Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:55:31 -0700 [11:55:31 AM CDT]
From: Judy Miriga
Subject: Fw: Afro-Asia Investment company: Ministers sold off airport land – ANOTHER GHOST COMPANY

Folks,

Re: Afro-Asia Investment company: Another ghost investor known as Afro-Asia Investment
Corporation – known as a BOT (buy-operate- and transfer )

The ghost investment companies and our corrupt leaders will continue operating as they
wish until the genocide, corrupt and all graft cartels of the economic plunders Mt. Kenya
Mafia with Cohort and fear factors planners and sponsors of the Militia Gangs in Kenya
are brought to book or are put behind bars, Kenya is still in the woods.

Kenya desperately needs an Interim Governments to chart out directions for New Leadership
before it remains incorrigible free for all looters or it is left in the hands of Militia
Gangs led by our corrupt leaders.

The KAA Managing Director, George Muhoho is as corrupt in addition, after having
negotiated deals In his last media interview, he sounded arrogant and confident that his
contract will be renewed even though he is past retirement age. This is how the Kibaki
corrupt system operates — Muhoho brother to Ngina Kenyatta makes a deal with a ghost
company, requests money from the government, then the money is quickly released by his
famous nephew (UHURU KENYATTA) in the treasury, and then we hear the ghost company has
run out of the country as usual with billions of shillings. Why do we have to be taken
round in circus spin over and over again?????

Pray for Kenya and also act now each and everyone, small and big – We need an immediate
peaceful revolution which is going to the Hague, led by the United Nations. There is no
other other avenue to solve Kenya’s many many many many problems. There is no
round-about this, if anyone truely cares to save Kenya at all. It is now or never.

Thanks,

Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson &
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com/

Watch This……………..

March 28 2009 at 22:26
Ministers sold off airport land – HOW??????

A model of the development project at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport that is to
be undertaken by Qatari investors. The Kenya Airports Authority signed an agreement
giving the investors liberal privileges at the expense of the country.

By JAINDI KISEROPosted Saturday, March 28 2009 at 22:26
In Summary

Kenya signed lopsided 80-year land deal that gives foreigners sole rights to own complex

The agreement signed between the Kenya Airports Authority and Qatari investors to build a
five-star hotel and five office blocks at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport grants
liberal privileges to the investors but little in terms of benefits and earnings to Kenya.

According to the fine print of a confidential Cabinet paper seen by the Sunday Nation,
the KAA will only be entitled, during the first five years of the operations of the
hotel, to a concession fee of five per cent calculated on the gross turnover of the
business. The fee increases to 10 per cent after five years and must be renegotiated in
the 15th year.

The only other fee KAA is entitled to under the agreement is $1,000 a year, which will be
paid by the companies renting space in both the five-tower office complex and the
multiple exhibition centres ? and a Sh10 million annual rent.

In exchange for this, the agreement grants the investors from the wealthy Gulf state a
massive 90 acres of land strategically located within the airport area.

In addition, the Qataris have the right to exclusively own and manage the complex they
will be putting up at the airport for an uninterrupted period of 80 years.

The complex will include a 450-bed five-star hotel, a five-tower office complex,
exhibition and convention centres ? and large warehouses.

The Sunday Nation has learnt that since the Cabinet approved the deal in February last
year, the Qataris have revised their offer to include an additional four-star hotel (300
rooms) and a ?five-star ?250-bed hospital ? all to be constructed within the airport area.

Whether the Qataris will complete this massive project in three years as they have
pledged remains to be seen.

The agreement is silent on whether the businessmen have the right to sell some of the
airport land during the 80-year period in which they will own it.

In fancy jargon, the deal signed with the Qataris is known as a BOT (buy-operate- and
transfer ), an arrangement by which a country invites foreign investors to use their own
money to develop a property and in return receive rights to own and operate the assets
for a specified number of years during which the investors pay a concession fee. In this
case, ownership of the airport property would revert to KAA after 80 years.

Lopsided deal

Touted as the single largest foreign direct deal in Kenya in decades, the manner in which
it was negotiated is raising eyebrows, with critics asking how the Qataris managed get
the government to commit to such a lopsided deal.

Clearly, the Qataris are no ordinary investors. That they managed to easily clinch such a
big deal is a statement about the amount of political clout they wield within the
corridors of power.

