BOWERS AND O'NEILL DIFFER ON RCMP INFORMATION

Sidney C. Bowers, a DEA agent in Montreal, testified that he was in almost daily contact with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the Bouchard inquiry and other investigations (p. 805). John J. O'Neill said he was also in touch with the Mounties on the Bouchard case (pp. 530, 568). Oddly, both men were receiving different intelligence from the RCMP on the Bouchard inquiry. In fact, if O'Neill's testimony is accurate, the Mounties were giving Bowers one story on the Bouchard case while they were telling quite another one to Bowers' DEA colleagues in the Montreal office, Ronald Swanson and Jack McCarthy.

O'Neill said that very early in the month of July-possibly as early as July 6-he was convinced there was nothing to the assertion that Robert Vesco and Norman LeBlanc were prepared to finance Conrad Bouchard in a heroin venture. O'Neill said he came to this conclusion after talks with DEA Agents Swanson and McCarthy and with RCMP agents and from his own knowledge of how Bouchard operated (p. 568). As already quoted in this staff study, O'Neill said that as of July 6 he was certain-the belief was "fixed in my mind”—that Bouchard was using the name Vesco to entice Peroff into keeping the Lear jet on stand-by for an escape attempt from Canada (p. 567). Philip Manuel asked O'Neill how he could be so certain. O'Neill replied one reason was that Swanson and McCarthy and the RCMP agents had told him so (pp. 568, 530-532).

But there was a third DEA agent in the Montreal office, Sidney Bowers, and Bowers told the Subcommittee of information he was getting from the Mounties that was contrary to what Senators had been informed O'Neill, Swanson and McCarthy were receiving. Bowers testified that, for all he knew, Bouchard might have been telling the truth-at least there was no proof that he wasn't. Subcommittee Investigator Manuel asked Bowers:

To your knowledge, as of July 16, had any information come from the RCMP to anyone in the DEA that would clearly and specifically indicate that Mr. Bouchard was lying to Peroff about the Vesco-LeBlanc involvement?

Bowers replied:

No. Clearly and specifically that he was lying? No (p. 787).

But neither would Bowers attest to the truth of what Bouchard was telling Peroff about Vesco and LeBlanc. Bouchard and Peroff were accomplished "con men" and everything they said had to be carefully evaluated, Bowers testified. For Bowers' part, he was not prepared, not as of July 16 anyway, to believe or disbelieve either Bouchard or Peroff without proof. And no such proof was available in mid-July, Bowers said (p. 787).

Bowers went on to say that the Bouchard inquiry was the kind of investigation that law enforcement agents prefer to keep open and on-going for as long as possible. Bowers explained:

I feel certain that if Peroff hadn't become so irate that he went to this committee or whoever he contacted, called the White House, got arrested and what have you, that the investigation might still have been going on... (p. 809). Supplementing Bowers' observation, this staff study notes that Peroff contacted this Subcommittee for the first time October 4, 1973.

DOS SANTOS AND BOWERS DIFFER ON TAPE

DEA Agent Bowers said that Richard Dos Santos played part of a taped conversation between Frank Peroff and Conrad Bouchard to him over the phone. Bowers said he was not sure what day Dos Santos played the tape for him but he thought it was July 16 (pp. 778, 779, 788).

Dos Santos denied ever having played such a tape for Bowers (p. 347). Dos Santos and Subcommitteee Investigator Manuel had this discussion on the disputed testimony:

MANUEL. Mr. Dos Santos, do you have any knowledge as to whether any conversation between Frank Peroff and DEA, New York Office, was recorded by any DEA agent from July 1 to July 17?

DOS SANTOS. I have seen no recording. I wasn't privy to any recording. I believe the only knowledge of the report was provided by the staff of the Subcommittee.

MANUEL. Mr. Dos Santo, we have interviewed DEA Agent Sidney Bowers and among other things Mr. Bowers has advised us that sometime prior to July 16, 1973 he had a telephone conversation with you in which you played for him a tape recording of a conversation between Frank Peroff and Conrad Bouchard in which Robert Vesco and Norman LeBlanc were mentioned.

I would like for you to comment on that by telling the Subcommittee whether, in fact, you did play for Mr. Bowers such a tape recording.

Dos SANTOS. To my recollection, I think that may be somewhat inaccurate. I do not recall playing any tape recording for Bowers while in the DEA (p. 347).

