Interpol has provided exceptional assistance, including confidential information, to a French lawyer hired by its secretary general as his legal counsel in his divorce proceedings, to help him win a lucrative contract with the Libyan authorities as part of an Interpol-sponsored project to recover assets looted by the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Mediapart can reveal.
Pascal Trillat, head of Trillat & Associés, a Paris-based law firm specialized in business and insurance law, has since 2011 acted as Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble’s legal counsel in an ongoing matter relating to the Interpol chief’s divorce, and which centres on the sale of a property jointly owned by the two former spouses.
Since December 2012, Trillat has become one of Interpol’s private partners in a so-called ‘joint public-private task force’ offering Tripoli its help, against a payment of commissions to the private entities involved, to track down and return Libyan national funds siphoned off and hidden around the world by the Gaddafi clan. The negotiations to set up the 'Task Force', proposed by Noble, are ongoing.
In their hunt for Gaddafi’s hidden fortune, which some estimates value at up to 151 billion euros, the new Libyan authorities are ready to pay hefty commissions to private firms who help track down, freeze and recover the huge sums dissimulated by Gaddafi, his family and former aides in complex financial structures, including property, shell companies and secret bank accounts in tax havens.
Mediapart has gained access to documents, detailed further below, that demonstrate how Interpol’s General Counsel and Director of Legal Affairs, Joël Sollier, provided Trillat - who has no apparent experience in tracking down assets spoliated by despots - with confidential information, including that provided by the organisation’s contacts, with the aim of ensuring that the authorities in Tripoli agree to hire his services.
Questioned by Mediapart, both Noble, via an email response from Interpol’s chief press officer, and Sollier, in a recorded face-to-face interview, deny any conflict of interest, favouritism or other wrongdoing with regard to their dealings with Trillat as a private partner in the proposed ‘Task Force’ to trace Gaddafi’s hidden funds.
Noble is a former Undersecretary for Enforcement of the US Treasury Department, a post he held between 1993 and 1996, a professor of law with New York University. He began his career in law enforcement as a federal prosecutor specialising in cases of organized crime, drug trafficking, fraud, and corruption. In 2011 he was tipped as a candidate for the post of director of the FBI.
He is the first American to head the intergovernmental police cooperation agency and was re-elected to a third consecutive five-year term of office in 2010.
Sollier is a French magistrate who, prior to his post with Interpol, served with the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee. Earlier in his career he was a member of the Versailles prosecutor’s office specialised in economic and financial criminality.
For more than a year, bounty hunters from across the globe have been knocking on the doors of the fragile new powers in Tripoli in an attempt to gain contracts with commissions calculated as a percentage of the value of the assets hidden by Gaddafi once identified and recovered by Libya.
In March this year, Interpol Secretary General Noble travelled to Libya, where he was joined by Trillat, when he met with senior government members and outlined the Interpol proposition of a ‘Task Force’ to join the bounty hunt. A statement about the trip published on the inter-governmental police organisation’s website announced that “Libya’s Prime Minister Zeidan, Foreign Minister Abdelaziz, and Interior Minister Shuwail were united in their support of INTERPOL’s providing technical assistance and creating a joint public private task force that would collaborate with Libya to help track down and repatriate the assets looted from the country during the Gaddafi regime.”
According to a confidential document outlining the project to which Mediapart has gained access, the ‘Task Force’ initiative led by Noble includes provision of the services of just two private entities.
One is a US company called Command Global Services (CGS), a dedicated asset-recovery subsidiary company of the Command Consulting Group, and whose special unit for recovering the Libyan assets includes Juan Zarate, a former Deputy National Security Advisor on combating terrorism under the George W. Bush administration and whose field leader is Charles Seidel, a retired CIA officer who served in Iraq and as the agency’s station chief in Jordan . The involvement of CGS, which officially began other contract work for Libya for the recovery of Gaddafi’s secret billions in May 2012, was urged by the authorities in Tripoli.
The second and only other private partner included to date in the Interpol ‘Task Force’ is the comparatively modest firm of Trillat & Associés , founded in 2005 by Pascal Trillat, which has four associate directors and which claims on its website to be specialized in insurance, transportation, property, company and tax laws, although asset-recovery is not mentioned.
Enlargement : Illustration 2
“If we find 1% [of Gaddafi’s hidden funds], and we earn 1% in identification commission and 2% for the recovery, I’ll have earned my year,” Trillat told Mediapart during an interview in his offices in central Paris, although he cautioned: “No contract has been signed yet.”
