The Bank That Laundered Money for the CIA, Saddam Hussein, and the Medellin Cartel

JUST BEFORE STARTING : If this email landed in Promotions part in GMAIL, move it to Primary : it takes 3 seconds and you'll never miss an issue ever again.

In July 1991, regulators in seven countries simultaneously raided the offices of a bank operating across 73 nations with 1.4 million depositors and $20 billion in assets.

The operation was coordinated. The closures happened in a single morning. In London, Luxembourg, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, and across the Americas, staff arrived at work to find the doors locked and regulators inside.

The bank was called the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

Its clients included the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. The Mossad. Manuel Noriega, the military dictator of Panama. Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq. Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines. The Abu Nidal Organization, designated a terrorist group by the US State Department. The Medellin Cartel of Colombia.

These were not separate relationships that happened to coexist at the same institution. They were features of a business model. BCCI was not a bank that criminals happened to use. It was a bank built to serve people who needed a bank that asked no questions.

The full client list has never been made public.

Here is the full file.

Agha Hasan Abedi was a Pakistani banker with a vision. In 1972, backed by the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and incorporated in Luxembourg, he founded the Bank of Credit and Commerce International with an explicit mission: to be the bank of the developing world.

The pitch was elegant. Western banks served Western clients. BCCI would serve everyone else. The third world. Islamic countries. Nations whose leaders found it inconvenient to use institutions subject to American or British regulatory oversight.

The structure was engineered for opacity. Incorporated in Luxembourg. Headquartered operationally in London. Principal shareholders in Abu Dhabi. Operations in 73 countries. Two separate sets of books: one for regulators, one for the transactions that could not appear in any document shown to a regulator.

By the mid-1980s, BCCI had $20 billion in assets and branches on every major continent. It was one of the fastest-growing banks in the world.

It was also, by that point, the most useful financial institution on earth for anyone who needed money to move without leaving a trail.

The CIA began using BCCI in the late 1970s to move money for covert operations. The Kerry Report, the definitive US Senate investigation published in December 1992, documented that the CIA used BCCI to fund the Afghan mujahedeen, to channel money during the Iran-Contra affair, and to maintain accounts for intelligence operations that could not pass through regulated American banking channels.

By early 1985, the CIA knew more about BCCI's goals and intentions than anyone else in government, and concluded that BCCI was as an institution a fundamentally corrupt criminal enterprise. After reaching that conclusion, the CIA continued to use both BCCI and First American, BCCI's secretly held US subsidiary, for CIA operations.

The CIA's justification, to the extent one was ever offered, was that the bank's criminal infrastructure made it useful. A bank that would do anything for anyone was an asset for an intelligence agency that needed to do things it could not officially acknowledge.

BCCI maintained secret accounts for Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega, the dictators of Iraq and Panama respectively. Illegal transactions were recorded in separate books and records from those of ordinary clients.

Noriega used BCCI to launder the proceeds of his drug trafficking operations. The Medellin Cartel used it to move cocaine money out of the United States and into the global financial system. Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist whose organization carried out attacks across Europe and the Middle East throughout the 1980s, used it to purchase weapons.

The Kerry Report listed BCCI's offenses as including fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking, the sale of nuclear technology, and far more.

The sale of nuclear technology. Not the financing of conventional weapons. Nuclear technology.

That line appears in a US Senate report. It was published in 1992. It received three paragraphs of coverage in most American newspapers and then disappeared.

The Bank of England had regulatory responsibility for BCCI's London operations. London was where BCCI's real headquarters functioned. BCCI had just a two-strong team and a brass plaque in Luxembourg, while in London it had 1,000 employees, a huge office, and 49 British branches.

The Luxembourg incorporation was not an accident of corporate preference. It was a deliberate structure designed to fall between regulatory jurisdictions. Luxembourg's regulators assumed London was primary. London's regulators pointed to Luxembourg. Neither had full visibility. Both had enough to act.

The Bank of England took minimal steps to investigate BCCI until it was notified by BCCI's auditors in early 1990 that the bank had engaged in fraud. Even then, the Bank of England's approach was not to close BCCI, but to find ways to keep it alive and avoid embarrassing financial losses. The Bank of England arranged with BCCI's auditors, with the government of Abu Dhabi, and with BCCI itself to keep secret what it had learned.

