LAST WEEKS U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT

FROM DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

          SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending March 31, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 357,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 363,000. The 4-week moving average was 361,750, a decrease of 4,250 from the previous week's revised average of 366,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent for the week ending March 24, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.6 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending March 24 was 3,338,000, a decrease of 16,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,354,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,367,250, a decrease of 24,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,391,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 311,339 in the week ending March 31, a decrease of 12,054 from the previous week. There were 353,817 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.9 percent during the week ending March 24, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.9 percent. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,624,702, a decrease of 74,771 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 3.3 percent and the volume was 4,085,667.

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending March 17 was 7,050,709, a decrease of 107,760 from the previous week.

Extended benefits were available in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the week ending March 17.

Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,163 in the week ending March 24, an increase of 16 from the prior week. There were 2,421 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 14 from the preceding week.

There were 23,794 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending March 17, a decrease of 1,647 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 41,670, a decrease of 63 from the prior week.

States reported 2,815,108 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending March 17, an increase of 2,442 from the prior week. There were 3,563,031 claimants in the comparable week in 2011. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending March 17 were in Alaska (6.0), Puerto Rico (4.4), Oregon (4.3), Rhode Island (4.2), Pennsylvania (4.1), Wisconsin (4.1), California (4.0), Connecticut (4.0), Montana (4.0), and New Jersey (4.0).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending March 24 were in Texas (+4,185), California (+2,199), Kansas (+1,555), Arkansas (+1,141), and Washington (+714), while the largest decreases were in Pennsylvania (-1,956), North Carolina (-1,656), New Jersey (-1,511), Massachusetts (-1,083), and Hawaii (-650). 

---

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA FOR REGULAR STATE PROGRAMS

---

WEEK ENDING	Advance March 31	March 24	Change	March 17	Prior Year1

---

Initial Claims (SA)	357,000	363,000	-6,000	364,000	400,000
Initial Claims (NSA)	311,339	323,393	-12,054	319,498	353,817
4-Wk Moving Average (SA)	361,750	366,000	-4,250	368,500	402,250

WEEK ENDING	Advance March 24	March 17	Change	March 10	Prior Year1

---

Ins. Unemployment (SA)	3,338,000	3,354,000	-16,000	3,383,000	3,766,000
Ins. Unemployment (NSA)	3,624,702	3,699,473	-74,771	3,815,580	4,085,667
4-Wk Moving Average (SA)	3,367,250	3,391,750	-24,500	3,410,000	3,780,750

---

Ins. Unemployment Rate (SA)2	2.6%	2.6%	0.0	2.7%	3.0%
Ins. Unemployment Rate (NSA)2	2.9%	2.9%	0.0	3.0%	3.3%

---

INITIAL CLAIMS FILED IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS (UNADJUSTED)

---

WEEK ENDING	March 24	March 17	Change	Prior Year1

Federal Employees	1,163	1,147	+16	1,487
Newly Discharged Veterans	2,421	2,435	-14	2,306

---

PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS (UNADJUSTED)

---

WEEK ENDING

March 17

March 10

Change

Prior Year1

Regular State	3,691,340	3,804,640	-113,300	4,118,230
Federal Employees (UCFE)	23,794	25,441	-1,647	36,787
Newly Discharged Veterans (UCX)	41,670	41,733	-63	38,663
EUC 20083	2,815,108	2,812,666	+2,442	3,563,031
Extended Benefits4	440,660	426,109	+14,551	708,079
State Additional Benefits 5	4,843	4,899	-56	7,778
STC / Workshare 6	33,294	42,981	-9,687	51,887
TOTAL	7,050,709	7,158,469	-107,760	8,524,455

---

FOOTNOTES
SA - Seasonally Adjusted Data, NSA - Not Seasonally Adjusted Data
¹ - Prior year is comparable to most recent data.
² - Most recent week used covered employment of 126,579,970 as denominator.
³ - EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity. Tier-specific EUC data can be found here: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/persons.xls
⁴ - Information on the EB program can be found here: http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/extenben.asp
⁵ - Some states maintain additional benefit programs for those claimants who exhaust regular, extended and emergency benefits. Information on states that participate,
        and the extent of benefits paid, can be found starting on page 4-5 of this link: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2010/special.pdf
⁶ - Information on STC/Worksharing can be found starting on page 4-9 of the following link: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2010/special.pdf

UNADJUSTED INITIAL CLAIMS FOR WEEK ENDED 03/24/2012

---

STATES WITH A DECREASE OF MORE THAN 1,000 

---

State	Change		State Supplied Comment
PA	-1,956		Fewer layoffs in the entertainment, lodging, food service, construction, professional, scientific and technology service, and retail industries.
NC	-1,656		Fewer layoffs in the food service, textile, non classifiable establishment, food and kindred products, construction, and electronic industries.
NJ	-1,511		Fewer layoffs in the accommodation and food service, manufacturing, retail, construction, administrative, and healthcare and social assistance industries.
MA	-1,083		No comment.

---

STATES WITH AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 1,000 

---

State	Change		State Supplied Comment
TX	+4,185		No comment.
CA	+2,199		No comment.
KS	+1,555		No comment.
AR	+1,141		No comment.

U.S. CONDEMNS ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON LEBANESE POLITICAL FIGURE SAMIR GEAGEA

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Assassination Attempt Against Samir Geagea
Press Statement
Mark C. Toner
Acting Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 5, 2012
The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to be an assassination attempt targeting Lebanese politician Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces party, on April 4. While we do not know who was behind the attack at this time, we are deeply concerned that Mr. Geagea may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticism of the Assad regime’s murderous repression and Hizballah’s destabilizing actions in Lebanon. We call on the Government of Lebanon to thoroughly investigate this incident.