Trillat & Associés is also the law firm hired by Noble since 2011 to defend his interests in an affair linked to his divorce and which concerns the sale of a property. According to information obtained by Medipart, by May this year the Interpol Secretary General had still not been sent a bill for the law firm’s services. According to an internal document from the firm, the total fee for its services for Noble up until the month of May amounted to 12,976 euros.
A series of questions on this and other issues raised in this article which was submitted by Mediapart in an email directly addressed to the Interpol Secretary General was replied to by Interpol’s chief press officer, Rachael Billington, on behalf of Noble on July 19th (see page 3 for the full text of questions and answers).
In response to a question by Mediapart as to why Noble had not paid the fees of 12,976 euros by the end of May, she answered: “Mr Noble does not confirm this amount which is completely erroneous."
"The Trillat law firm is involved in the sale of a property jointly owned by Mr Noble and his former wife. It is a legally complex case and it is not certain whether it can be heard in France. Consequently, the settlement of this case, and of the fees concerned, have not yet been fully assessed."
"Irrespective of the final amount of the fees, they will be paid at the end of the ongoing judicial procedure, as is common practice in a property sale. Moreover, Mr Noble has already paid a retainer which more than covers the costs in this case.”
Responding to Mediapart’s question of why Noble chose to propose Trillat’s law firm to the Libyans as a member of the ‘Task Force’ to recover the Gaddafi clan's hidden funds, Interpol’s chief press officer replied: “As Secretary General of INTERPOL, Mr Noble did not “choose the Trillat law firm” to begin the process of recovering assets misappropriated by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime; on the contrary, it was the Trillat law firm which approached Mr Noble as it had certain information on the subject, and asked him how it could best be used.”
She continued: “INTERPOL believed that the best way to proceed in this case was to create a Task Force associating public and private partners, namely: the law firm which possessed information (Trillat & Associés); the firm which had already been given a mandate by Libya to identify and recover assets (Command Global Services – CGS); and public entities, international organizations or States, which could best support this mission.”
The oath of loyalty that Noble was required to sign as Secretary General states: “I solemnly undertake to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as Secretary General of the ICPO-Interpol, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the Organization alone in view, not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duties from any government or any authority external to the Organization, and under all circumstances to uphold the provisions governing the operation of the Organization."
Meanwhile, asked about his experience in hunting down looted national assets during an interview with Mediapart at his Paris offices, Pascal Trillat began by referring to his “career in the insurance business”, and which he said saw him involved in the case of the fire that destroyed the Crédit Lyonnais bank headquarters in Paris in 1996, and also the 1999 Mont Blanc tunnel blaze in which 39 people died and which began after a Volvo truck travelling through it caught fire. “I had the Volvo corporation up against me,” Trillat said. “We hunted everywhere in Europe. When a Volvo truck caught fire for example in Hungary, we went to Hungary, I wanted to demonstrate to them that their trucks caught fire on their own […] We are used to hunting.”
But while the experience he recounted does not appear connected to the very specialist business of tracing hidden assets as required of Interpol’s ‘Task Force’, Trillat mentioned that he “perhaps” had information about bank accounts linked to Gaddafi’s entourage, which he declined to detail on the grounds of confidentiality. “They chose me because we know each other,” he said. “I know them […] when you work for multinationals, you know the head of legal affairs, you know the chairman. At a given time there is someone who favours someone.”
During the interview with Mediapart, Trillat appeared to suggest the questions regarding his competence for the job of tracing Gaddafi’s hidden fortune served diplomatic rivalry: “Would you have preferred it if [Interpol] took on [UK-based law firms] Clifford Chance or Ernst & Young?” before adding: “You do a fine job, where you involuntarily serve the interests of the Americans.”
Helping present Libyans with an 'irresistible' proposal
The first discussions about the project with the Libyans took place at a dinner party held in mid-December 2012 at Trillat’s private home in the Paris region, in the presence of Noble and Joël Sollier, Interpol’s General Counsel and legal affairs director, along with representatives of the US firm CGS. The location might appear a surprising choice for a public organization like Interpol to discuss such a contract, which has developed in the absence of any call for tenders.
"Paris was chosen as the venue for practical reasons," indicated Interpol chief press officer Rachael Billington, "particularly as the American delegation was in transit in Paris."
Enlargement : Illustration 3
While Interpol has previously been engaged in helping track down national assets looted by heads of state, such as the national funds siphoned off by former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – already a departure from its traditional missions – it has never until now entered into partnership with private firms.
“It’s a first”, admitted Joël Sollier, Interpol’s General Counsel and Director of Legal Affairs, in an interview with Mediapart at the organisation’s headquarters in the southern French city Lyon. He said the move was justified by “the dimension” of the sums involved, estimated in media reports to total between 80 billion euros and 151 billion euros. Asked by Mediapart why Interpol decided to hire Trillat & Associés, Sollier answered: “Trillat has information, and he knows the Secretary General of Interpol.”
