic transfer / payment economy. At the very least being caught with six figures in cash would get the IRS on your ass to verify that you reported the amount as income.

In Latin America, however, and especially Argentina, this is a completely different story as Cash Is King, electronic payments / transfers are unreliable and fee-ridden, the banks are thieves, and everybody has got to have a serious stash of dollar cash in a safe at home in order to ride out any potential rough times. Even the AFIP people enforcing the tax / monetary laws have to maintain a cash reserve as they can't even trust the very system they operate.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

Exon, All you are doing is talking out of your ass, PERIOD. Or let me guess, you do this " shit " for a living also. Don't you have a new hooker to pimp on AP?

I will say this again, having large amounts of cash on hand is not a criminal offense. In each case you mentioned, for someone to get 10 years in federal pen they would have had to have done alot more than have money that they couldn't account for.

And all you did was repeat what I said, WORST case scenario, they confiscate the money and tell you you can pick it up once you provide just cause for having the money. That's it. If you get harassed by some crooked ass police, just call your lawyer. End of story.

And as Dirk just very perceptively stated, In Latin America, Cash Is King, Wilson was coming down to buy property, buy a business, and so on. Who knows who cares. This is old news.

Bad.

[QUOTE=Exon123]Argento & BadBoy your both full of Shit.

But heres two cases I know of personally. Both guys had spotless criminal records, nothing more than minor traffic violations.

First case, the guy, a "Bagman" was driving up I-5 in Northern California. He's pulled over by the highway patrol and they find $750,000 in cash in his car. He couldn't explain where it came from and he got 10 years in a Federal slammer.

The second case, a Drug Dealer, again with a spotless record. He was never with in a mile of his Drugs. Always paid someone else to do his dirty work. Was driving down I-10 not all that far from the Mexican border. He's pulled over and they find $45,000 in cash in his car. He got 3 1/2 years with the Fed's.

Its OK to have as much money in cash as you can carry what ever the amount. But You'd better have a "God Damned" good reason the Fed's are going to buy before they let you walk.

Thomaso276 said it best.

The deal stinks, the Feds know it and they'll stop at nothing to find out where "The bodies are buried"

Exon[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Badboy13]

And as Dirk just very perceptively stated, In Latin America, Cash Is King, Wilson was coming down to buy property, buy a business, and so on.[/QUOTE]Bad,

For an intelligent, articulate fellow (and with whom I usually agree on most geopolitical questions) I am surprised at this comment. I expect you have read what has been written about this affair. If Wilson was coming to Argentina to buy a property or business I'll eat your hat (assuming you don a chapeau from time to time) And, if he was doing one or the other it was only to wash money. Now, I am not taking aim at Venezuela politics, Argentina politics or politics in South America in general. Anybody who doesn't live in a bubble of denial knows the USA is home to oodles of corruption and fraud just like their southern neighbors. But in your rush to avoid finding fault with Chavez, Kirchner et al, you are missing the boat on this one. Those folks were up to bad business, no doubt about it. If it was not money laundering, it was a contribution to a slush fund (probably both) Hey brother, don't let your ire with the knee jerk USA defenders cloud your judgement!

Saludos-Dogg

Dogg,

Do you honestly think that I for one minute believe he was actually coming to Argentina to buy property? I am just giving one of a million reasons he could give for having the money. The point isn't that he came to buy something legitimate, the point is I can't prove otherwise.

Bad.

About the political angle, I don't really see it, I actually brought this topic up here on AP, because I thought it was funny some guy would have the balls and the stupidity to walk into a country holding a briefcase containing $800,000 dollars in manicured bills, only declare $60,000 and not expect to get searched for more.

Corruption will happen no matter who is in office, in any country, nothing gets done without greasing the wheels. That is why I didn't make it a political talking point, because, simply stated, the political angle is irrelevant, looks at the corruption during Menem's term, or Andres Perez' term, Bush's term. It doeasn't matter the country or the political party in control, you can't babysit everyone.