Lebanon and the international community have sought to bring about an end to impunity for political assassinations with the 2009 establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) to investigate the assassinations of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other public figures from 2004 to 2007. The United States reiterates its strong support for the work of the STL. We call on the Government of Lebanon to cooperate fully with the Tribunal, including arresting those named in the 2011 indictment and providing funding to the Tribunal’s operations for 2012.

U.S. DROUGHT FUNDING INCREASED TO HORN OF AFRICA

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Increase in U.S. Funding to Drought Relief in the Horn of Africa
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 5, 2012
The United States continues to be deeply concerned by the humanitarian emergency in the Horn of Africa, and particularly the hard-hit Somali population. Despite the end of famine conditions in February, nearly 10 million people in the region still require humanitarian assistance. For this reason, the United States Government is providing an additional nearly $50 million in aid for refugees and drought-affected communities in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya in addition to what we have already provided. As Secretary Clinton announced April 3rd, since early in 2011 "the United States has provided almost $1 billion in humanitarian assistance that has saved countless lives from malnutrition, starvation, and disease. And our sustained commitment has demonstrated the best of America, helping to undermine the extremist narrative of terrorist groups like al-Shabaab in Somalia."

The Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) stated April 3, 2012 that the March-May rains in the eastern Horn of Africa will not be adequate. Poor rains would likely negatively affect food security in a region still recovering from a devastating drought and famine in 2011. The United States remains committed to breaking the cycle of hunger and famine in the Horn of Africa and to this end will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need and call on others to join it in supporting the UN's $1.5 billion 2012 Consolidated Appeal for Somalia. This appeal is currently funded at only $179 million. We encourage all donors to take additional steps to tackle both immediate assistance needs and strengthen capacity in the region to mitigate future crises.

In addition to our emergency assistance, the United States is leading efforts to address the root causes of hunger and food insecurity by improving agricultural systems in the Horn of Africa under the Feed the Future initiative. As part of these efforts, yesterday in Nairobi, Kenya USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah participated in a high-level forum on strengthening the resilience of vulnerable communities to drought in the Horn of Africa. The forum brings together African and international development leaders who are committed to working together in new ways to prevent future humanitarian crises related to drought.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 5, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