Elsewhere in his testimony, however, Dos Santos said he might have spoken with Bowers about information contained in the July 6 tape shortly after he heard about it for the first time. Dos Santos said he could not vouch for what O'Neill did with the information from the July 6 tape but that he, Dos Santos, told either the RCMP or Bowers about it (p. 400).

THE BOUCHARD-PEROFF PAPERS

John J. O'Neill was a Group Supervisor in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) in the New York area when BNDD was merged into the new Drug Enforcement Administration July 1,

1973 (pp. 507-509). A veteran of nine years as a federal drug agent, O'Neill said that prior to the July 1 changeover he was generally aware of the Customs and RCMP investigation of Conrad Bouchard and the heroin plot (pp. 514, 515).

In addition, O'Neill said, in the early 1970's BNDD opened two files in which Conrad Bouchard was a subject. One was titled "XA-710015 Joseph Boldrini, et al.," O'Neill said. He said the other file was called "CI-72-0053, James Episcopia, et al." (Pp. 510, 511.)

O'Neill said Boldrini lived in Marseilles and was a supplier of heroin for Bouchard. Episcopia, also known as Jimmy Legs, was a customer of Bouchard's heroin in New York, O'Neill said (p. 510). Independent inquiry by the Subcommittee staff showed that Jimmy Legs, besides his involvement in drugs, is also a trafficker in stolen and counterfeit securities.

When Peroff's travel authorization was sent to Puerto Rico July 17, 1973 enabling him to fly at government expense to New York the Episcopia file number, CI-72-0053, was used in the cable. O'Neill said that for travel authorization to be given Peroff, the trip had to be related to a specific file so the Episcopia inquiry was used (p. 511). But, O'Neill said, Peroff never contributed any information to the Episcopia case, nor was he involved with it in any way (p. 511).

O'Neill

O'Neill said that until he took over at DEA July 1, 1973 he had never heard of Frank Peroff (pp. 513, 514). said he did know that Customs and the RCMP were using an informant in their Bouchard inquiry. He said he knew that the informant "was going to use a plane" to transport a shipment of narcotics. O'Neill said he knew at the approximate time it occurred that the informant, in a Customssponsored plane, had flown into Montreal in March of 1973 to further the Bouchard investigation (p. 514).

O'Neill said, however, that when he came to DEA July 1 he did not consider Frank Peroff to be part of any case. O'Neill said Peroff was an "informant for” Richard Dos Santos of Customs and that when Dos Santos came to DEA Peroff came with him (p. 518). O'Neill explained:

The way I identify an informant is they are working for the agency they are working for but they are working for and being used by the agent controlling them (p. 518).

O'Neill went on to say he had never seen a Custom file on Conrad Bouchard or a Customs file that listed Frank Peroff as an informant (p. 519). O'Neill said that when Richard Dos Santos was assigned to DEA, Dos Santos did go to work for him-but Dos Santos, O'Neill said, brought no file on Bouchard (p. 519). If such a file existed, O'Neill said, it was never transferred to DEA. O'Neill testified:

There was a list of files that was supposed to come to DEA. The Bouchard investigation that Customs had was not transferred. Dos Santos was transferred. He came with Peroff as his informant. But it is my understanding that the Customs investigation regarding Conrad Bouchard was never transferred to DEA (p. 519).

Subcommittee Investigator Philip Manuel pointed out to O'Neill that testimony had been received that indicated the Customs Bouchard file was transferred to DEA. But O'Neill stuck to his previous statement as he testified:

The file, itself, was not [transferred to DEA]. I was happy to have Dos Santos and the informant who could assist us in the Bouchard investigation, but as far as I know the file, the investigative file, of Bouchard was not transferred... There was a list of files with the Custom file numbers. As far as I know, the file number that pertained directly to Conrad Bouchard was not transferred (p. 519).

This assertion by O'Neill-that no Bouchard file was ever referred to DEA—was disputed by the Commissioner of Customs, Vernon D. Acree. Acree told the Subcommittee that on about July 1, 1973 "all on-going narcotics cases and related investigative files" were turned over by Customs to DEA. Acree cited the Bouchard heroin inquiry specifically as being one of the Customs cases transferred over to DEA. At the same time, Acree said, Frank Peroff was also referred to DEA (p. 180).