[QUOTE=Badboy13]

It doeasn't matter the country or the political party in control, you can't babysit everyone.[/QUOTE]Ok then, however, we get to MY agenda.;) Babysitters, definitely not. Too many fucking babysitters as it is. And as we all know, too many of them can be bought and / or compromised as well. No, I want crooked assholes like this guy and his greasy slimeball buddies prosecuted to the fullest extent of any law that applies. These people are nothing but a pack of monied, entitled sociopaths, who are infrequently prosecuted, and, if prosecuted, infrequently convicted. And, if convicted, yes, they usually get babysitters.;)

BadBoy you don't have a clue,

Suppose your right and the Arges just "White Wash" it over and its business as usual.

That isn't going to happen with the Fed's in this country. By the time their threw investagating Wilson they'll know the name of his first grade trachers dog. They'll have gone threw every bank account hes ever had and found the sorce of funds he's deposited.

This will lead to questions Wilson can't answer since $800,000 is just to big a number. Its got to lead to some form of corruption, one way or another both Wilson and someone else is in trouble.

Exon

My money's on business as usual. But you can keep dreaming,

Bad

[QUOTE=Exon123]Argento & BadBoy your both full of Shit.

First case, the guy, a "Bagman" was driving up I-5 in Northern California. He's pulled over by the highway patrol and they find $750,000 in cash in his car. He couldn't explain where it came from and he got 10 years in a Federal slammer.

Exon[/QUOTE]The leap of faith has taken place.

A) Pulled over by CHP.

B) Some undisclosed magic hand is applied and a federal agency prosecutes and has a US federal court proceeding and.

C) Federal prision.

Nothing missing from this story EXCEPT that 99% of the middle. Anybody smell bullshit?

[QUOTE=Exon123]Argento & BadBoy your both full of Shit.

The second case, a Drug Dealer, again with a spotless record. He was never with in a mile of his Drugs. Always paid someone else to do his dirty work. Was driving down I-10 not all that far from the Mexican border. He's pulled over and they find $45,000 in cash in his car. He got 3 1/2 years with the Fed's.

Exon[/QUOTE]Almost beyond logical examination with this one. The virgin drug dealer set-up scam again Exon? Gosh I wonder if the Feds (DEA? Had mister experienced / virgin drug dealer under observation?

Do you think the prision term had anything to do with the DRUG dealing or just the X cash in the car?

800k cash US? Who gives a fuck when the take on construction contracts and consessions in Argentina funds millions and millions of payola to Menem's 32 cousins and kids and son in law.

BundaLover.

You'll never know that $800,000 dollars in cash really is.

I do.

Exon

There seems to be a basic mis-understanding of the law in regard to the rights of people. The facts are as follows.

If the police believe an offence has been committed, they can arrest the person suspected, seize the evidence, prosecute and then after they obtain a conviction, the evidence, (in this case the money) will be returned to it's rightful owner or confiscated if it is the proceedings of a crime. No proof and no conviction, it all gets handed back with apologies and penalties for wrongfull prosecution.

The onus of proof is on the prosecuting authority.

The suspect has the right to silence and only needs to provide sufficient information at a trial to refute the accusations.

There is a huge jump from driving down the highway with a trunkfull of money, to a plea bargaining deal with prosecutors. As someone remarked, there appears to be a lot missing in the middle.

Some of the guys on this forum appear very unworldly if they think there is no reason for people to have a lot of cash on hand. Many people have lots of cash and it's their choice to do so. The best reasons of course are availability and privacy. When I last looked at the statutes, neither of these were a crime.

[QUOTE=Exon123]BundaLover.

You'll never know that $800,000 dollars in cash really is.

I do. Exon[/QUOTE] If that where really true, you would be laughing right along side me at the pittance you are talking about, BAE is being investigated for corruption and bribery charges in connection with tens of BILLIONS it funneled to many Saudi princes. Now that is bribery and corruption charges worth talking about. And what happened with the official British investigation?

[QUOTE]On 1 December The Daily Telegraph ran a front page headline suggesting that Saudi Arabia had given the UK ten days to suspend the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE / Saudi Arabian transactions or they would take the deal to France "

On 14 December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the investigation was being discontinued. The 15-strong team had been ordered to turn in their files two days before. The statement in the House of Lords read:

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has decided to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract. This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. "

" On 26 June 2007 BAE announced that the United States Department of Justice had launched its own investigation into Al Yamamah. It specifically was looking into allegations that a US bank had been used to funnel payments to Prince Bandar. " END[/QUOTE]It seems the british government had a very lucrative oil for guns and euro typhoons contract that was negociated under the table with the Saudis and they were paying bribes in order to recieve those contracts. Oh and BTW, US banks were facilitating all the illegal international wire tranfers. So what else is new? BUSINESS AS USUAL.