1:04 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. You guys are the only thing between me and a long weekend. No, I’m just kidding. (Laughter.) I love being here. I look forward to these constructive exchanges with the members of the press corps.
Matt.
QUESTION: You have nothing to start with?
MR. TONER: I have nothing to start with.
QUESTION: How goes your search for a venue to meet the Iranians?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we talked about this a little bit – well, actually, not a little bit – at length yesterday. And that’s a question best directed to High Representative Ashton’s office. They are our point of contact on these discussions, and, as I at least attempted to make the case yesterday, it’s very important, we feel, when we’ve got four other members of the – or five other members of the P-5+1 as well as Iran, as we’ve noted yesterday, speaking with many voices on this issue, that there just be two points of contact on it.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s – now it’s eight days away.
MR. TONER: We are --
QUESTION: If this – is the date in question now because the venue hasn’t been decided, or is it still your --
MR. TONER: I would say that we are still expecting this to take place next week, but there’s certainly some degree of urgency.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, is it the U.S. position – does – is the U.S. position still what the Secretary said it was over the weekend, that this meeting will be on the 13th in Istanbul?
MR. TONER: That’s what I said. It’s still our expectation, but I agree we need to nail down the venue.
QUESTION: So – but it is still the U.S. position that the meeting will be in Istanbul on the 13th?
MR. TONER: It is – that was our expectation when the Secretary spoke those words. It was our expectation up until we heard some other venues tossed about by the Iranians.
QUESTION: But it does not remain --
MR. TONER: High Representative Ashton’s office is trying to clarify and nail down the venue, but the dates – we’re still expecting to meet the Iranians on the 13th and 14th.
QUESTION: In?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So in other words, it’s --
MR. TONER: -- we were ready to meet in Istanbul. We’re trying to clarify that right now.
QUESTION: So it’s no longer your expectation that it will be – that it will necessarily be in Istanbul on the 13th?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let High Representative Ashton deal with the Iranians and nail that down.
QUESTION: Are you happy? I mean, does it – it doesn’t have to be in Istanbul as far as you’re concerned? I mean, it does – some of these proposals for wherever, Baghdad or Beijing, I mean, if the point of these is to sit down and talk with them, why not sit down and talk with them wherever they want to do it?
MR. TONER: Agree. Again, we talked about this at length yesterday. We’re just one part of this group, the P-5+1, so there’s logistical aspects to this that go without saying, really, on any one of these venues or locations. As we noted, it was our expectation that this was going to be in Istanbul. It’s not for us to say one place over another, but it’s important that we start to nail this down, working through Catherine Ashton, so that we do have a place to meet next week.
Yeah. Go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: The $10 million man? (Laughter.) I just wanted to see. I know you went into it at great length yesterday, but --
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- has he actually been indicted?
MR. TONER: Has he been indicted in a U.S. court?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. TONER: I’m not sure of that. I’ll take the question. I don’t believe he has, but we certainly want to see him brought to justice. I mean, as everyone and their mother know at this point, he’s hiding in plain sight in Pakistan, so what we’re – again, just to clarify what we talked about yesterday, which is that we’re not seeking his whereabouts. We certainly know that. But we’re seeking information that can be used to prosecute him.
QUESTION: But the Pakistanis would say there really is no evidence. Let’s say that he hasn’t been indicted. Then it’s really just an allegation, correct?
MR. TONER: An allegation based on our conviction that he is, in fact, guilty of these crimes, but again – we talked a little bit about this yesterday; obviously, can’t get into the detail – we’re – our belief is based on intelligence. But what we’re looking for is evidence that can be used to prosecute him in a court of law in Pakistan or elsewhere, and the $10 million is that sweetener, if you will, to encourage people to come forward.
QUESTION: But doesn’t this appear to have been backfired, really, when you look at it? Because here’s the United States putting a reward on a man’s head and he’s now a celebrity, he’s on talk shows, he’s having a news conference, and thumbing his nose at the United States.
MR. TONER: Well, Jill, I think he can do what he wants to, certainly, and he’s clearly trying to bask in the media attention. We just hope that and reiterate that our offer is very real, that if anybody knows or can produce evidence that ties him to the Mumbai bombings and other terrorist attacks that they step forward.
Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: In the back and then over to you.
QUESTION: First question, President Zardari is due to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next week in India, and there are now conservative groups in Pakistan, like the Defy Pakistan Council, that have asked him not to visit India at all. Do you feel that by issuing this notice at this time, it may have had an adverse effect on India-Pakistan relations?
MR. TONER: Well, look, we’ve talked about this upcoming visit. We’ve talked about the fact that we’ve had some high-level U.S. officials in Pakistan, Deputy Secretary Nides, for example. And I was very clear that none of this is related to any of those visits, any of those interactions. As I tried to clarify yesterday, our Rewards for Justice program is a separate process, if you will, and takes place in our Diplomatic Security channels and that it is indeed a long process to evaluate these individuals and indeed designate them. So there’s no relation here. We certainly don’t want it to impact on his visit to India. We think his visit to India actually is very constructive, and we’re all for it.
QUESTION: I have a follow question. By issuing this notice, are you trying to create a split in the Lashkar-e Tayyiba again, as well, by asking someone to come forward? And you just mentioned – you said 26 – the Mumbai attacks and other terrorist attacks. Can you specify what other attacks that the U.S. believes Lashkar-e Tayyiba is responsible for in India or other parts of the world?
MR. TONER: Well, there’s numerous incidents in the region. They are, obviously, an active terrorist organization. In terms of your first question, it’s a – we’re not – we’re asking for an individual to step forward, who can have evidence – who can produce evidence that ties into these attacks. Whether that we’re trying – we’re not playing some sort of strategic game here. We’re just trying to prosecute this individual.
QUESTION: Follow up. As far as (inaudible) are concerned, India had charged him. Have you asked India for the evidence against him, since he had open press conferences and all that? Everybody knows where he is who he is, including the Pakistan Government. Is India with you on the evidence?
MR. TONER: You’re asking if – you’re asking me to – about the Indian evidence against him? Again, that’s a question for the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to answer.
QUESTION: The kind of evidence you are seeking, are you in touch with the Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We’re in very close contact with the Indian Government on this, yes.
QUESTION: And second, as far as – what kind of message are you sending to Pakistan, one because of this – just to follow what Yuma said – is this some kind of message that you are sending to Pakistan as far as this $10 million bounty is concerned? And also at the same time, you’re asking Pakistan to open their doors of U.S.-Pakistan relations as far as supply route to Afghanistan is concerned.
MR. TONER: Goyal, I talked about this yesterday. There’s no connection here, whatsoever. In answer to your first question, we’re trying to give the Pakistani authorities the information, the evidence that they can use to prosecute this individual.
In terms of your second question, Deputy Secretary Nides is concluding a very productive visit to Pakistan. He’s had high-level contacts during his time there. It’s been very productive, very constructive. And we’re obviously waiting for the end of the parliamentary review process so that we can engage with Pakistan on our way forward.