The Bank of England knew BCCI was fraudulent. Its response was to negotiate with the fraudulent bank about how to restructure it as three separate institutions so that the collapse would not be publicly visible.

In the end, it was not the regulatory process that brought about the exposure of BCCI. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, the ultimate regulatory action was prompted by the criminal investigation brought by Manhattan prosecutor Robert Morgenthau.

The bank that served the CIA, Saddam Hussein, and the Medellin Cartel simultaneously was not shut down by a regulator who discovered the fraud. It was shut down by a local district attorney in New York who had enough and issued an indictment that would have collapsed the bank publicly if regulators had not acted first.

Price Waterhouse was BCCI's primary auditor. Ernst and Young audited a separate portion of its accounts. Neither firm had full visibility into the bank's complete operations, by design.

Price Waterhouse knew of gross irregularities in BCCI's handling of loans prior to 1990 and certified that its picture of BCCI's books were "true and fair" from December 31, 1987 forward. That certification assisted BCCI in misleading depositors, regulators, investigators, and other financial institutions as to BCCI's true financial position.

Price Waterhouse certified accounts it knew to be materially misleading. For years.

Legal actions against both auditing firms persisted for more than a decade following the collapse. Substantial damages settlements were eventually paid. No individual auditor was criminally prosecuted.

BCCI was closed in July 1991 with liabilities of $14 billion, later reduced to $10 billion. Its collapse caused over 6,500 depositors to lose their money, including the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, which lost an estimated $2 billion. The Governor of the Bank of England told a parliamentary committee that fraud at BCCI involved current and former management and that the culture was criminal. New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau called it the largest bank fraud in world financial history.

1.4 million depositors. $10 billion in losses. 73 countries.

Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder, was in Pakistan when the bank collapsed. Pakistani authorities refused to extradite him. He died in Karachi in 1995 without ever facing trial in the United States or United Kingdom.

The CIA faced no institutional consequences for its years of documented use of a bank it had internally classified as a fundamentally corrupt criminal enterprise.

The Bank of England faced no criminal charges. It was immune from negligence claims under English law. The depositors who lost their savings pursued a decade-long civil case that was eventually settled without the Bank admitting wrongdoing.

The full client list, the complete accounting of every account holder, every transaction, and every intelligence operation that ran through BCCI's books, was classified and has not been released.

BCCI was not an anomaly. It was a proof of concept.

The bank demonstrated three things that remain true today and that most financial education will not tell you.

Regulatory jurisdiction is a design choice, not a fact. BCCI operated in 73 countries by incorporating in Luxembourg, operating in London, and holding assets in Abu Dhabi. No single regulator had full authority. The Bank of England knew this and used it as a reason not to act rather than a reason to coordinate. The same jurisdictional fragmentation that made BCCI invisible to regulators is the foundation of the offshore financial system that processes trillions of dollars annually through structures that remain legal precisely because they are designed to fall between the lines of national oversight.

Intelligence agencies and criminal enterprises share infrastructure because it is efficient. The CIA's use of BCCI was not a scandal in the sense of being anomalous. It was policy. The agency needed a bank that would process transactions without documentation. BCCI provided that service. The relationship continued for years after the CIA internally concluded that BCCI was a criminal enterprise, because the criminal infrastructure was useful. The lesson is not that the CIA is corrupt. It is that the line between intelligence operations and criminal finance is a bureaucratic distinction that dissolves when operational need overrides institutional scruple.

The client list is the document. BCCI's full client list was never released. The Kerry Report named the major relationships. What it could not name were the thousands of smaller accounts, the corporate vehicles, the politicians, the intermediaries, and the intelligence operations from a dozen countries that flowed through the same institution. When a bank that served the CIA and Abu Nidal simultaneously collapses, the list of everyone else using its services for reasons they preferred not to disclose is the most consequential document in the case. That document has been classified for thirty years.

The reason given is national security. That may be true. It is also true that the document would name people who are still alive, institutions that are still operating, and governments that are still in power.

73 : The number of countries in which BCCI operated.

74 : The number of senior executives who served prison time in the United States or United Kingdom for the largest bank fraud in world financial history.

The full client list has not been released. The regulatory framework that allowed BCCI to operate for nineteen years without meaningful oversight remains structurally intact.

The bank is gone. The system that made it possible is not.

The Dark Money Letter is published every Wednesday. → thedarkmoneyletter.com

Sources