VZCZCXRO1269
PP RUEHFL RUEHNP
DE RUEHRO #2515/01 3621703
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 281703Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9601
INFO RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 2374
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1816
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1446
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1922
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1778
RUEHFL/AMCONSUL FLORENCE PRIORITY 2830
RUEHNP/AMCONSUL NAPLES PRIORITY 2976
RUEHMIL/AMCONSUL MILAN PRIORITY 9171
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 ROME 002515 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR L, EEB/TFS LAMBERT, IO/PSC FOR CROWE 
TREASURY FOR EDDY, LURIE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/27/2017 
TAGS: EFIN KFIN ECON IT
SUBJECT: ITALY REQUESTS INFORMATION ON 1267 TERROR FINANCE 
DELISTING CASES 
 
REF: A. HUTCHINGS-LAMBERT/CROWE EMAIL DEC 21 
     ¶B. ROME 2143 
     ¶C. STATE 139684 
     ¶D. STATE 145622 
     ¶E. ROME 2477 
 
Classified By: Econ Counselor William R. Meara 
for Reasons 1.4  (b) and (d). 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request, please see para 11. 
 
¶2. (C) Summary: On December 21, Stefania Fancello at the 
MFA's Office of International Cooperation Against 
Terrorism conveyed to Econoff a request for more information 
on the 1267 (al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions) delisting cases of 
Nasreddin, Nada and Himmat. While noting concern over the 
delisting of Italian national Nasreddin, Fancello asked the 
USG provide to the GOI an explanation of why we supported 
delisting Nasreddin. Turning to the case of Nada, an Italian 
national whose request for delisting via the Focal Point 
process was denied, Fancello said Nada is now appealing to 
the Italian national authorities for redress. Fancello 
relayed a GOI request that the USG provide a public statement 
by January 10, 2008, explaining the USG decision to oppose 
Nada's delisting. Finally, concerning the pending delisting 
petition via the Focal Point process of Himmat, the GOI 
requests that we share information on Himmat and coordinate 
our position with the GOI before informing the Focal Point 
office of our position.  Econoff agreed to pass these 
requests to Washington, but noted that some of them may be 
difficult to fulfill within the requested time period.  Post 
will discuss the Nasreddin case with senior Ministry of 
Finance officials. End summary. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Background on Focal Point Process 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (C) Ahmed  Nasreddin (an Eritrean-born Italian citizen) 
applied on April 13, 2007 to the UN Focal Point system for 
the delisting of himself and 12 entities associated with him. 
 Nasreddin had been jointly listed by G7 nations under 
provisions of UNSCR 1267 (al Qaida Taliban Sanctions) on 
April 22, 2002.  The Focal Point office within the UN 
Secretariat was established by the Secretary General to allow 
 
SIPDIS 
listed individuals/entities to petition directly for 
delisting.  Once the Focal Point office receives a delisting 
request, it forwards the request to the designating 
government(s) and to the government(s) of citizenship and 
residence.  These governments have three months to review the 
petition and decide to oppose or support delisting, or to 
request additional time to review the petition.  Member 
States reviewing the Focal Point delisting request may also 
opt to not take a position for or against the request.  In 
any event, the decision taken by reviewing States to support 
or deny Focal Point delisting requests are shared via the 
Focal Point with Members of the 1267 Committee.  If any of 
the reviewing states support delisting, a decision to delist 
is circulated to members of the 1267 Committee under a 5-day 
no objection deadline (NOD). 
 
¶4. (C)  UN representatives agreed in July 2007 to request 
additional time to review Nasreddin's delisting petition, and 
to reconvene prior to the extension deadline (October 12) to 
consult on final positions to support/deny Nasreddin's 
petition. Nasreddin's delisting petition was reviewed by 
listing countries (G7), Kingdom of Morocco (country of 
residency), and relevant governments of incorporation of 
Nasreddin-linked entities. In September, the Italians 
indicated to the USG through Embassy Rome that they would 
likely support the decision to delist Nasreddin, or, at 
minimum, remain silent (Ref B).  Both MFA and Ministry of 
Finance officials requested that the USG position be shared 
with the GOI because it would factor into GOI decisions.  In 
late September the USG informed the Italians that we would 
support delisting (see Ref C). 
 