QUESTION: And finally, Mr. Zardari’s – President Zardari’s visit to India. This is the first visit, I understand, official visit to India. What role do you think U.S. is playing as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned in connection with his visit?
MR. TONER: What role is --
QUESTION: U.S. playing. Any role U.S. playing?
MR. TONER: On whose visit?
QUESTION: About his visit to India. And U.S. – Pakistan --
MR. TONER: No role. I just said, in answer to a previous question, we’re certainly – we want to see – to us, it’s a win-win situation when Pakistan and India are engaging in dialogue, are talking to each other, and are building better cooperation.
I did want to – I’m sorry, I did want to get back to you on that. I know I had it somewhere, which is why I was leafing through my paper as I was answering Goyal. But there’s several attacks that Lashkar-e Tayyiba has claimed responsibility for, been implicated in. January 2010 attack on Srinagar airport that killed five Indians; December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament building; the July 2006 train attack in Mumbai; and a February 2010 attack against hotels in Kabul that we’re all aware of that killed nine Indians, four Afghans, and one French citizens.
QUESTION: And through all --
MR. TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: And through all this, the Indian Government hasn’t seen fit to offer a reward for any information, so it’s up to the U.S. taxpayer to foot the bill, correct?
MR. TONER: Matt, I don’t know what they’ve offered.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Indian Government.
QUESTION: Okay. Just a quick – just a couple --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- things on this. I mean, you say, yes, this is a separate process, the Rewards for Justice, but it certainly doesn’t operate in a vacuum. And with all the things going on this week – Under Secretary Sherman’s visit to India, Deputy Secretary Nides’ visit to Pakistan, the Zardari visit to India – if you didn’t want to have an impact on any of these things, you sure really picked a bad time to do this. Because whether you want it to impact these things or not, it does, particularly in the Pakistani public’s view.
So can you take the question as to whether anyone at DS or who was involved in this actually paid attention to the schedules of things that were coming up diplomatically when they decided to put this out on late Monday night – apparently accidently put onto the website late Monday night before it was announced here formally the next day?
MR. TONER: Well, the process was completed. This was – look, these kind – this kind of counterterrorism cooperation --
QUESTION: If it took – it’s been more than three years. The thing took months to do. Why did you pick this week, when it had the best chance of screwing up diplomacy, to put it out?
MR. TONER: All right. I would argue against the fact that it screwed up any --
QUESTION: Well, can you take the question.
MR. TONER: -- diplomacy. In fact, Deputy Secretary Nides had very effective discussions --
QUESTION: Right. That was the second part of my question.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Prove it. What was so productive --
MR. TONER: Prove it?
QUESTION: -- and what was so constructive about Deputy Secretary Nides’--
MR. TONER: Well, first of all they were --
QUESTION: -- visit to Pakistan?
MR. TONER: He engaged at a very senior level. He met with Prime Minister Gillani, President Zardari, Foreign Minister Carr, Finance Minister Shaikh, as well as Pakistani business leaders. And I would refer you to Foreign Minister Carr’s press release about his visit that’s very positive in tone. They had real substantive discussions, and overall the message was that – and of course, I can refer you to Deputy Secretary Nides’ public remarks – is that we value our relationship with Pakistan and we respect their parliamentary process and we’re looking, once that’s completed, to engage with them.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: But we believe the visit --
QUESTION: I mean, one could go and have a ton of meetings --
MR. TONER: Matt.
QUESTION: -- with a ton of people --
QUESTION: And that --
QUESTION: And they say no to everything you ask for.
MR. TONER: And I’m – I think I’m --
QUESTION: And I wouldn’t say that that’s very constructive or productive.
MR. TONER: -- implying without getting into the substance of our private diplomatic exchanges, that these were constructive in material.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you say what’s different now about the U.S.-Pakistan relationship than it was before Deputy Secretary Nides visited?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we have seen a pivot in the last weeks that is tangible, that we are trying to move behind the very tragic events --
QUESTION: I thought everything was hold until – after the parliamentary review?
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I’m talking about diplomatic engagement, and it’s not about making widgets necessarily and having a product to display at the end of the day. It’s about the hard spadework of engaging with a key ally in the region and rebuilding the relationship that was seriously damaged November 26th.
QUESTION: I’m – right. But didn’t the President meet with --
MR. TONER: He did.
QUESTION: -- the head – yeah. Well, wasn’t that, like, last week or 10 days ago?
MR. TONER: I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I think I’ve addressed your question. Any other questions?
QUESTION: I’d just like to know why you think that Deputy Secretary Nides’ trip was so productive and so constructive if you can’t point to anything that’s resulted from it. I mean, you could say he had a great trip because he had a nice meeting and enjoyed tea with whoever he met with and they were all cordial and shook hands and smiled at each other, but that doesn’t necessarily – that’s not necessarily productive and constructive. So I want to know why you’re using those two terms.
MR. TONER: Well, Matt, I think I answered your question in the sense that he had high-level meetings – senior Pakistani officials. He delivered our message that we value this relationship and that we want to see us move forward in the relationship. Again, I’d refer you to Foreign Minister Khar’s press release that she put out that also called these substantive and constructive discussions.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: And I can’t --
QUESTION: So your argument is the very fact that the meetings happened is what makes it --
MR. TONER: That’s not what I’m saying at all. Anyway, next question.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Syria?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I know there was a lot of activity at the UN today, but I mean, in listening to the speeches at the UN, it seems like everyone’s as pessimistic as ever. I mean, realistically, what hope does the U.S. have that Assad is going to abide by this deadline?
MR. TONER: Well, you’re right, Cami. The 10th is approaching and you saw, of course, the UN released its presidential statement today that once again called on the Syrian Government to adhere to the commitments it has agreed to. And you are also correct in that, thus far, we haven’t seen, either from press reports or activists on the ground, any suggestions that the regime is carrying out any withdrawal from these city centers and retreating to barracks as the Annan plan calls for them to do.
So it’s not surprising; certainly discouraging. It is clear that the Assad regime appears to be using this window to continue to carry out its horrible assault on the Syrian people. And in the event, as I think Ambassador Rice has said, that we don’t – that he does not comply by April 10th, then we’re going to be consulting with the Security Council on next steps.
QUESTION: Was the U.S. satisfied with the strength of the presidential statement coming out of the Security Council? I mean, it’s urging them; it’s not – it didn’t have any demands in it.
MR. TONER: Well, look, it’s very clear what Assad needs to do. So it was a strong message of unity on this issue. And I don’t think it’s a message that we can convey enough to Assad and his regime that time is running out. They need to comply with the April 10th deadline.
QUESTION: Are you guys confident that that unity will continue when and if it becomes a discussion of whether he’s – how much he’s complying with this? You have a non-spokesperson saying that the Syrian Government has told them that they’re withdrawing forces from several cities and saying that this is going to be verified but not saying how. Are you persuaded that the Security Council, as a body, will have the same information, will all agree that either it’s happening or it won’t – it isn’t happening?
