« 이전계속 »
But Peroff was not questioned before a grand jury. He was not even interviewed in a grand jury room (p. 737). Instead, Viviani questioned him with two other persons Frank Peroff was not inclined to trust: William Green, an investigator from Customs, and Edwin Stamm, an investigator from DEA.
Viviani said he served Peroff with the grand jury subpoena but did not put him before a grand jury because he did not want Peroff to use this procedure as leverage to force the U.S. Attorney's Office to give him protective custody. Viviani explained to Senators:
Mr. Peroff is a very knowledgeable guy. You know, in the September conversation, I basically laid out what the rules are for getting someone into protective custody.
One of those rules he knew to be a grand jury appearance or testimony before a grand jury. I was not about to put him in a grand jury and have him screaming to me to put him into protective custody. I just didn't need that grief.
If I put him in, he was very persuasive and he is a type of man to wear down and I am not about to be worn down (p.
Subcommittee Chief Counsel Howard Feldman returned to the question of the propriety of serving a subpoena on a person and then, instead of putting him before the grand jury, interrogating him with DEA and Customs personnel standing by. Feldman observed, “It just seems rather unique." (P. 735.)
"It is not,” Viviani replied, explaining that the DEA and Customs men-Stamm and Green-constituted a "watchdog committee” formed to observe the activities of federal agents. Sitting in on the Peroff interrogation, Viviani said, was a logical "starting point" for them, an opportunity to hear from Peroff just what his complaints were (pp. 735, 736).
THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE SUBPOENA
Later in his testimony, Viviani gave more details as to how the November 9 session developed. It seemed that Green of Customs and Stamm of DEA wanted to question Peroff by themselves November 9 and Viviani was willing to let them. That was the purpose of the grand jury subpoena-to enable the DEA and Customs men to interrogate Peroff. Viviani never had any intention of putting Peroff before a grand jury.
But Peroff, who appeared at Viviani's office under grand jury subpoena, didn't know what Viviani, Stamm and Green had in mind. Peroff objected to Stamm and Green questioning him; at least Viviani should be there, Peroff said. As Viviani told Senators, “Mr. Peroff sort of didn't trust anyone." (P. 736.)
This discussion occurred between Subcommittee Investigator Philip Manuel and Assistant U.S. Attorney Arthur Viviani:
MANUEL. Prior to November 9, Mr. Viviani, did the members of the joint DEA-Customs Investigating team. Mr. Stamm and Mr. Green, I believe, request that you assist them in interviewing Mr. Peroff!
VIVIANI. I don't know. I think they wanted to interview. I think he, as I recall now, Mr. Manuel, and, sure, I would have said, “You can use my office and I will be present or I can find you another office and you can interview him yourself."
What happened was when he did arrive on the 9th, I suggested that I get him another office and they could sit down and talk to him.
As I recall, Peroff said no, he wanted me there. He felt more comfortable with me present and they sort of wrangled. They didn't want to interview him under those circumtances, claiming if he has a complaint, they are the investigators.
MASTEL. Prior to getting to that, in response to their request for your assistance in this regard, did you cause a grand jury subpoena to be served on Mr. Peroff.
VIVIANI. Yes, I did. I think he responded on the 9th. I think it was the return date of the grand jury subpoena. Yes.
MANUEL. Was the grand jury subpoena served on Mr. Peroff for the purpose of having him available for interview by the DEA and Customs Investigating team?
VIVIANI. Probably by basic way of doing things, before putting somebody into the grand jury, I make sure that I speak to them and get what his testimony will be. I will have agents present, sure.
MANUEL. Why did you decide not to put him in the grand jury?
VIVIANI. Basically, I didn't want this guy claiming that he is now a "protected government witness." I just didn't want
to have to brief Mr. Peroff (pp. 747-749). Subcommittee Chief Counsel Feldman asked U.S. Attorney Curran if he was satisfied with the conclusions reached by Viviani and with the manner in which Viviani's investigation was conducted. Curran replied:
Yes, sir, as those practices that relate to an allegation like this. We don't get too many. We get some. Yes, sir. Yes
(p. 749). Viviani wrote a memorandum November 12, 1973 in which he related that on November 9, 1973 Frank Peroff gave him two cassettes containing recorded conversations of Peroff talking on two occasions to Conrad Bouchard; and of Peroff talking on one occasion to Harold Audsley. Independent inquiry by the Subcommittee established that Harold Audsley is a known traflicker in stolen and bogus securities.