------------------------------------- 
Background on Italian Position Switch 
------------------------------------- 
 
ROME 00002515  002 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶5. (C) When the delisting request was received, Italy's 
Financial Security Committee (FSC)  tasked a magistrate 
(analogous to a US prosecutor) in Milan to investigate and 
review the evidence on Nasreddin in order for the GOI to 
develop a position on Nasreddin.  The magistrate was unable 
to charge Nasreddin under Italian law, because the laws 
prohibiting his activities came into effect after the 
terrorist financing activities occurred.  However, the 
magistrate wrote a statement in which he said Nasreddin was 
guilty of terrorist activities. Ministry of Finance official 
Maria Paula Suppa told Econoff on October 11 that the FSC was 
surprised by the magistrate's conclusion.  (Giuseppe Maresca, 
the Ministry of Finance representative on the FSC explained 
to Econoff in December that the Italian Justice official on 
the FSC had been adamant that Nasreddin was a terrorist and 
he should remain on the 1267 list.)  Rather than attempting 
to formally change the GOI position in favor of delisting, 
the FSC tasked Italy's mission at the UN with sharing the 
Magistrate's decision with the Focal Point Committee.  (It 
appears that the FSC hoped that this in information would 
cause other Focal Point members to decide to oppose the 
delisting.)  However, when the information was passed to the 
Italian mission at the UN, MFA officials learned that in 
order to transmit information to the Focal Point Committee, 
the Italian government would have to make a statement on how 
this information affected delisting.  Roberto Ciciani of the 
Ministry of Finance told econoff that the MFA, therefore, 
made a last minute political decision to characterize the 
information as negative when sharing it with the G7; the GOI 
encouraged other countries to object to the delisting at the 
next Focal Point Committee meeting.  Stefania Fancello passed 
the same message to Post, but also indicated that the 
Italians would likely remain silent over the delisting.  Post 
conveyed to Washington the Italians, objection and asked 
that this case be reviewed.  The USG reviewed the information 
and concluded we would still support the delisting.  Post 
conveyed our position to Italian authorities on October 18 
(reftel D). Meanwhile, Ciciani told Econoff privately that he 
thought the delisting should continue. He said and it was a 
lack of understanding of the process which resulted in the 
Italian requests to lobby the USG and G7 countries to oppose 
delisting. 
 
¶6. (C) The USG filed its papers supporting the decision to 
delist Nasreddin at the Focal Point secretariat in early 
November 2007.  The GOI decided to remain silent in the focal 
point system on Nasreddin, but continued to lobby the USG and 
other G7 countries to oppose delisting.  Fancello explained 
to Econoff in late October that, while the Italians did not 
want to contradict their own magistrate's opinion, the GOI 
was also reluctant to publicly name an Italian national as a 
terrorist. On November 5 ,when the Focal Point committee met 
and discussed the case, no country objected; Nasreddin was 
delisted after the five day NOD on November 10, 2007. 
 
¶7. (C) During Treasury Under Secretary Levey's visit in late 
November (reftel E), Ministry of Finance Director General 
Grilli made clear his unhappiness over the fact that 
Nasreddin was delisted.  Econoff replied to Grilli that we 
reviewed the information on Nasreddin, and found no new 
information that could change  the USG position to support 
delisting.  Econoff also noted that it was difficult for the 
USG to oppose a delisting when Italy remained silent and did 
not object to the delisting at the Focal Point Committee 
meeting. Grilli responded that because Nasreddin was their 
own national, the Italians could not take a public position 
on his activities. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Nasreddin Appealing For Compensation 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶8. (C) On December 21, Stefania Fancello informed Econoff 
that Nasreddin has appealed to the Italian legal system for 
compensation.  Fancello said Italian ministries are 
coordinating their position, and request from the USG an 
explanation of the reasoning behind the decision to support 
delisting. Noting that the USG sponsored the proposal to 
sanction Nasreddin, Fancello questioned why the USG changed 
 
