U.S. Attorney Curran added to Wing's remarks as follows:

I should say, Mr. Chairman, that the negotiations and the hiring were done by Washington. The bottom line that I had was that this was a lawyer who was a good lawyer, the best they could get, who had no conflicts of interest in representing the United States in the Vesco extradition. I accepted that fact and dealt with him accordingly (p. 745).

Feldman asked Curran if he would be more specific as to the Federal official or officials who selected Wallace-Whitfield. Curran replied: I don't know. Jim Rayhill, in my office, would probably know the person. John Murphy or Mr. Stein were the extradition guys in the Department and they were down in Nassau working on the extradition with us. They were the fellows I dealt with and worked with on the case.

My best information is secondhand that the Embassy in Nassau inquired around and did the work and talking to lawyers in an effort to retain one and that the hiring of Cecil Wallace-Whitfield was done by Washington through the Embassy, but that is secondhand (p. 745).

PEROFF SAYS TAPES ARE MISSING

Peroff testified that he had recorded conversations of himself with Richard Dos Santos, Conrad Bouchard, Customs Commissioner Vernon Acree, Customs Agent Douglas McCombs and other persons. These tapes were in addition to his taped conversation with Bouchard July 6 and July 8 (p. 151).

Peroff said that the Sunday morning after his September 27 meeting with Arthur Viviani the Peroffs took their children to the New York Zoo (p. 151).

Peroff said that the July 6 and July 8 tapes were in the purse which his wife Judy carried with her during the Sunday morning outing. But, he said, the other tapes were left behind in their room at the Shelborne Hotel in a brown briefcase (p. 151).

Peroff said that when they returned from the zoo he found that the briefcase had been opened and the tapes stolen (p. 151). Independent inquiry by the Subcommittee failed to show that the tapes Peroff said were stolen actually ever existed or that if they did exist that they were actually stolen.

PEROFF'S MOTIVES

Virtually every law enforcement official who testified before the Subcommittee in connection with the Peroff allegations about a Vesco cover-up asserted that Frank Peroff's motives were simple: he wanted to extract from the Government as much money as possible and made unreasonable demands as to how the inquiry should be conducted. For his part, Peroff insisted that his early cooperation with the Federal Government was based on his fear that he would be caught holding nearly a half million dollars in bogus money in Rome. Once

も

he had helped in that case, he said, Federal agents enticed him into a heroin effort by offering him a $250,000 reward. In addition, he said, agents also threatened to expose him as the informant in the

counterfeit currency case if he did not help out on the Bouchard inwestigation.

By the time he was deeply involved in the Bouchard inquiry, Peroff said, the quarter of a million dollar reward offer was withdrawn.

Suspicious of Government officials, certain that he was being used, angered at what he felt were false promises made to him and constantly short of money, Peroff complained incessantly about how federal authorities were not paying him his just due.

But Peroff also wished for Senators to understand that money was not why he remained an informant for as long as he did. Left to his own questionable devices, Peroff said, he could have earned more than $300,000 during the time he worked as an informant. Thus, Peroff insisted, it was not money that drove him; it was instead the hope of putting Conrad Bouchard behind bars and, in so doing, winning the respect of his wife, children (pp. 113, 119) and perhaps himself.

In turn, Peroff said, Conrad Bouchard deserved to be in jail and he, Peroff, was determined to help put him there. Peroff testified:

I guess it relates to a double standard. I have done a lot of illegitimate things in my life. Like I say, I have five kids and I love them. In my realm of thinking, narcotics, murder, rape, all these things are just not part of my life. With Bouchard it is an everyday thing and he demonstrates it every day (p. 149).

Richard Dos Santos, who had been Peroff's control agent at Customs and worked closely with him at DEA, testified that Peroff seemed to be genuinely interested in having Bouchard arrested. Dos Santos said that Peroff called him when he returned from Montreal after the arrest of Bouchard on the counterfeit money case. On that occasion, Dos Santos said, Bouchard went to jail. Dos Santos said Bouchard's imprisonment prompted Peroff to exclaim, "Rick, I told you I would get him and I got the son of a bitch." (P. 335.)

Conversely, Peroff was also to be paid a $25,000 reward by the Canadian Government for his work on the counterfeit case, a reward, Peroff testified, which he never received, although, he said, he did receive expenses plus about $7,000 (p. 141).

Peroff also conceded that a publisher had given him "a modest advance" for a book to be written about his life in crime and other pursuits. But, Peroff said, the discussions with the publisher began before Vesco's name surfaced in the Bouchard investigation (pp. 120, 121). Peroff said attorneys for his publisher were put off by the Vesco link because they didn't want to get involved in such a "hot" subject as Robert Vesco (p. 121).

DOS SANTOS REFRESHES O'NEILL'S MEMORY

Richard Dos Santos was back at Customs in late 1973 when the joint DEA-Customs inquiry was being conducted. Thus, his official association with DEA Group Supervisor John J. O'Neill had ended.