Mediapart understands that Trillat first told Noble about the matter in December 2012.
“If you have information that touches on international legal issues, you’re not going to talk about it with the public prosecutor for [the small French town of] Montauban,” commented Sollier with sarcasm. “You talk about it with the person who seems the most appropriate.”
He offered no detail about what Trillat’s “information” was, but said the French lawyer had “an informer”, who Noble judged to be a credible source.
“There was an initial evaluation, informal,” said Sollier. Asked whether he knew the identity of Trillat’s informer, he replied: “I cannot give you an answer, there are security issues at stake. Otherwise, we open up the house [Interpol] and it’s [like] the Post Office, we’re no longer a police organization.”
Following the initial meeting over dinner at Trillat’s home in mid-December 2012, Sollier met with the lawyer for a drink during the Christmas vacation later that month at Trillat’s holiday villa at Saint-Tropez, on the French Riviera.
“There was a good understanding with Pascal Trillat,” Sollier said. “I saw him once on a private basis because we were on holiday in the same place. I swear to you that it’s not suspicious, he didn’t corrupt me.” He then joked: “Ah, yes, he bought me a carton of cigarettes on the plane for Tripoli.”
However, the contents of a series of email correspondence exchanged between the two men, to which Mediapart has gained access, illustrates a surprising degree of complicity.
On December 24th 2012, the Interpol legal affairs director sent Trillat a copy of a letter signed by the head of the Libyan ‘Committee for the recovery of assets’, Bechir Ali Al Akari, and which was originally addressed to Secretary General Noble. “I pass this on to you on a confidential basis,” Sollier wrote to Trillat. Similarly, in an email sent to Trillat dated December 31st 2012, and which contained a series of attachments, Sollier wrote: “Thank you for affording these internal Interpol documents the necessary confidentiality.”
Then, on April 10th, the Interpol legal affairs director sent Trillat the project for the ‘Task Force’ agreement that Interpol was lobbying the Libyans to sign. “See if this is OK for you,” Sollier suggests to Trillat, now addressing him in the informal ‘tu’, instead of ‘vous’ (both meaning 'you'), an indication of personal or professional intimacy.
Sollier’s April 10th email was clearly a special favour for Trillat, given Sollier’s comment in the same correspondence that CGS’s American lawyers had been sent “no document for the time being”. Furthermore, Sollier made clear: “I’m submitting this to you in priority.”
Moreover, Sollier offered to help Trillat in establishing an appropriate amount for his fees in the contract that he was due to sign directly with the Libyan authorities, in parallel to the framework agreement concerning the Interpol-led ‘Task Force’. The challenge for Trillat was to offer the Libyans fees that would be low enough to please them, and to compete with the offer made by CGS, while at the same time not undercutting himself.
On April 16th, Sollier sent an email to Trillat in which he promised: “We will help with the passing [of your offer] on the Libyan side”. Sollier added: “I will let you know the acceptable % [percentage] to be mentioned in the agreement as soon as my correspondents give me the requested indications.”
The correspondence appeared to suggest that Interpol was using its network of contacts for the benefit of a private firm.
Trillat & Associés envisaged proposing a commission rate of between 0.7% and 2% of the value of the assets recovered. On April 19th, Sollier sent Trillat another email. “Our source of information is [a] very sure [one] and at the heart of the dossier,” he told the lawyer. “I think you should maintain the rate that you propose, it makes the proposition irresistible for the Libyans. For you to decide. Best wishes [in the original French: “Amicalement”].”
Sollier also engaged his services to help with the fine wording of Trillat’s contract proposal to the Libyans, such as the number of staff at his law firm that he would involve in the operation, and the question of refunding of expenses. “We believe that you go too far with the guarantees and details given to Libya,” the Interpol legal affairs director wrote to Trillat. “We propose that you lighten-up and make more flexible the text concerning certain dispositions,” he advised, sending Trillat a corrected version of the proposal.
Sollier even called on the services of a jurist specialized in Arab affairs to help with the presentation of the text of Trillat’s proposal in Arabic. “I send you her message on a confidential basis,” he wrote to Trillat in an email dated April 26th. “She has made some modifications. There is also a quasi-automatic mention of ‘Interpol for official use’ that is included in the document and which must be erased from the final version.”
