- 172 -
In addition, petitioner held himself out to the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee as Ashland's representative through
"his companies". While petitioner might have had a certain
incentive to increase his own business stature by holding himself
out as the owner of those companies, we think that his
representation was not based on a factual foundation. At the
trial, in response to a question about who received the funds
from the All Patents account petitioner testified, "I have
absolutely no knowledge and I didn't want to have any." By this
he appeared to be implying that there may have been something
improper or illegal about the arrangement between NIOC and
Ashland via All Patents. But there is evidence that petitioner
was Ashland's actual representative and performed the services
for which payments were made. Accordingly, we hold that
petitioner earned the funds received pursuant to the Ashland
consulting agreement.
Lastly, we note that Ashland's 1975 payments in All Patents'
name were deposited to the Diesel Power Banque de Paris account,
of which petitioner was an authorized signatory, rather than to
an All Patents account. However, there is no evidence that
Diesel Power was involved in the Ashland negotiations. We find
no significance in the fact that petitioner relinquished part of
his interest in Diesel Power in late 1974. If, as petitioner
contends, the Ashland payments to All Patents did not belong to
Page: Previous 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011