Viviani noted in his memorandum that the tapes were re-recorded twice, one set for Peroff, the second set for Stamm of DEA and Green of Customs. The originals were placed in a safe, Viviani said.
Viviani wrote a memorandum November 13, 1973 on the November 9, 1973 interrogation of Frank Perofl conducted by Viviani. Stamm and Green. In this document, Viviani generally reviewed Peroff's account of his dealings with Conrad Bouchard in his role as an informant.
The November 13 memorandum came to no findings, conclusions or recommendations for further action by the U. S. Attorney, Southern District of New York. In effect, the Viviani memorandum was a recital of the Peroff story, from Peroff's own point of view, from January of 1973 to November 9, 1973.
If Viviani did any further inquiry into the Peroff allegations, he made no reference to it for the Subcommittee's edification--neither in documents submitted to the Subcommittee nor in his testimony at the Subcommittee's hearings.
PEROFF RECALLS VIVIANI INVESTIGATION
In his testimony, Frank Peroff described for Senators the investigation, as he saw it, which was conducted by Assistant U. S. Attorney Arthur Viviani.
Peroff said Queens County District Attorney Mike Armstrong listened to his story and his tapes. Armstrong, Peroff said, proposed two alternative courses of action-first, Peroff could contact Special | Prosecutor Archibald Cox; second, Peroff could call on Paul J. Curran, the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (p. 96).
Arnist rong, who knew Curran on a personal basis, thought Peroff should try the Curran alternative and present his case to the U.S. Attorney "on a man-to-man basis." (P. 96.)
Peroff, agreeing with Armstrong, said it was his understanding that a meeting was set up with Curran, John R. Wing, Carl M. Bornstein and Inspector Richard Condon at which Peroff's allegations was discussed.
For this meeting, Peroff said, he turned over to Bornstein the tapes of his talks with Bouchard when Bouchard talked about Vesco as a backer of the heroin deal (p. 96).
The next day-Peroff did not say when these meetings occurred except that they were after August 1, 1973-Peroff went to the office of Arthur Viviani, an assistant to Paul Curran. Peroff said Viviani asked him about his previous informant work going back to the Paris heroin case in February of 1973 (p. 97).
“He did not seem overly interested" in the Vesco-LeBlanc lead was how l'eroff described Viviani's response to the allegation that the two financiers were prepared to sponsor a $300,000 heroin buy (p. 97).
In addition, Peroft said, Viviani advised him to obtain the services of an attorney and, for a moment, it appeared the interview would be terminated by the Federal prosecutor unless Peroff
' got a lawyer (p. Peroff said that Armstrong bad assured him that he could trust Paul Curran's office to entertain, in an objective manner, the possibility that he, Peroff, was right and that DEA had deliberately undercut the Bouchard case. But, Peroff said, Armstrong's assurances were erroneous and Viviani “advised me that he was going to call in the agents involved immediately." (P. 97.)
Peroff testified that he told Viviani that if Viviani called in DEA and other drug agents that “I felt I could be in danger from both sides.”
Peroff added, "Mr. Viviani advised me that I should have thought about that prior to going to Mr. Armstrong." (P.97.)
The meeting ended. Peroff said that through the month of September he called Viviani once or twice a week to inquire as to how the investigation was progressing. Peroff said Viviani told him "the investigation was virtually at an end” and that it was his, Viviani's, belief that there was nothing to justify further inquiry. Viviani did say that the final decision would not be made by him but by his superiors, Peroff testified (p. 98).
Peroff said it was then—sometime in late September of 1973—that he decided to contact the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The Subcommittee staff first spoke with Peroff October 4, 1973.
By this time Peroff had moved his family out of the Hilton Inn Hotel near Kennedy Airport and the Peroffs were now living in the Shelbourne Hotel on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan.
Peroff said that when Viviani learned that he had taken his story and tapes to the Senate Investigations Subcommittee he was served with a federal grand jury subpoena. The subpoena was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Arthur Viviani, Peroff said. Peroff said the subpoena was for Peroff to appear in person and with his tapes (p. 98).