And you're getting all hyped up about $800,000? This is a JOKE right? Something to post about when you aren't telling everyone you do this or that " shit " for a living, bragging about seeing 800K in cash, or pimping a new con artist hooker on us that you swear is really your " friend ". Like I said, you couldn't even bribe a supreme court judge for that. So stop bragging about seeing 800,000 in cash, If at your age, that is something to brag about, you must have done something wrong.

Bad

However, if just about anybody in the US comes into contact with the authorities carrying that much money, you can be 100% certain that he will be investigated immediately - the DEA, IRS, and FBI will all take turns inspecting the sphincter of anybody caught carrying this much money.

There are very few legitimate reasons for someone to carry that much cash around, either internationally or domestically. There are many more illegitimate reasons, beginning with drug money and ending with buying politicians, which seems to be the case with the Venezuelans buying the Argentinan leadership.

My only question is to wonder why this customs agent didn't just mysteriously disappear before news of his discovery leaked out. The Argentine secret police is getting sloppy. Probably need to import more advisors from Caracas and Havana, where they know how to handle little embarassments like this. Venezulean and Cuban reinforcements for K's thugs are doubtless being dispatched even as we discuss this.

[QUOTE]On 1 December The Daily Telegraph ran a front page headline suggesting that Saudi Arabia had given the UK ten days to suspend the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE / Saudi Arabian transactions or they would take the deal to France "

On 14 December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the investigation was being discontinued. The 15-strong team had been ordered to turn in their files two days before. The statement in the House of Lords read:

" The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has decided to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract. This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. "

" On 26 June 2007 BAE announced that the United States Department of Justice had launched its own investigation into Al Yamamah. It specifically was looking into allegations that a US bank had been used to funnel payments to Prince Bandar. "

" In a newspaper interview, Robert Wardle, head of the Serious Fraud Office, acknowledged that the decision to terminate the investigation may have damaged "the reputation of the UK as a place which is determined to stamp out corruption. "[/quote]I guess it is much easier to think that the only unjustifiably corrupt ones are those you disagree with politically. But generally your at home politics are just as dirty if not much more so. The only difference is, as illustrated here, US and UK politicians know better than to seriously investigate their own politicians and corporations. Why? because as it is stated here, it is against the national interest to aire out their own political and corporate dirty laundry to the world and what's more, they don't REALLy want to know what is going on behind closed doors. No need to disappear anyone, just make them believe they are doing the nation good by lying to it so others ( national corporations and their government lackeys ) can profit.

Bad

[QUOTE=Hunt99]However, if just about anybody in the US comes into contact with the authorities carrying that much money, you can be 100% certain that he will be investigated immediately - the DEA, IRS, and FBI will all take turns inspecting the sphincter of anybody caught carrying this much money.

There are very few legitimate reasons for someone to carry that much cash around, either internationally or domestically. There are many more illegitimate reasons, beginning with drug money and ending with buying politicians, which seems to be the case with the Venezuelans buying the Argentinan leadership.

My only question is to wonder why this customs agent didn't just mysteriously disappear before news of his discovery leaked out. The Argentine secret police is getting sloppy. Probably need to import more advisors from Caracas and Havana, where they know how to handle little embarassments like this. Venezulean and Cuban reinforcements for K's thugs are doubtless being dispatched even as we discuss this.[/QUOTE]Thank You Hunt,

Finally a voice of reason. I've just had a hard time getting threw too these Mongers that you just can't run around with $800,000 in cash.

That kind of money is "Red Meat" to our varrious law enforcment agency's. They love it when a case like this comes up. Its easy to investagate and has all the makings of political intrigue and corruption that they so love to fuck people up with.