MR. TONER: I mean, that’s really a question for Kofi Annan to answer, or his spokesperson, which is how we’re going to coordinate to verify any withdrawal. So far, we’re getting out ahead of ourselves. We haven’t seen any signs that that’s happening.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about the U.S. assistance, the non-lethal assistance?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the --
QUESTION: The status of that. Right.
MR. TONER: – the humanitarian assistance or --
QUESTION: Is it being delivered? The assistance that you couldn’t say what it was?
MR. TONER: Oh. I don’t have any updates for you. I’ll try to get it. You’re talking about the – to the Syrian opposition.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. TONER: Yeah. No, I don’t have any updates for you on that. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: How about the Syrian Government’s reported agreement to allow the ICRC access? Is that an important step? Or do you think that’s a serious step?
MR. TONER: Well, it certainly is, and we saw press reports, and indeed the ICRC confirmed that one of the two main Syrian/Arab Red Crescents warehouse facilities containing stocked goods intended for distribution to people in need was destroyed on April 4th. And some distributions have been canceled as a result. So obviously, that underscores the urgent need for safe and secure access for these humanitarian organizations.
QUESTION: Mark, I just want to make sure I got this right. You said that if Assad doesn’t comply by the April 10thdeadline, the U.S. – you guys and your allies are going to consult –
MR. TONER: We’re going to consult on next steps, yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sure he’s shaking in his boots. That’s really what the “or else” is? You do this or else we’re going to consult?
MR. TONER: Matt, our approach to Syria is on several fronts. We have the Friends of Syria group that, as you saw over the weekend, took additional steps to provide support to the opposition, as well as increase humanitarian assistance to people in need in Syria. We’ve got this sanctions group that’s look at how to more effectively implement sanctions against Assad. We’re – this is something we’re working on multiple fronts. We’re going to continue to use the UN where we believe it’s going to be effective. We’re going to go back and consult on next steps.
QUESTION: So does that mean that if he does comply with – by April 10th – if he does comply with this, that those sanctions will be lifted? You won’t be going for any more sanctions?
MR. TONER: It does not mean that.
QUESTION: So – I’m sorry. What does he get out of this deal?
MR. TONER: Again, it’s not so much what he gets out of this deal except that what there needs to be, first and foremost in Syria, is an end to the violence. This is a country that, as we said, is going down a very dangerous path.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: We have the opposition, or members of the opposition, now defending themselves, as we’ve talked about. The violence is expanding, and we need to stop that.
QUESTION: Why is not an accurate assessment – because I’m sure you’ll say it’s not an accurate assessment – that there is no reward for compliance and there’s no punishment for non-compliance? How does that work?
MR. TONER: Punishment for noncompliance – the punishment for non-compliance --
QUESTION: Yes. The punishment is that you’re going to consult.
MR. TONER: The punishment for noncompliance is going to be increased pressure on Assad, on his regime, and a clear message to those around him that they’re on the wrong side of history.
Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Let me – one more on Syria?
MR. TONER: Sure. Finish up Syria.
QUESTION: So what kind of strong consequences Secretary Clinton talk about if he doesn’t --
MR. TONER: I think I just talked about that. We’ve – this is not just about the Security Council, just about the UN. We’ve said before that we’re going to consult with the Security Council on next steps when appropriate. But we’re also applying pressure through sanctions, political pressure through the Friends of Syria group.
Yeah, go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: In Egypt, there now are reports that the Obama Administration is asking Interpol to turn down, deny that request for the arrest of the American NGO people. Can you tell us – give us some more details about that?
MR. TONER: I can’t. I mean, first of all, it would be a Department of Justice issue. But secondly --
QUESTION: I think the State Department actually is involved.
MR. TONER: -- we don’t really talk about Interpol arrest warrants.
QUESTION: Right. But we do have State Department --
MR. TONER: I mean, what I can tell – what I can say to you, Jill, is what we’re – what we would convey both privately and publicly, which is that we’re making this message very clear in every available forum that we believe these charges against these individuals are politically motivated and therefore without any legal merit.
QUESTION: But tangential to that, there is apparently an Egyptian request for you to notify the people who have been charged that they – there is a court date coming up, and that they are expected to attend. Considering that you fronted the bail – or not fronted it, you actually paid it – are you going to comply with the Egyptians’ request, which I understand is your – is a treaty obligation for you to do so, and notify these people whether or not they go or not? Are you going to tell them that they are expected to pass on the – are you going to pass on the Egyptians’ notice to them that they are expected to appear in court, or are you really forfeiting the taxpayers’ $5 million in bail?
MR. TONER: You are correct that it’s these individuals’ own decision to make whether they’re going to return. I’ll – I mean, I – we’re in communication, obviously, with their lawyers. I don’t know if we’ve conveyed anything on the part of the Egyptian Government.
QUESTION: But will you pass on that, as you are obligated to do?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question, but --
QUESTION: Similar to that, also on Egypt, just – I was wondering if there is a fuller readout of the meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, in particular about the substance of meetings, whether there’s any talk about democratic principles, types of things that might be raised as concerns, if there is a fuller readout of the meetings that you had.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I think – I’ll try to get one for you, but certainly, the deputy secretary met with members of this Carnegie Group that’s visiting that included a broad range of individuals from across the – not just Egypt, but obviously in other countries, Tunisia and elsewhere. I can’t get into the substance of his private discussions. I’m sure they talked about the transitions going on in all of their countries, and certainly the challenges in those democratic transitions.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. So who from the Muslim Brotherhood was in this delegation?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we’ve got a – we don’t have a strict list of --
QUESTION: Are you sure that there was anyone from --
MR. TONER: Yeah. I’ll get you the information.
QUESTION: Well, can you – can I – and is it now – it’s now your stand, or it’s now your position that any conversation that a State Department official has, even if it’s in a private – even if it’s to a private citizen, i.e. not another government official, that that is – that’s somehow secret now?
MR. TONER: I didn’t say it was secret.
QUESTION: Well, you said we’re not going to get into the private discussion.
MR. TONER: Yeah, but I didn’t say it was secret.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: I mean, what do you – I mean, I just said we’re not going to --
QUESTION: Well, I’m just saying – so everything that is said --
MR. TONER: Yes, I’m not going to – I mean, I will give you an appropriate readout, but I’m not going to detail every x, y, and z of the conversation.
QUESTION: But you said you would look into this, but my suspicion is that you are going to come back to show the readout that you get is going to be that they talked about matters of mutual interest and regional concern. Would be that an appropriate readout for the most transparent administration since – in the history of the United States?
MR. TONER: Matt, don’t prejudge.