Indeed, they were handed the multi-billion-shilling deal without competition from other
interested investors.

Contrary to normal practice, KAA did not procure the investor competitively. The
procedure of advertising to invite expressions of interest from potential investors was
also circumvented to accommodate the interests of the Qataris.

KAA did not appoint transaction advisers to negotiate on the government?s behalf the
terms of the agreement with the investors. Due diligence to determine the background of
the investors, their financial capacity and the bona fides of the corporation involved
was also bypassed.

Questions have emerged over the true identity and background of the principals in the
Afro-Asia Investment Corporation. The names of two Doha-based businessmen Dr Mohammed
Kalani ? referred to as the chief executive officer of Afro-Asia Investments Ltd, who
signed the final papers on the Qataris? behalf ? and the chairman of the company, Haj
Mohammed Yassin Ismail, are the only names on record.

There has been speculation that the corporation was a rich sovereign equity fund, but no
link to the Emirate of Qatar has been established.

Igor Olenicoff fled Communist Russia and is now a U.S. real estate developer worth $1.6
billion. Or a lot less, depending on who’s listening.

Shortly after Igor M. Olenicoff was born near Moscow in 1942, his Tsarist-connected
family fled Communist Russia for Allied-occupied Iran. There he attended an
English-language school run by missionaries. When he was 15, Olenicoff says, his parents,
his brother and he arrived in New York with $800 and four suitcases. They were robbed and
headed west. At the University of Southern California, Olenicoff earned degrees in
corporate finance and mathematics plus an M.B.A. He worked as a consultant and corporate
executive before launching a real estate development business in 1973. Today his Olen
Properties Corp., in Newport Beach, Calif., owns 11,000 residential units and 6.25
million square feet of commercial space in California, Nevada, Florida and Chicago.

We reckon all this gives Olenicoff a net worth of $1.6 billion. That assumes that he is
the sole owner of Olen, an assumption justified by what he originally led us (and has led
folks in the real estate business) to believe. Ah, but Olenicoff seems to tell a
different story to the Internal Revenue Service and people who are suing him. He’s told
them that he doesn’t own Olen Properties at all. When FORBES confronted Olenicoff about
the contradiction, he said that since 1980, Olen has been owned by an offshore
company–incorporated in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and now Denmark–in which he has
no ownership.

Okay, if Olenicoff doesn’t own this mysterious migrating corporate parent, is the parent
perhaps owned by an offshore trust benefiting his family? A.N. Pritzker famously set up
trusts in the Bahamas in 1963, saving the billionaire clan a bundle in estate taxes.
“That’s a good question,” Olenicoff responds. Just not one he will answer.

The IRS isn’t so reticent. It thinks Olenicoff owns the company, and if it’s correct,
Olenicoff may be a poster boy for a less seemly version of the American dream, the one in
which wealth is built not just with brains and entrepreneurial grit, which Olenicoff has
in abundance, but also with offshore tax and creditor dodges.

In U.S. Tax Court filings the IRS claims Olenicoff is the “ultimate owner” not just of
Olen Properties but also of Sovereign Bancorp Ltd., a Bahamian company formed in 1990. He
used Sovereign, the IRS asserts, to evade taxes and hide assets from the IRS and
creditors. In an April court filing the government said there’s an ongoing criminal tax
investigation of Olenicoff involving “substantially similar issues.” The IRS has sent
Olenicoff a bill for $44 million in back taxes and $33 million in civil fraud penalties
based on Sovereign’s income for 1996 and 1997. That may be, if the IRS is behaving the
way it usually does, a somewhat inflated calculation.

Olenicoff asserted in an e-mail to FORBES that his tax problems are about to be settled
on favorable terms, now that “higher-up minds in the tax service” have finally accepted
his version of the facts. “There is no open investigation or open audit,” he wrote. But
when asked whether that deal would bring an end, without charges, to the criminal
investigation of his activities, he said he didn’t know. The criminal inquiry, Olenicoff
noted, covers different tax years, 2002 and 2003.

Olenicoff insists in court filings and told FORBES that Sovereign merely lent money to
Olen and was unrelated to him or Olen. Sovereign was set up, he says, by the
“Vozrozhdeniye [Renaissance] Fund,” which he describes as a Russian agency “created by
Boris Yeltsin” to make offshore investments. As of 1996 Sovereign held $270 million in
assets, according to an accounting the IRS says Olenicoff gave a bank.