Mr Wilson, the "Bag Man" has got a big problem. Once the incendent was published in the New York Times the Fed's have no choice but to jump all over it. Wilson's problem starts with he can't return home to Miami. Soon as he goes threw pass port control "Bingo" they've got him. Next he'll have to "Roll Over" on what the real deal is so he does less time.

The Fed's have very high tech computer systems just to track money. A friend of mines daughter did just that. Top Secret clearence she spends all day everyday tracking "Hot Money" around the world. Doesn't matter the country where it came from or where it's going they can track it.

There really arn't any secrets anymore.

Exon

[quote=exon123]The second case, a Drug Dealer, again with a spotless record. He was never with in a mile of his Drugs. Always paid someone else to do his dirty work. Was driving down I-10 not all that far from the Mexican border. He's pulled over and they find $45,000 in cash in his car. He got 3 1/2 years with the Fed's.[/quote][blue]This was the point where Exon quit doing [i][u]that[/u][/i] for a living.

ROTFLMAO!

Jackson[/blue]

[QUOTE=Jackson][blue]This was the point where Exon quit doing [I][u]that[/u][/i] for a living.

ROTFLMAO!

Jackson[/blue][/QUOTE]Sotra like the pot calling the kettle Black, right Jackson.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]Mr Wilson, the "Bag Man" has got a big problem. Once the incendent was published in the New York Times the Fed's have no choice but to jump all over it. Wilson's problem starts with he can't return home to Miami. Soon as he goes threw pass port control "Bingo" they've got him. Next he'll have to "Roll Over" on what the real deal is so he does less time. Exon[/QUOTE]Unless there is REAL money and serious corruption involved, then, according to the The Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Attorney General of the UK:

"The need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest."

In other words, fuck the citizens, discontinue investigations, censure any incriminating findings, bury the story, and change the subject.

In regards to the money, you can carry any amount of legal money you want just as long as you can account for it's origins and your intentions with regards to it.

End of story, talking about Drug Dealers is seriously getting off topic, but at least we know you have an imagination Ex.

Bad

[QUOTE=Sidney]Badboy13, please explain.[/QUOTE]The better question would be what does this entire conversation have to do with Argentine Economy, or what do your personal feelings about Kirchner or Chavez have to do with anything.

I at least post facts.

Bad

[QUOTE=Sidney] I will concede this series of scandals has a deleterious effect on the AR economy. [/QUOTE]Only because it agrees with your politics. You can concede all you want, but you have no proof or facts to back it up. Because if what you said where true, those multi billion dollar BAE / Saudi Arabia scandals would have also had a detrimental effect on the UK's economy, and on the contrary those billion dollar bribes actually helped BAE aquire about 86 billion dollars in past contracts and an additional 80 billion in the future. The reader can believe what they want, all they have to do is a quick google search on the BAE scandal that was NOT detrimental to the UK economy and in fact benefited both the corporations and the government.

So with all due respect, you are full of shit, and as long as biased political opinions muddle up your posts, you and others can and will be challenged. Because I didn't once hear you chide Exon when he totally went off topic talking about US drug dealers and the DEA. Maybe because his general political views coincide with yours.

But whatever, keep it up,.

Bad

BadBoy why don't you give it up and quit making a "Fool" out yourself.

Exon

Sorry but I can't remember if I was arguing with Exon or Badboy.

Anyway Argento there are certain major large cities in the US that have certain court approved injunctions for search and seizure due to a demonstrated pattern of organized criminal activity. For example Oakland California police had the right to stop and INSPECT and seize what-ever materials including the car if they 'believed' the vechicle or occupants had intention of 'drug dealing or solicitation of prostution'. Note this is far more encompassing then the 'reasonable suspision' or in 'plain view' guidelines normally in place in California. The story gets interesting when one reads in the newspaper that they pulled over someone for an illegal u-turn and upon inspection found 3 oz of marijana AND they confiscate the car which is owned by the 17 year old driver's father or mother. The car is typically sold at auction by the time the owners consult with a lawyer. Lots of fun and sad stories about this. As you can imagine justice is not 100% accurate.