QUESTION: I’ll wait.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: What’s your position --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Oh. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: So even if the Egyptians’ request to Interpol were to through, the U.S. would not be obligated to arrest anyone on U.S. soil if they were subjects of the Red Notice. We were just referring to what Jill was talking about, my report from --
MR. TONER: Right. I’m sorry. The first part of your question that --
QUESTION: The U.S. would not necessarily be obligated to – would not be obligated to arrest anyone who’s subject to a Red Notice under Interpol on their soil, but are you concerned that the Egyptians might follow up with extradition papers? And what’s the recourse for U.S. if that’s the case?
MR. TONER: You’re getting way out in front on this. I’m not going to talk about this legal process, what it may turn into two or three steps down the road. We’re very clear that we believe these are politically motivated charges.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. You did actually ask first.
QUESTION: Yeah. What’s your position on the possible IAEA mission to Yongbyon? Do you think that IAEA should decline the invitation from North Koreans if they go ahead with missile launch? Have you discussed this matter with IAEA?
MR. TONER: Well, I’m sure we have discussed it with the IAEA. I can tell you on the part of the U.S. that we have no intention on observing the launch. But I’ll have to refer you to the --
QUESTION: No. Not talking about observing the launch, but did North Koreans send an invitation to IAEA about monitoring?
MR. TONER: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were talking about invitations. They have been sending out invitations to --
QUESTION: Yeah, but about monitoring facilities, nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, as after the --
MR. TONER: We are consulting with them on this. I’d refer you to them for what their position is.
QUESTION: So just to follow up on that, you said the U.S. has no intention of observing the launch, which doesn’t surprise me.
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: But has there been a formal communication or was there a formal invitation? Has there been a communication with Pyongyang?
MR. TONER: I was told shortly before coming down here that it would go to NASA apparently – that we have not received any invitation.
QUESTION: Have not?
MR. TONER: Have not.
QUESTION: Do you know if NASA has? Obviously, that’s --
MR. TONER: That’s what I meant. I said we’d check with NASA. I’m aware – so yeah, no.
QUESTION: That they have not sent anything to NASA?
QUESTION: Announcement in – North Korea has announced yesterday if the United States sanctions against North Korea, then North Korea would held to another nuclear test soon. How do you respond, sir?
MR. TONER: My response is: What we said very clearly is that we don’t want to see the satellite launch. I’m not going to speculate down the road. We believe that this satellite launch would be in violation of UN Security – existing UN Security Council resolutions, so let’s deal with the issue at hand here.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: I don’t know if this subject came under discussion. Can you tell us something about Nides’ visit to Pakistan and what kind of economic cooperation -
MR. TONER: Did you just come here, or did you just arrive?
QUESTION: I’m – I had --
MR. TONER: I apologize. Let me give you a readout afterwards. I don’t want to rankle Matt again.
QUESTION: And –
QUESTION: On Ambassador David Hale’s visit to the Middle East, there’s a report the Jordanian hosted a meeting yesterday for the Palestinians and the Israeli negotiators?
MR. TONER: Yeah. He was obviously – it was in Ramallah yesterday. He met with Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas, and then he was meeting with his Israeli counterparts today. I don’t have a readout from those meetings. But obviously, all of this is done as – in preparation for leading up to next week’s Quartet meeting.
QUESTION: Tibet?
MR. TONER: Tibet?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Are you concerned about ongoing violence in Tibet? And one after another, they are putting themselves on fire or (inaudible). What they are saying is that China is destroying their culture and history and their livelihoods, and now time has come for the international community to intervene.
MR. TONER: Well, certainly we’ve been very vocal. And I would refer you to the numerous public statements we’ve made about our concerns about increasing these self-immolations and China’s actions vis-a-vis Tibet.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sure. On Mali?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: There was a statement just a short while ago by the Foreign Minister Burkina Faso saying that Captain Sanogo, the coup leader, has a proper attitude, a right attitude, and as a result of that he thinks that the sanctions should be lifted, the sanctions that were just imposed. I mean, does the U.S. see any progress in Mali so far? Any progress that would warrant that type of thing?
MR. TONER: We know that the ECOWAS chiefs of defense are meeting in Abidjan today, and they’re in fact discussing next steps concerning the situation in Mali. And they have issued these sanctions. We do expect them to have a strong impact. But the choice is clear, that Sanogo and his compatriots need to reinstitute civilian rule with an eye towards near-term elections.
QUESTION: So, and then maybe --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Maybe it’s just something that came out from Burkina Faso, but do you think it would be a premature step to ease the pressure?
MR. TONER: Not at all. I mean, we’ve seen very little in the way – on the part of the --
QUESTION: The question was --
QUESTION: To ease the pressure.
QUESTION: To ease the pressure, and you said not at all. You mean to --
MR. TONER: I mean --
QUESTION: Sorry I mumbled.
QUESTION: You shouldn’t ease the pressure.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: That’s what you --
MR. TONER: Clearly. We’re not easing sanctions on Mali, not at all. We’re not looking to ease sanctions in any way on Mali right now.
QUESTION: And just --
MR. TONER: We want to keep the pressure up.
QUESTION: Just briefly on that, just to follow up from the question yesterday – but the talks Assistant Secretary Carson had in Algeria, is there anything more on that, just particularly as it relates to Mali?
MR. TONER: Yes, I do. He was in, indeed, Algeria, so thanks for calling that to my attention. He was there, obviously, with General Ham of AFRICOM, and they did meet with President Bouteflika as well as Algeria’s African affairs minister yesterday and precisely there to discuss the situation in Mali, as well as our concerns about the Sahel and the activities of AQIM.
QUESTION: Is there anything specific you’d like to see from Algeria on Mali as a neighboring country?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’re looking to cooperate closely with them. This is an issue that touches their borders, and so it’s of great concern to them. So – and especially, as I said, the activities of AQIM in the region and the fact that they are, as al-Qaida often does, trying to exploit the current situation.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on any potential ongoing communication or diplomacy with the Emirates about the NDI case? Have that – has that – I mean, I know the Secretary remarked on it over the weekend, but has there been anything more on that? And there’s also a report that a couple of NDI folks have been prevented from leaving, although one was later allowed to leave. Can you confirm that? Do you have any --
MR. TONER: Right. My understanding to your second question is that they were – there were two individuals briefly detained and then released. One was allowed to, in fact – or I think departed the country and the other remains. But I – and the Secretary obviously spoke to this over the weekend. And we continue to be in close contact with the Government of the UAE, trying to find a resolution to this.
QUESTION: Did the State Department – was the State Department involved at all in discussions with them while these two folks were being held, particularly the American citizen?
MR. TONER: You know what? I’m not – I don’t know, frankly. I don’t know how long the detention was, but --
QUESTION: Are you saying --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- one of them was an American citizen?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
QUESTION: I didn’t hear that and --
MR. TONER: I’ll double check, Matt.
QUESTION: --what you said. That is your understanding, though, yeah?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
That it? Great. Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:37 p.m.)

