Reza Zarrab’s ex-courier spoke to us for months and shared previously unreported bank records, photos and other evidence of his ex-boss’s money laundering empire.
Zarrab’s ex-courier Adem Karahan has been speaking to us on-record via Turkish translation for months by secure video. He says he helped haul tons of Zarrab’s gold across borders. Public records show that’s true.
This is his first interview with English-language news outlets.
Karahan provided bank records, travel documents, photographs and other evidence to support his claims.
* Ex-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was implicated in Zarrab’s scheme.
* Erdoğan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak helped open a bank account for Zarrab.
* Zarrab’s family ties to the money moving business run deep.
The claim about Berat Albayrak particularly interests U.S. Senator @RonWyden, who has been probing Trump’s suspected meddling in the Zarrab case since October.
Here’s a photo of President Trump, Treasury Sec. Mnuchin, Jared Kushner and Albayrak in the Oval Office.
Senator Wyden’s reaction to our findings:
“This is outrageous.”
“In the big picture, all evidence points to President Trump interfering in a criminal investigation and sanctions enforcement as a favor to President Erdoğan.”
A Standard Chartered bank in Newark, N.J. filed a suspicious activity report (SAR) noting Karahan’s testimony to Turkish authorities that Zarrab got an 8 percent commission.
Four percent, Karahan said, went for bribes.
Prosecutors estimate Zarrab’s gas-for-gold scheme at $20 billion. Four percent of that is $800 million.
The largest publicly reported payoff to a Turkish official to date is in the tens of millions of dollars.
Where did the rest of the bribe money go?
Some stories can come to light through the bravery of sources willing to speak publicly about controversial issues.
This is true of our source, Adem, speaking out about the Zarrab case in a difficult environment to do so.
Democracies are stronger because of those willing to raise their voices and attach their names to stories.
They deserve the gratitude of the press and public.
Look out for my threads on two companion pieces to this article later in the day.
Inside the story at the top of the thread:
Read more about what Adem Karahan had to say about Trump Towers Istanbul.
Also, be sure to check out our partner @OCCRP's posts of this series, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Jack Smith just filed a superseding indictment against Trump.
Prosecutors say the new indictment "reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States."
A superseding indictment replaces an existing indictment.
There are no new charges in today's indictment against Trump here, only the same four leveled against him in connection with the 2020 election, tailored to pass the Supreme Court's new test.
Today's news does, however, mean that another grand jury that did not see the evidence earlier put their stamp on the same charges.
On a quick glance, the latest indictment is shorter, and nixes DOJ-related claims that wouldn't have survived the immunity ruling.
Trump's lawyers filed a motion to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss his New York indictment.
In the wake of SCOTUS's immunity ruling, they argue that certain testimony and evidence shouldn't have been introduced at trial, like the categories shown here.
DA Bragg's deadline to respond to Trump's arguments is July 24.
A few thoughts on this:
Trump's lawyers are not just challenging his convictions, based on the alleged use of "official-acts evidence."
Since prosecutors brought some of this evidence to the grand jury, they want his indictment thrown out too.
Trump's lawyers agree that he isn't immune from prosecution in his N.Y. case, but they argued before trial that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use evidence tied to his official acts.
On Friday, Trump's lawyer argued that ex-AG Bill Barr only appointed Senate-confirmed US Attorneys as special counsel.
Jack Smith just contradicted that in a supplemental briefing showing three of Barr's special counsel picks from 1991 and 1992.
In the same briefing, Smith provided a list of statutes that appear to use "officials" to include inferior officers who don't require the advice and consent of the Senate.
It's quite long, and it rebuts Team Trump's claim that "officials" means something else.
Judge Cannon invited prosecutors to file this brief backing up their arguments defending the special counsel's constitutional authority at the end of Friday's proceedings.