Mediapart asked Sollier whether he might agree that the closeness he displayed with Trillat had violated the internal regulations of Interpol. “What must be understood is that we are in a relationship of partnership,” he replied. “How are we going to work with these law firms if they don’t even know on what basis Interpol has an understanding with the Libyans? […] You have the impression that we did something in a spirit of conspiracy, whereas we worked with Trillat & Associés in such a manner that they mount something that is correct [regarding commission payments], in the range that seems to us to be right [for the Libyans]. We don’t want the ‘Task Force’ project to be scuppered because Trillat’s rate is too high, or because he included inappropriate contractual standards in his [proposed] agreement.”
In reply to questions Mediapart sent to Ronald K. Noble, his Chief Press Officer wrote that “the aim of creating a Task Force under INTERPOL’s auspices is to “streamline” the involvement of private players and to ensure that the fees determined are reasonable. The effect of INTERPOL’s action therefore was not to procure any unfair advantages for certain parties but, on the contrary, to substantially reduce the potential remuneration of the parties involved."
"A basic condition to the conduct of this partnership was that INTERPOL would examine the conditions governing the involvement of the private players in the “Task Force”.
Noble was asked by Mediapart whether he was informed of, and whether he had approved, the passing of confidential information in Interpol’s possession by Sollier to Trillat, as demonstrated by the contents of the emails between the two. Once again, the reply came via his Chief Press officer. “Mr Noble works closely and in a relationship of trust with INTERPOL’s senior management to agree upon the objectives and procedures for handling various matters,” she wrote.
“[…] The memoranda of understanding in question are not covered by a restrictive INTERPOL classification (as would be the case for police information)," she continued. "These are administrative documents that must remain exclusively within the circle of the parties involved in the matter. They therefore carry a standard, automatically applied warning that prohibits them from being disseminated to anyone other than the intended recipient. This is also the case for all legal documents that are shared with law firms (matters concerning staff, real estate issues, miscellaneous disputes)."
The reply concluded with the warning: “Furthermore, all correspondence with law firms is covered by professional secrecy and is subject to enhanced protection which, if breached, is punishable by law in most countries.”
-------------------------
- Go to page 3 to read the full reply supplied by Interpol in response to Mediapart's questions, initially addressed directly to Ronald K. Noble in person, about the issues raised in this article.
Interpol's response to Mediapart's questions
The following is the text in full of Interpol’s response to a list of questions addressed by Medipart to Ronald K. Noble concering the issues raised in this article.
Mediapart wrote by email directly to the Interpol Secretary General, but received a reply from the organisation’s chief press officer, Rachael Billington, "in response to the questions you have addressed to Mr Noble".
The answers from Interpol were provided in both English and French.
Question 1: For what reasons did you choose to propose the services of the Trillat legal practice to the Libyan authorities?
Answer: “As Secretary General of INTERPOL, Mr Noble did not “choose the Trillat law firm” to begin the process of recovering assets misappropriated by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime; on the contrary, it was the Trillat law firm which approached Mr Noble as it had certain information on the subject, and asked him how it could best be used.
INTERPOL believed that the best way to proceed in this case was to create a Task Force associating public and private partners, namely: the law firm which possessed information (Trillat & Associés); the firm which had already been given a mandate by Libya to identify and recover assets (Command Global Services – CGS); and public entities, international organizations or States, which could best support this mission.
Both firms – already present and in contact with INTERPOL – were therefore involved in the very first discussions that took place with the Libyan authorities.
The Task Force is expected to include various other partners as soon as it becomes operational, which is not yet the case.
Question 2: What are your personal links with Pascal Trillat?
Answer: “The firm of Trillat & Associés represented Mr Noble in a private case in 2011. Since then, Mr Noble has formed a relationship of trust with Mr Trillat.
Regarding the Libyan assets case, it was because of this relationship of trust that Mr Trillat sought Mr Noble’s advice on a matter connected with his professional work at INTERPOL.”
Question 3: What do you know of the information in Mr. Trillat’s possession concerning the localisation of Gaddafi’s assets? How did you assess the interest and the credibility of this information?
Answer: “Mr Trillat shared the information in his possession – which came from a confidential source – with INTERPOL.
This information was processed in accordance with the usual protocols, bearing in mind that, to allow a final verification of the information to be made, a mandate is required from the Libyan authorities so that work can begin with the countries which may be holding these assets.
INTERPOL does not feel it can communicate further information on this specific point, or at this stage of the procedure, without seriously compromising the prospects of restoring the assets in question to the Libyan authorities.”
Question 4: Do you confirm that you are a client of the Trillat legal practice (in a private capacity) and to have engaged its services in 2011 concerning the subsequent procedure of your divorce?
Answer: “See answers to questions 1, 2 and 5.”