Other than these special zones. Police are not involved with the feds. For example SF Ca is a 'santuary' city. The SF Police will NOT call INS when they arrest an illegal. They are PROHIBBITED BY LOCAL LAW (board of supervisors) from doing so. I am not a law enforcment guy but there are really HARD lines of separation in California (County by county- Southern Cal is more conservative) from federal agencies. Your state may be normal.

We have a huge problem with illegal drivers or should I say drivers here for long term that drive to work, drive their kids to school and do not have CA drivers lic. Is it better to include them in the system or ignore them? Very tough questions. The CHP behaves differently then the San Mateo police for example.

Exon. 800kUS $ is about what you spent on your last fishing trip isnt it?

I'm poor. I am luck to see 80 pesos every second Sunday, then I give it to 1707 Santa Fe apt #3.

References.

1. "Arms sales fuel BAe's profits", BBC News, 1999-02-25. Retrieved on 2006-08-19.

2. O'Connell, Dominic. "BAE cashes in on £40bn Arab jet deal", The Sunday Times, News International, 2006-08-20. Retrieved on 2006-08-22.

3. Welcome to Project AY. BAE Systems. Retrieved on 2006-12-18.

4. Gardner, Charles [1981]. British Aircraft Corporation. A history by Charles Gardner. Be. T. Batsford Ltd, 224-249. ISBN 0-7134-3815-0.

5. Bloom, Bridget, Johns, Richard. "A deal in a different dimension; The UK-Saudi arms sale", Financial Times, The Financial Times, 1986-02-19, p. 16. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.

6. Memorandum of Undestaning for the provision of equipment and services for the Royal Saudi Air Force (PDF) (September 1985) Retrieved on 2006-11-02.

7. Mottram, R (1985-09-25) Briefing for the Prime Minister's meeting with Prince Sultan (PDF) Retrieved on 2006-11-02.

8. Adam Ingram (18 November 2003) Defence - Saudi Arabia. Hansard.

9. "BAE confirms £5bn Eurofighter sale to Saudi Arabia", The Times, 2006-08-19. Retrieved on 2006-08-19.

10. "Saudi Arabia Signs Typhoon Deal", Air Forces Monthly, February 2006, pp. 4-5. Retrieved on 2006-08-22.

11. Steiner, Rupert. "BAE clinches new £2.5bn Tornado deal with Saudis", The Business, 2006-09-10. Retrieved on 2006-09-12.

12. "Saudi Arabia considers Tornado fighter deal", Financial Times, The Financial Times Limited, 1984-07-11, p. 6. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

13. Fairhill, David. "Saudis agree 'in principle' to 3 billion pound plane deal: Israelis angered by Tornado sale 'arms race escalation'", Financial Times, The Financial Times Limited, 1985-09-16. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

14. Dobbin, Ben. "Britain signs arms deal with Saudi Arabia", Associated Press. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

15. Donne, Michael. "BAe Hands Over First Part Of Saudi Aircraft Order", Financial Times, The Financial Times Limited, 1987-08-12, p. 6. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

16. Fairhill, David. "Britain signs 6 billion pounds Saudi arms contract", The Guardian, Guardian Newspapers Limited, 1988-07-09. Retrieved on 2006-12-18.

17. Rob Evans, David Leigh. "Millions risked on BAE contract", The Guardian, 27 November 2003. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

18. David Leigh, Rob Evans. "£1bn BAE guarantee 'foolish', says MP", The Guardian, 15 December 2004. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

19. Submission from the Campaign Against Arms Trade to the International Development Committee's Inquiry into corruption. Campaign Against Arms Trade (September 2000) Retrieved on 2006-08-19.

20. "Timeline: BAE corruption probe", BBC News, 15 December 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

21. Adam Ingram (17 November 2003) Defence - Saudi Arabia. Hansard. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

22. Geoff Hoon (25 May 2004) Al Yamamah Contracts. Hansard. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

23. David Leigh, Rob Evans. "MoD chief in fraud cover-up row", The Guardian, 13 October 2003. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

24. Michael Robinson. "BBC lifts the lid on secret BAE slush fund", BBC Money Programme, 4 October 2004. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

25. "BAE subject of fraud investigation", The Herald, Scottish Media Newspapers Limited, 2004-11-18, p. 23. Retrieved on 2006-12-17.