Peroff said he responded to the subpoena by appearing in Viviani's office with the tapes. Peroff said he was not put before a grand jury but instead was questioned for about eight hours by Viviani and one representative of DEA and one representative of the U.S. Customs Service (p. 98).
Peroff said he turned over his tapes to Viviani at this session and was given a re-recording of the tapes in return. Peroff said that since the meeting with Viviani, the DEA man and one Customs man, he had not had any contact with Viviani or with any other person connected with the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York (p. 98).
That was the extent of Arthur Viviani's inquiry into the allegation that DEA agents had sabotaged the Bouchard heroin case, Peroff testified.
PEROFF'S LAST TRIP TO MONTREAL Peroff first spoke with the Subcommittee staff October 4. He appeared in the oflice of Arthur Viviani under Federal grand jury subpoena November 9. Peroff testified that in late October-after he had begun talking to the Subcommittee-he received a phone call from Sergeant Paul Sauve of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (p. 98). Sauve had worked on the Bouchard heroin inquiry since the Spring of 1973 and knew Frank Peroff very well.
Peroff said Sauve asked him if he would see him the next day. Peroff agreed. Sergeant Sauve was accompanied at the meeting by RCMP Corporal Claude Savoie and a DEA agent Peroff did not identify. Peroff said that one of the three men told him to contact Arthur Viviani as soon as possible (p. 99).
Peroff said while the two Mounties and the DEA agent were still in his hotel suite a call came through from Carl M. Bornstein of the Queens County District Attorney's Office. Bornstein also wanted him
to call Viviani immediately. Peroff testified that the messages were not necessary because Arthur Viviani knew where Peroff was staying, knew the phone number and could “have just as easily contacted me directly." (Pp. 98, 99.)
Peroff said he called Viviani's office but Viviani was not in. Peroff said that at the time of his unsuccessful attempt to reach Viviani the DEA agent advised him, Peroff, that he was soon to receive a Federal grand jury subpoena (p. 99).
As for the Mounties-Sergeant Sauve and Corporal Savoie--they proposed another Montreal trip for Peroff in connection with Conrad Bouchard. But the target was not to be illicit drugs. The RCMP wanted Peroff to use his access to Bouchard to help in a counterfeit inquiry (p. 99).
Peroff said he accepted the assignment, went to Montreal, introduced a Secret Service agent to Bouchard--and the result was that authorities seized a cache of bogus money and Bouchard and several accomplices were arrested (p. 99).
To protect his undercover informant role, Peroff said, he was assured that he too would be arrested with Bouchard. Instead, Peroff said, he was taken to the airport and flown back to New York (p. 99).
In New York, Peroff said, he returned to his suite at the Shelbourne Hotel to find DEA agents assigned to protect his family and him on a round-the-clock basis (p. 100).
Several days later, Peroff was directed to return to Montreal. He did not say which agency gave these directions. But the purpose of the visit, as explained to him, he said, was to be interviewed by Canadian prosecutors. Instead, Peroff said, he was asked to appear in court at Bouchard's preliminary hearing (p. 100).
Fearing for his own life and his family's should Bouchard hear him testify against him, Peroff refused to appear in court. Peroff said he was asked to give a sworn statement about the counterfeit transaction. Peroff agreed to that. These discussions and the taking of the sworn statement occurred in the American Consulate in Montreal, Peroff said (p. 100).
Peroff said that while in the U.S. Consulate DEA agents and Mounties interrogated him about the substance and extent of the information he had given to the Investigations Subcommittee (p. 100).
While still in Montreal, Peroff said, he was told that an article had appeared in a local newspaper identifying him as an FBI agent and the person "responsible for the arrest of Bouchard." (P. 100.)
Publication of this article put him and his family in danger of being murdered by mobsters, Peroff said. He added that he was later in formed that at the preliminary hearing in the Bouchard case photographs were admitted as evidence which showed Peroff and Bouchard beside the Customs-sponsored Lear jet that transported them to Windsor, Ontario in March of 1973. Peroff said that an agent of the RCMP also testified at the Bouchard hearing that Frank Peroff was "an undercover man.” (P.100.)
Peroff said all these actions exposing him as an informant were part of a concerted effort by the DEA to prevent the Investigations Subcommittee from receiving testimony and evidence from him