ROME 00002515  003 OF 004 
 
 
its views and eventually supported his removal from the list. 
(Note: All G-7 members --including Italy-- cosponsored 
Nasreddin's listing.) Fancello reminded Econoff that the 
Italians had shared the magistrate's decision on Nasreddin 
with the USG and other Member States reviewing Nasreddin,s 
delisting petition. She pointed to the Judge's view that 
Nasreddin had connections to terrorist financing activities, 
even though the courts could not formally charge him.  In 
light of the new information the Italians provided, and their 
request for the USG to change position, the GOI would like an 
explanation of the USG decision to support delisting. 
Econoff replied that she would convey the request to 
Washington, but noted that the magistrate's decision did not 
contain any additional evidence on Nasreddin and reminded 
Fancello that Italy's approach to ask other countries oppose 
delisting, when they themselves would not oppose delisting, 
complicated the situation. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Nada Asks Judge for GOI to Appeal to Focal Point 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶9. (C) Turning to the delisting petition submitted (and 
denied) via the Focal Point by Italian citizen Youseff 
Moustaffa Nada, Fancello said Nada has petitioned a judge to 
urge the competent Italian authority to appeal his case via 
the UN 1267 Committee.  Italy's Financial Security Committee 
normally makes the decision on whether to appeal or not. (Our 
GOI contacts seem genuinely concerned that a judge may order 
them to appeal Nada's case to the 1267 committee.)  Fancello 
said the USG (that had proposed the 1267 listing) had 
objected to Nada,s delisting in September and that the 
Italians agreed.  Noting that the USG made a public statement 
when Nada was sanctioned domestically and at the 1267 
Committee, Fancello said that the GOI is requesting that the 
USG provide the GOI with a public statement on why the USG 
believes Nada should remain on the 1267 list.  Fancello 
advised that an updated statement on our earlier position 
(available on the OFAC website) on Nada would suffice. 
Fancello said that the GOI deadline for responding to Mr. 
Nada is in January and explained that the FSC is set to meet 
on January 16 to decide the GOI response.  They request that 
a USG statement be made available to the Italians by January 
¶10.  Econoff replied that, in the best of circumstances, it 
is difficult to obtain a fully cleared statement from the USG 
in two weeks.  Fancello emphasized that this information is 
necessary for their internal process and noted that the GOI 
is required by law to render a decision on Nada.  (Note: We 
believe any USG public statement that we provide to the 
Italians would likely be used by the GOI in their legal case 
involving Nada,s appeal.) 
 
------------------------------------------ 
GOI Asks for Information Sharing on Himmat 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶10. (C) Regarding the pending delisting petition via the 
Focal Point process for removal from the 1267 Consolidated 
List of Himmat (an associate of Nada and Nasreddin), Fancello 
passed the judge's ruling on Himmat and asked us to take his 
decision into account. The judge's decision on the case was 
similar to that in the Nasreddin case: while Himmat could not 
be tried under Italian law, the judge still believed Nada had 
participated in terrorist financing activities.  The Focal 
Point deadline on this case is March 12. (Econoff emailed a 
copy of the decision to the desk and EEB officers.)  Fancello 
also requested that the USG inform the GOI of our position 
once it is taken and asked that the USG communicate any 
information we have on Himmat so the GOI can take a better 
informed position. 
 
-------------- 
Action Request 
-------------- 
 
¶11.  (C) Post requests Washington provide a response to the 
request regarding Nada by January 10.  Post also requests 
Washington provide us with an explanation by February that we 
can pass to the GOI (in a nonpaper) on the reasoning behind 
 
ROME 00002515  004 OF 004 
 
 
the Nasreddin decision, along with any information on the USG 
position on Himmat. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶12. (C) Comment: The Nasreddin case is an example of Italian 
interagency confusion about the Focal Point process and the 
purpose of the listing/delisting system.  To be fair, this 
case is the first of its kind.  But nevertheless we've been 
disappointed by the GOI's willingness to blame us for their 
confusion.  The GOI genuinely believed that the magistrate 
would uphold their earlier position to delist Nasreddin and 
had described the process as a formality to post, (Ref B). 
But, when the magistrate, who likely was unaware of how and 
why an individual could be delisted, wrote that Nasreddin had 
in fact financed terrorist activities, the GOI was put in an 
awkward position. 
 
¶13. (C) In an effort to maintain Italian cooperation on 
terror finance/WMD finance matters, Post intends to quietly 
go back to the GOI on the Nasreddin case at a high level 
early in the new year.  We will lay out for the GOI the 
sequence of events on this case (as described here) and make 
clear that no one on the US side made any missteps on this 
delisting. 
 
¶14. (C) It seems that the Italians, once again, want us to be 
the ones to block the delisting of Himmat.  Any information 
the US can provide on the Himmat case would allow for a 
meaningful dialogue on the case before the decision is made. 
End Comment. 
BORG