SENTENCED FOR LIFE DRUG CARTEL LEADER ADMITS LINK TO OVER 1,500 MURDERS

FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Juarez Drug Cartel Leader Pleads Guilty to Charges Related to U.S. Consulate Murders and Is Sentenced to Life in Prison Defendant Admits to Directing or Participating in More Than 1,500 Murders since 2008

WASHINGTON – The Juarez Drug Cartel’s leader in Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico, pleaded guilty today in El Paso, Texas, and was sentenced to life in prison for his participation in drug-trafficking and numerous acts of violence in connection with the Barrio Azteca gang, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas, FBI Special Agent in Charge Mark Morgan of the FBI’s El Paso Office and Administrator Michele M. Leonhart of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Jose Antonio Acosta-Hernandez, 34, aka “Diego,” “Dienton,” “Diez” and “Bablazo,” of Chihuahua, was extradited to the United States from Mexico on March 16, 2012.  Today, he pleaded guilty to four counts of racketeering, narcotics trafficking and money laundering.  Acosta-Hernandez also pleaded guilty to seven counts of murder and weapons charges, which specifically related to the March 13, 2010, triple homicide in Juarez of U.S. Consulate employee Leslie Enriquez, her husband Arthur Redelfs and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, the husband of another U.S. Consulate employee.  Immediately after the guilty plea hearing, Acosta-Hernandez was sentenced to seven concurrent life terms, three additional consecutive life terms and 20 years in federal prison by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone of the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division.

Today’s action is the result of close coordination between U.S. law enforcement and the government of Mexico in the investigation and prosecution of this case.  The cooperation and assistance of the government of Mexico was essential to achieving the successful extradition, plea and sentencing of Acosta-Hernandez.  

“As the leader of La Linea’s enforcement wing, Mr. Acosta-Hernandez directed a reign of terror,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.  “Today’s guilty plea and sentence are a significant step in our effort to bring to justice those responsible for the consulate murders, and it would not have been possible without the extraordinary assistance of our law enforcement partners in Mexico, including Attorney General Marisela Morales Ibáñez.  We are determined to hold accountable those individuals who committed the consulate murders, and to dismantle the dangerous criminal enterprise that fueled these and many other tragic and senseless acts of violence.  Gangs and other criminal organizations that threaten public safety on both sides of the border are on notice that we are working more closely than ever with our Mexican counterparts to shut them down.”

“This plea represents the culmination of a virtual textbook example of cooperation among law enforcement agencies, both in the United States and in Mexico, to hold accountable those at the highest level of the drug trafficking trade,” said U.S. Attorney Pitman.  “We will continue to work together with our counterparts in Mexico to target those responsible for the heinous crimes associated with cartel activity.”

“This investigation exemplifies the FBI’s commitment and that of our federal, state, local and international partners to investigate and prosecute individuals and organized criminal organizations who commit violent acts and other crimes impacting the U.S. and our border area with the Republic of Mexico,” said Special Agent in Charge Morgan.  “The joint effort included the participation of USM Service, CBP, DEA, HSI, DOS, Texas DPS, El Paso Police, El Paso County Sheriff’s office and our Mexican partners.”
“Acosta-Hernandez is a cold blooded murderer with no respect for human life or the rule of law,” said DEA Administrator Leonhart.  “His violent and deadly actions were put to a stop due to the combined efforts of U.S. law enforcement, and the will of the Mexican government. Together, we will relentlessly continue our pressure on the Mexican cartels and gangs that carry out violence on both sides of the border.”

The third superseding indictment, returned on March 2, 2011, alleged that Acosta-Hernandez was an associate of the Barrio Azteca (BA), a violent street and prison gang that began in the late 1980s and expanded into a transnational criminal organization.  According to information presented in court, the BA formed an alliance with “La Linea,” which is part of the Juarez Drug Cartel and is also known as the Vincente Carrillo Fuentes Drug Cartel or “VCF.”  The purpose of the BA-La Linea alliance was to battle the Chapo Guzman Cartel and its allies for control of the drug trafficking routes through Juarez and Chihuahua.  The drug routes through Juarez, known as the Juarez Plaza, are important to drug trafficking organizations because they are a principal illicit drug trafficking conduit into the United States.  

