May
17

OFAC Designates Mexican Day Care Center as a Narcotics Kingpin

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:11 pm on May 17, 2007
Category: OFAC

Not a Picture of Estancia Infantil Niño FelizOn its website today, OFAC designated the Estancia Infantil Niño Feliz (aka “Happy Baby Day Care Center”) in Culiacan, Mexico, as a narcotics playpen kingpin. Undercover agents reported hearing a discussion between two four-year-olds planning to ship 200 kilos of cocaine into the United States.

Actually, the Day Care Center is alleged to be, according to a DEA press release, a front company for Ismael Zambada Garcia, a fugitive from justice designated as a narcotics kingpin (”SDNTK”) in 2002. Needless to say, a day care center seems ill-suited to the demands of a narcotics front company. How exactly would Happy Baby Day Care center explain making ginormous deposits at the local branch of Banamex? But let’s take the DEA and OFAC at their word on this.

The important take-away here is that no assumptions can be made about whether a company is likely to be on the SDN list. If a kindergarten can be an SDNTK, so can a ballet troupe and a provincial petting zoo. Even if you had googled Happy Baby Day Care or, more precisely, Estancia Infantil Niño Feliz, you would have discovered that, in at least one sense, the pre-school is the real deal. The site for the Mexican state of Sinaloa actually lists Happy Baby Day Care as one of the preschools in Culiacan. So, check the list, no matter how innocuous or legitimate the customer seems.

(Note: the picture illustrating this post is not a picture of the Estancia Infantil Niño Feliz in Culiacan)

Permalink

5 Comments »

  • Cliff,

    What the Mexican press is not saying is that the day care is owned by the daughter of Mexican drug kingpin Ismael Zambada Garcia, and they used the day care’s bank accounts to move their dirty money.

    OFAC and DEA would not name this hot-button company unless they had the goods on it.

    You seem to delight in your sarcasm on your website and assume that the government does not do their homework.

    Tony

    Comment by Tony Gonzalez — May 18, 2007 @ 9:49 am

  • Uh, no, Tony, I don’t assume that the government doesn’t do its homework. In fact, I said in my post that OFAC and DEA should be taken at their word here and that the lesson for exporters was that even a day care center might be on the SDN list, a point that OFAC would certainly agree with.

    Comment by Clif Burns — May 18, 2007 @ 9:53 am

  • The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights for the San Franciso Bay Area has filed a FOIA suit OFAC against OFAC, seeking documents on how it decides who is on the SDNLs and how OFAC resolves similar name inquiries. The complaint claims that OFAC has denied that OFAC had any processes or procedures for resolving similar name inquiries (perhaps it should enter into a consulting agreement with the Arab League Boycott Office.) Although this is just a FOIA suit, the language of the complaint, which appends an earlier LCCR report on difficulties individuals and small businesses have had with similar name matches, suggests that this is just a shot across OFAC’s bow.

    Comment by Mike Deal — May 18, 2007 @ 10:18 am

  • OK.

    I work at the US branch of a foreign bank and a few years back we laughed at an OFAC designation of a Colombian foundation. We later learned that this entity had used our correspondent account for very suspicious transactions that had nothing to do with the foundation’s purpose in Colombia.

    Comment by Tony Gonzalez — May 18, 2007 @ 10:19 am

  • I’m trying to imagine what international shipments to these guys would comprise of anyway (legitimately) in the course of operating a day care.

    I did a search on them, and sure enough, there they are. If only I knew Spanish, I would have had a good cackle when I reviewed the list.

    hln

    Comment by hln — May 24, 2007 @ 10:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, so your comment will not immediately appear, but will appear later after I've approved it. Although I will never disclose your email address to anyone, comments with fake or non-functioning email addresses are not approved. And, of course, spam comments with links to pornography and pharmaceutical sites aren't approved either.