No doubt, though, that Olenicoff is running Olen. Explaining why Olen sues renters who
walk out on their leases, he says: “If the money is owed, I’ll chase them until they
drop, because it wasn’t easy for me to make it.”

“For me”? Olenicoff has spent decades acting and talking as if he does own Olen, although
he insists that if asked directly, he doesn’t claim to own it. “Everyone in Orange County
assumes, obviously, I’m the ultimate owner because it seems to be a one-man show,” he
says. “All of our employees believe that I’m the sole owner; you ask anybody and they’ll
say, ‘Igor.'” Before the death of his son, Andrei, at 32, in a car accident last year,
Olenicoff talked about passing down the business to him. Now he’s grooming his daughter,
Natalia, as a successor. But what exactly is he passing down? The real estate he admits
his family owns–houses and an apartment building, none of it held in his individual
name–is worth less than $50 million, Olenicoff figures.

When real estate values were booming in the 1980s, the ownership of Olen Properties never
seemed to be in doubt. In 1988 forbes named Olenicoff a near miss for the 400 list,
estimating his worth at $200 million.

In 1990, with real estate values in decline, Olenicoff started moving assets around. He
split Olen Properties into three new companies, each holding real estate securing loans
from one of three lenders: Prudential Insurance; Swiss Bank (other-otc: SWBKY.PK – news –
people ); and National Depository Corp. Ltd., the Bahamas company which, Olenicoff has
said in Tax Court filings, owned Olen through the 1990s and was in turn owned by an
Iranian corporation. In 1992 Olenicoff put the company that owed Prudential $143 million
into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Prudential sued Olenicoff personally for fraud, claiming that
when it originally lent Olen the money, he had represented that he–not some offshore
entity–owned Olen. Olenicoff denied wrongdoing, and the suit was settled.

Prudential fought to block the reorganization plan as well, arguing that Olenicoff had
shown “bad faith” by divesting valuable assets–such as moving a portfolio of secured
notes to Sovereign–and failing to disclose the true identity of the various entities.
The bankruptcy judge sided with Olenicoff while noting there were some suspicious
indicators.

Other questions about Olenicoff’s asset shuffles cropped up. After a former business
partner won a $3.3 million judgment against Olenicoff, he moved $60 million in corporate
cash offshore to parent National Depository and disposed of U.S. assets in his own name.
In a 1993 deposition Olenicoff said he didn’t even have a personal U.S. bank account and
paid bills with cash drawn from a Russian account. “I carry around a stack of
hundred-dollar bills, and when it gets low, I may have to go to Russia.” Olenicoff later
settled with the partner for under $1 million.

The IRS began auditing the Olen corporations in 1997. In 2001 it sent back tax bills for
1993 through 1996. Among other things, the IRS disallowed what it said were sham
transactions between the Olen companies, Sovereign and National Depository. Those cases
were settled in 2003.

The IRS then sent Olenicoff a big personal tax bill for the 1996 and 1997 income of
Sovereign. Under Bahamian law, the ownership of Sovereign is confidential. But the IRS
points to several indications of his ownership: documents he signed for Sovereign and
accounts he opened for it; representations he made to lenders; and payments Sovereign
made allegedly for his benefit, including half a million dollars in 1996 to cover yacht
costs.

The government also found it odd that from 1992 to 1997 Olenicoff reported little income:
none from Sovereign and just $15,000 from Olen. Hardly enough, the government says, to
cover his lifestyle. Olenicoff says he lived simply and that Sovereign owned half the
yacht and made money when it was sold. His current 120-foot motor yacht is owned by Olen
Properties, which, of course, he doesn’t own.

In 1998 Olenicoff started taking a real salary, now in the seven figures, he says. “Olen
is doing extremely well. We netted over $50 million last year. We paid taxes,” he says.

Olenicoff says the matter has dragged on so long because of the difficulty the IRS had
verifying the Russian connection. As he colorfully relates it, Russian tax authorities at
first told the IRS to go “pound sand.” Then a Russian bank that bankrolled Sovereign was
shut in 1999, and its records were “loaded up by the government in three huge semis,
which just happened to go off the bridge in the middle of the river.” Olenicoff produced
for IRS agents a self-described Russian general to attest to Sovereign’s formation at
Yeltsin’s behest. Olenicoff recounts in an e-mail to FORBES how the general, ticked off
at the IRS, responded in Russian: “Just several years ago I was in charge of pushing the
button that would have wiped your agency off the Washington map!”