26. David Leigh. "Fraud Office looks again at BAE", The Guardian, 12 September 2003. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

27. "SFO to investigate BAE contracts", BBC News, 3 November 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

28. "BAE included in SFO investigation", BBC News, 17 November 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

29. a be c David Leigh, Rob Evans. "Brutal politics lesson for corruption investigators", The Guardian, 16 December 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-16.

30. a be Leigh, David, Evans, Rob. "Parliamentary auditor hampers police inquiry into arms deal", The Guardian, Guardian Newspapers Ltd. 2006-07-25. Retrieved on 2006-08-12.

31. Harry Cohen (7 February 2002) Business of the House. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

32. Alan Williams (13 February 2002) Public Accounts Commission - Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement. Hansard. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

33. "Defence firms fear Saudi fall-out", 4 December 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

34. "Unions confirm BAE job loss fears", 29 November 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

35. a be Hope, Christopher. "Halt inquiry or we cancel Eurofighters", The Daily Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2006-12-01. Retrieved on 2006-12-01.

36. Bowell, James; Fidler Stephen, Hollinger, Peggy; Khalaf, Roula; Peel, Michael. "BAE investors take flight at potential loss of Eurofighter deal.", Financial Times, The Financial Times Limited, 2006-11-28, p. 3. Retrieved on 2006-12-01.

37. Lord Goldsmith (15 December 2006) BAE Systems: Al Yamamah Contract. Hansard. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

38. "Blair defends Saudi probe ruling", BBC News, 15 December 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

39. "Criticism of ditched Saudi probe", BBC News, 15 December 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.

40. OECD (14 March 2007) OECD decision to re-open investigation. OECD. Retrieved on 2007-04-27.

41. "Watchdog chief warns Saudi arms probe 'must be re-opened'", Evening Standard, 17 January 2007.

42. Pfeifer, Sylvia, Helen Power. "'I like shooting things'", Daily Telegraph, 2007-07-15.

43. Saudi prince 'received arms cash', BBC, 7 June 2007

44. Associated Press. "BAE says U. S. Is investigating dealings with Saudi Arabia", International Herald Tribune, 2007-06-26.

So now all you are doing is exposing your political bias, which is fine but don't try to mask it as anything else. I twisted NOTHING, If you have any evidence of that, post it.

[QUOTE=Badboy13]Only because it agrees with your politics. You can concede all you want, but you have no proof or facts to back it up. Because if what you said where true, those multi billion dollar BAE / Saudi Arabia scandals would have also had a detrimental effect on the UK's economy, and on the contrary those billion dollar bribes actually helped BAE aquire about 86 billion dollars in past contracts and an additional 80 billion in the future. The reader can believe what they want, all they have to do is a quick google search on the BAE scandal that was NOT detrimental to the UK economy and in fact benefited both the corporations and the government.

So with all due respect, you are full of shit, and as long as biased political opinions muddle up your posts, you and others can and will be challenged. Because I didn't once hear you chide Exon when he totally went off topic talking about US drug dealers and the DEA. Maybe because his general political views coincide with yours.

But whatever, keep it up,.

Bad[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Sidney] Bad, ''there you go again''-''resorting to name calling''! You can't stay on subject And calling me ''full of shit''. Where in hell, does that put you? What happened in the UK has no relevence in AR, no matter how many ''twisted facts'' you contrive! Is that a threat Bad?--''But whatever, keep it up,''[/QUOTE]Where in that entire post was I name calling? You are flat out lying right now, and now I am " name calling " by calling you a LIAR.

Where are the twisted facts? If you have any evidence that anything I posted was in some way, shape, or form twisted please post it, otherwise you are continuing to talk out of your ass. I didn't twist anything and the " reader " can google it and find the exact same data.

As usual, you excuse the corruption from political parties you accept and condemn percieved corruption from those political parties you disagree with, which is your right. But I call it like it is and if you don't like it, that's tough.

And as far as Exon is concerned, give me a break, you are the biggest fool here, and if you think I am foolish, that's great, am I supposed to care? Sure buddy, you do nothing but pimp women onto other forum members and pathetically try to convince everyone you are some investment genius that brags about seeing 800k cash.

Miss me with that shit,

Bad