Question 5: At the end of May 2013, you had still not settled any of the fees of this legal practice, whereas the total the amounted to 12, 976 euros? For what reasons?
Answer: “Mr Noble does not confirm this amount which is completely erroneous.
The Trillat law firm is involved in the sale of a property jointly owned by Mr Noble and his former wife. It is a legally complex case and it is not certain whether it can be heard in France. Consequently, the settlement of this case, and of the fees concerned, have not yet been fully assessed.
Irrespective of the final amount of the fees, they will be paid at the end of the ongoing judicial procedure, as is common practice in a property sale. Moreover, Mr Noble has already paid a retainer which more than covers the costs in this case.”
Question 6: Do you confirm that you dined with Mr. Trillat mid-December 2012, in the presence of Mr. Sollier and representatives of the American company CGS? What was the nature of this dinner? Was it professional or private?
Answer: “The dinner you refer to was professional. The aim was to bring together the people called upon to work together on this case who had never met before. They had to decide on the principle and working arrangements of their cooperation. Paris was chosen as the venue for practical reasons, particularly as the American delegation was in transit in Paris.”
Question 7: Have you visited Mr. Trillat’s villa in Saint-Tropez?
Answer: “Mr. Noble has never been to Mr. Trillat’s home in Saint-Tropez.”
Question 8: Were you informed of the fact that Mr. Sollier passed to Mr. Trillat confidential documents (in theory reserved for Interpol) which concerned ongoing negotiations for the ‘Task Force’, as demonstrated in a series of emails which Mediapart has been able to consult. If the answer is yes, did you give your agreement?
Answer: “Mr Noble works closely and in a relationship of trust with INTERPOL’s senior management to agree upon the objectives and procedures for handling various matters.
The creation of a Task Force obviously requires the distribution of documents among the various partners; the model can only work if all parties respect the proposed format. Although the order of the consultations may vary, ultimately, all the partners must be consulted.
The memoranda of understanding in question are not covered by a restrictive INTERPOL classification (as would be the case for police information). These are administrative documents that must remain exclusively within the circle of the parties involved in the matter. They therefore carry a standard, automatically applied warning that prohibits them from being disseminated to anyone other than the intended recipient. This is also the case for all legal documents that are shared with law firms (matters concerning staff, real estate issues, miscellaneous disputes).
Furthermore, all correspondence with law firms is covered by professional secrecy and is subject to enhanced protection which, if breached, is punishable by law in most countries.”
Question 9: Similarly [to question 8], were you informed that Mr. Sollier had helped Mr. Trillat to draw up the text of an agreement for his fees (as proposed to the Libyans) and that Mr. Sollier passed on to Mr. Trillat information concerning the remuneration requested, in parallel, by the company CGS? If you were informed, did you give your agreement to this?
Answer: “The conditions concerning the involvement of the private firms were discussed during meetings with the Libyan authorities that have expressed their concern at certain excesses. The aim of creating a Task Force under INTERPOL’s auspices is to “streamline” the involvement of private players and to ensure that the fees determined are reasonable. The effect of INTERPOL’s action therefore was not to procure any unfair advantages for certain parties but, on the contrary, to substantially reduce the potential remuneration of the parties involved. A basic condition to the conduct of this partnership was that INTERPOL would examine the conditions governing the involvement of the private players in the “Task Force”.”
Question 10: It would obviously be very welcome to receive any supplementary explanation that you might wish to give me concerning the relationship between Interpol, Trillat and CGS.
Answer: “Recovering Colonel Gaddafi’s hidden assets obviously involves considerable sums of money that will generate fierce competition among the various stakeholders in this sector.
This is one of the key reasons why the Libyan authorities requested INTERPOL’s assistance in this case. The lack of rules and institutional mechanisms for determining how to proceed in this undertaking is conducive to all kinds of excesses that could fuel the risks of special agreements being concluded in a country that is still divided.
INTERPOL is certain to encounter difficulties in supporting the Libyan authorities to recover Colonel Gaddafi’s assets. The commitment to put in place a system that involves transparency, approval from the Libyan authorities, information sharing and coordinated action, will inevitably face opposition from those whose interests are in having a completely deregulated procedure.
INTERPOL is involved in numerous crime areas worldwide. Many of these cases comprise a financial component and the Organization takes care to prevent outside parties from deriving inappropriate benefits while working on cases (security firms, banks, law firms, private high-tech firms, etc.). Collaborating with a partner, whether public or private, must be warranted according to criteria such as expertise in a given field, the strategic value of the partnership, or the possession of information specific to the case. This was the case in the matter targeted in your investigation.”
-------------------------
English version by Graham Tearse