Dos Santos, in his sworn DEA-Customs interview, had a very precise recollection of turning the Customs file over to O'Neill. "I put the file in his [O'Neill's] in-box," Dos Santos said.

George C. Corcoran, the Assistant Customs Commissioner for Investigations, also disputed John J. O'Neill's testimony. Corcoran testified that on July 1, 1973 Customs transferred the Bouchard case "and the utilization of Mr. Peroff" to DEA (p. 189).

Senator Huddleston asked Corcoran if it was possible that only part of the Bouchard case was turned over to DEA. Corcoran replied:

I can't answer that positively, Senator, but I know that in every case the investigative files were either turned over in their entirety or were made available to the agents in DEA... (p. 192).

John R. Bartels, Jr., the Administrator of DEA, also contradicted John J. O'Neill on the question of whether or not a Bouchard file was transferred from Customs to DEA. Bartels said that when Richard Dos Santos came over to DEA, he brought with him the "files relating to the Bouchard investigation and the general supervision of informant Frank Peroff." (P. 464.)

O'Neill's assertion that no Customs file on Bouchard and Peroff was ever turned over to DEA was also contradicted by O'Neill himself. For later in his testimony, O'Neill acknowledged that there was such a file but, he said, he just did not have time to read it. This admission came out in the following discussion at the hearings between Investigator Manuel and O'Neill:

MANUEL. Did you at any time, either before or after July 6, in that time period, read the Customs files and reports with respect to the various contacts that Mr. Peroff had had with Mr. Bouchard since March of 1973?

O'NEILL. No.

MANUEL. Why not?

O'NEILL. Because to go through that I thought would be time consuming and wouldn't really be beneficial when I had the man that had that knowledge right there.

MANUEL, Who was that?

O'NEILL. Dos Santos (p. 557).

But, O'Neill went on to explain, Richard Dos Santos was not the one who convinced him that Bouchard was making up stories about Robert Vesco and Norman LeBlanc. His own knowledge of Bouchard, plus conversation with Canadian and American drug agents, led him to the conclusion that Bouchard was deceiving Peroff (pp. 557, 558). Manuel asked why, if Bouchard was lying, wasn't Peroff taken out of the picture altogether? O'Neill replied, "Because Bouchard was still on trial; Bouchard was still on the street." Manuel asked, "So what?" O'Neill replied, "So he could, by accident, stumble onto something." (P. 558.)

O'Neill said that when he came to DEA he was briefed by Richard Dos Santos on the Bouchard inquiry and Peroff's role in it (p. 521); What had once been a "very promising" case was no longer viewed with such enthusiasm by agents in Canada and by Dos Santos himself, O'Neill said. For his own part, O'Neill said, "I didn't hold much hope for the investigation coming to a successful conclusion." (P. 522.)

O'Neill said that in connection with the briefing from Dos Santos, Dos Santos also had the Customs file. But, O'Neill said, he did not read the file because, "I wanted to get a verbal thing" from Dos Santos. Then, O'Neill said, he wanted to talk personally to Peroff (p. 523). Subcommittee Investigator Philip Manuel asked O'Neill what the status of the Bouchard case was in July of 1973. O'Neill said it was a "viable investigation." But O'Neill added paradoxically, "If you were rating it on a scale of 10, in March [of 1973] it was a six and in July it was a one." (P. 524.)

Manuel asked why hopes for the case had declined. O'Neill replied, "Conrad Bouchard. The two simplest words in the world, Conrad Bouchard." (P. 524.)

O'Neill said Bouchard did not have the resources to execute a big heroin deal (p. 547). Thus, because he was given no evidence to the contrary, he was inclined to discount the July 6 tape and the VescoLeBlanc angle, O'Neill said (p. 555).

O'Neill said that one of the problems Bouchard was reportedly having in executing a large heroin transaction was his own lack of money and his inability to find a financier to back him. But, O'Neill pointed out, there were many other "elements missing" from the case which led him to believe that Bouchard was not seriously planning a heroin deal (pp. 524, 525). O'Neill explained:

There were a lot of things. To make a narcotic case and to be involved in the making of a narcotic case is a very, very difficult thing. You just don't get things going by simple things.

It is illegal all over the world. Penalties for it are very, very substantial all over the world. The people involved in it for the major part on this level are very high, well placed organized crime people who have been in crime all their life.