In court filings the IRS says Olenicoff was uncooperative during the audit and tried to
keep the government from getting records. Moreover, it complains, mail sent to the
personal addresses Olenicoff provided came back marked “refused” or “not at address.” In
fact, the two sides don’t even agree where Olenicoff lives. The IRS says he’s a resident
of California. He says he lives in Florida. Guess which doesn’t have a state income tax.

Do You KNow About Off Shore Business?????………For Example, my curiocity drove me to
investigate as follows:…….As Simple as That Tax Payers Money and Livelihood is lost
by a simple phone call away or through internet. There is therefore need for responsible
trusted leaders in Kenya if anything goes……….

How long does it take to open an offshore corporation?
Usually, about two weeks. However, you can purchase a ready-made company from our shelf
list and have the documents with you within 24 hours.

What is an IBC?
IBC means International Business Company or International Business Corporation. An IBC is
a legal entity incorporated in a tax haven which is free from all local taxes (except
small fixed annual-fees). The only restriction, which is hardly likely to be a problem
for you, is that an IBC cannot conduct business in the country of incorporation. For
instance, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands can’t open a supermarket
there and begin selling to locals.

What are offshore companies most commonly used for?
Offshore companies are most commonly used for offshore banking, to conduct international
trade, investment activities, and for asset protection. They can buy and sell goods and
services, and operate onshore (UK) businesses. Offshore companies are also used for the
ownership of real property and land; for ownership of intellectual property, licensing
and franchising; for offshore e-business. These are just some examples; the purposes you
use your offshore IBC for depend solely on your imagination.

What are the differences between an offshore company, offshore corporation and IBC?
There is no significant difference between them. They are all offshore legal entities,
called by different names in various jurisdictions. Other terms used include non-resident
company or corporation.

What is the difference between a registered shareholder and a nominee shareholder?
A registered shareholder is the beneficial (real) owner who records his name on the share
certificate and in the Register of Shares as the owner of the allotted shares.

If you choose not to have your name on the share certificate or in the share register as
the beneficial owner, we can supply a third party to act as a nominee shareholder on your
behalf. Then, although the nominee’s name appears on the certificate and in the register,
real ownership remains with you because the nominee signs a Declaration of Trust giving
up voting rights or the right to sell or transfer the shares.

The nominee shareholder is used where the Companies Registry may be open to public
scrutiny, or if the beneficial owner requires a greater degree of privacy. Our company
offers this service free of charge.

What’s the purpose of a Declaration of Trust by the nominee shareholder?
A Declaration of Trust by the nominee shareholder to the beneficial owner is to ensure
that the nominee can’t use the shares in any way without the express authority of the
beneficial owner.

What is a nominee director?
A nominee director is a third party provided by us for registration as the director of
the company. On his appointment at the first meeting of the subscribers to appoint the
board, an undated letter of resignation is signed by the nominee director, which can be
executed by the beneficial owner at any time. The nominee director also provides the
beneficial owner with a General (Unlimited) Power of Attorney which gives total authority
and control of the company to the beneficial owner.

What is the purpose of the nominee director?
The appointment of the nominee director is simply to provide anonymity for the beneficial
owner. He doesn’t assist in the management of the company, nor sign documents and
contracts on its behalf. Of course, if desired, a nominee may sign certain standard
documents such as contracts, invoices etc.

How do I control my company with a nominee director?
Control over the company is exercised through the General Power of Attorney signed by the
nominee director. And, of course, he can be dismissed at any time by virtue of the
undated letter of resignation mentioned above. The use of nominee directors and nominee
shareholders is routine; so much so that some nominees are directors and shareholders of
literally thousands of companies.

Do the banks you represent provide debit cards?
Yes, you can apply for a debit card from any bank we recommend.

What methods of payment do you accept?
We accept payments by Paypal, Western Union, Cheque, E-Gold, Bank Transfer or Cash at our
Leicester, UK office, or by Special Delivery.

What other services can you provide?
We can help you with anything at all related to offshore banking, finance and business.
If we can’t help with something specific we can point you in the direction of someone who
can. For example, if a client requests internet marketing advice we can make sure you
recieve the best business consultancy services available.