Acosta-Hernandez admitted that in approximately 2008, he became the leader of La Linea’s armed enforcement wing and acted as the VCF’s plaza boss in Chihuahua and Juarez.  In this role, Acosta-Hernandez, in coordination with the BA, led violent attacks against their common enemies.  Acosta-Hernandez admitted that he directed or participated in more than 1,500 murders since 2008.

For example, Acosta-Hernandez admitted that on Jan. 30, 2010, he ordered hit-men in his organization to kill members of the opposition that were sighted at a daytime birthday party at a home in Juarez.  As part of this incident, 16 individuals were killed and 10 individuals were wounded at three different residences in Juarez.  On July 15, 2010, Acosta-Hernandez directed a car bombing in Juarez that ultimately killed four people.
       
Acosta-Hernandez admitted that his purpose for engaging in these violent attacks was, in part, to protect and enhance the La Linea-BA alliance’s importation of heroin, cocaine and marijuana into the Western District of Texas and elsewhere, and ultimately to make possible the distribution of those drugs in the United States.  Acosta-Hernandez admitted that he knew that the La Linea-BA alliance earned millions of dollars in drug trafficking profits each year.  He also knew that these profits were reinvested into the organization to purchase additional drugs to import into the United States and/or to purchase weapons, ammunition or supplies to continue fighting enemies of La Linea and the BA.

During the guilty plea hearing, Acosta-Hernandez also pleaded guilty to charges relating to the triple homicide of Enriquez, Redelfs and Salcido, based on his leadership position within La Linea and association with the BA.  According to information presented in court, on March 13, 2010, Enriquez, her husband Redelfs, and Salcido, the Mexican national husband of a second U.S. Consulate employee, were shot and killed by other BA members in Juarez in separate but related incidents.  According to information presented in court, on March 13, employees of the U.S. Consulate hosted a child’s birthday party in Juarez.  Salcido was shot and killed in his vehicle as he left the party.  His three children also were in the car and sustained minor injuries.  His wife, a Mexican national employee at the U.S. Consulate, was following Salcido in a separate vehicle and was unharmed in the attack.

At approximately the same time, U.S. citizens Enriquez and Redelfs left the same party and were shot and killed in their vehicle.  Enriquez was four months pregnant at the time of the shooting.  Enriquez’s and Redelfs’ nine-month-old daughter also was in the vehicle but was unharmed.
 
During the hearing, Acosta-Hernandez acknowledged that Salcido, Enriquez and Redelfs were murdered by members and associates of the BA to further the gang’s racketeering activities.  Acosta-Hernandez admitted that at the time, under his leadership as VCF’s plaza boss and coordinator of enforcement actions with the BA in Juarez, La Linea and the BA had agreed to unite and commit murders to further their criminal enterprise.
A total of 35 defendants were charged in the third superseding indictment and are alleged to have committed various criminal acts, including racketeering, narcotics distribution and importation, retaliation against persons providing information to U.S. law enforcement, extortion, money laundering, obstruction of justice and murder, including the 2010 Juarez consulate murders.  Of the 35 defendants charged, 32 have been apprehended; 23 of those defendants have pleaded guilty, while seven others are pending extradition from Mexico.  U.S. and Mexican law enforcement are actively seeking to apprehend the three remaining fugitives in this case, including Eduardo Ravelo, an FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitive.  Trial against Ramon Renteria, aka “Spooky,” is scheduled to begin in El Paso on May 18, 2012.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Joseph A. Cooley of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section, Trial Attorney Brian Skaret of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney George Leal of the Western District of Texas - El Paso Division.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico provided significant assistance in this case, including by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Davenport.  Valuable assistance was provided by the Criminal Division’s Offices of International Affairs and Enforcement Operations.

The case was investigated by the FBI’s El Paso Field Office, Albuquerque Field Office (Las Cruces Resident Agency), DEA Juarez and DEA El Paso.  Special assistance was provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Federal Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Diplomatic Security Service; the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; El Paso Police Department; El Paso County Sheriff’s Office; El Paso Independent School District Police Department; Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission; New Mexico State Police; Dona Ana County, N.M., Sheriff’s Office; Las Cruces, N.M., Police Department; Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility; and Otero County Prison Facility New Mexico.

FORMER OCEANS BANK EXECUTIVE SENTENCED FOR BRIBERY AND FALSE TAX RETURNS

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Former Executive of Miami-Based Ocean Bank Sentenced to Serve 37 Months in Prison for Participating in Bribery Scheme and Filing False Tax Returns
WASHINGTON – A former executive of Ocean Bank, a financial institution headquartered in Miami, was sentenced today for participating in a scheme to accept bribes and for failing to report income on federal income tax returns, the Department of Justice announced.

Danilo P. Perez, a former vice president of Ocean Bank, was sentenced today in the U.S. District Court in Miami by District Judge Donald L. Graham to serve 37 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release.

On Jan. 25, 2012, Perez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to solicit or demand money and other things of value to influence an employee of a financial institution and three counts of tax offenses. The charges against Perez stemmed from his accepting nearly $500,000 in cash and other items from co-conspirators in connection with his supervision of certain customer business with the bank. As vice president, Perez generally oversaw Ocean Bank’s lending relationships with corporate customers of the bank.

Perez admitted to accepting bribes, including payments for expensive watches, Super Bowl tickets and other items for his personal use, as well as substantial amounts of cash. Perez accepted the payments intending to be rewarded and influenced in connection with his role in approving Ocean Bank’s issuance of letters of credit, loans and overdraft privileges to his co-conspirators. Perez also admitted that he failed to report income from those bribes for tax years 2005, 2006 and 2007, resulting in lost tax revenue of approximately $91,000 to the federal government.