Dos Santos testified that one day in late 1973 he received a phone call from O'Neill. O'Neill wanted to talk about the questions he would have to address himself to in the DEA-Customs inquiry into Peroff's allegations, Dos Santos said (p. 334).

Dos Santos said O'Neill explained that "there were going to be certain questions put to him and he wanted to refresh his memory on the basis of mine." (P. 334.)

Their conversation lasted less than five minutes, Dos Santos said. Dos Santos described the talk this way:

He [O'Neill] would say something to the effect of, "Well, remember, Rick, he did so and so, isn't that right?" And I probably said, “yes.” (P. 334.)

Dos Santos said that when the telephone conversation with O'Neill ended he reported it to William Green, the Customs representative: on the DEA-Customs inquiry. Dos Santos testified that he told Green about O'Neill's call and the nature of the memory refreshing exercise O'Neill wished to conduct. Green told Dos Santos not to engage in conversations like that with O'Neill anymore, Dos Santos said.

Green's concern, Dos Santos said, was that the Investigations Subcommittee might learn of the conversations and Green did not want Senators "to get the idea that there was collusion, that we wanted to dress it up." (P. 334.)

Dos Santos said John O'Neill called him again. But this time, Dos Santos testified, he told O'Neill that, upon the advice of Green, they should not be having conversations like this and that there were to be no more. Dos Santos said there were no more (p. 334).

THE JUNE 1974 INTERVIEW OF BOUCHARD BY THE RCMP

In explaining their actions in pursuing the Vesco-LeBlanc leads, DEA officials, specifically Administrator Bartels and Group Supervisor O'Neill, testified that DEA was able to determine that Bouchard was lying to Peroff about Vesco and LeBlanc in order to stall Peroff and keep him on a string.

O'Neill testified that his conclusion in this regard was based on information he had received from the RCMP, shortly after Peroff had reported the possible Vesco-LeBlanc involvement to DEA. O'Neill, testifying from memory, could not pinpoint the exact nature of the information he received from the RCMP nor the date he received it, although he testified that he reached his conclusion prior to Peroff's arrival in New York on July 17, 1973. No reports or memoranda wereever written during this time period which documented the RCMP information about Bouchard lying to Peroff, according to O'Neill. Regarding these matters this exchange took place between O'Neill and Subcommittee Investigator Philip Manuel during ONeill's testimony:

MANUEL. Specifically, did the RCMP tell you, either through McCarthy or directly that it was their evaluation of this information that Bouchard was lying to Peroff? O'NEILL. Yes sir.

MANUEL. When did they first tell you that?

O'NEILL. It was a growing feeling during April, May
June-

MANUEL. Confine yourself, Mr. O'Neill

O'Neill. When Poissant was in New York.

MANUEL. Excuse me to the period of time after July 6, after the Vesco-LeBlanc possible connection becomes known

to you.

O'NEILL. When Poissant was in New York.

MANUEL. What was the date of that?

O'NEILL. I have no recollection.

MANUEL. He told you this directly?
O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

MANUEL. There was no record made of that through the
DEA office in Montreal?

O'NEILL. No sir. They had the same information and their
evaluation was the same. If their evaluation wasn't the same,
then we would have hashed it out and gotten together and
found out. If Bowers disagreed with me or I disagreed with
Bowers, we would have sat down and found out why he
thought one way and I thought the other way.

MANUEL. Did you have such a conversation with Mr.
Bowers?

O'NEILL. No, because we agreed.

MANUEL. At the time that you received this information from Mr. Poissant, did you consider the Vesco-LeBlanc possible involvement in this case dead, over with, finished?

O'NEILL. I don't think there ever was a Vesco-LeBlanc involvement in this, so it wasn't finished or over with. I don't think it ever started.

MANUEL. So at the time you received the information you didn't believe that Vesco and LeBlanc were involved in this? O'NEILL. At the time I received the information I thought it was another attempt by Bouchard to string along Peroff (pp. 554, 555).

O'Neill's contention that he and DEA Agent Sidney Bowers agreed that there was sufficient information to conclude that Bouchard was lying to Peroff about Vesco and LeBlanc was contradicted by Bowers as seen from this exchange during Bowers' testimony:

MANUEL. 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 Mr. Peroff about the Vesco-LeBlanc involvement?

BOWERS. NO. Clearly and specifically that he was lying? No. MANUEL. Was there any information to that effect whatever to your knowledge?

BOWERS. We knew all along we were dealing with two con men, Peroff and Bouchard. Everything we were getting we were taking with a grain of salt to some extent. We had no specific information that Bouchard was lying each time he talked to Peroff. But we had an extreme lack of solid proof that he was telling the truth also.

MANUEL. What investigation did you conduct to determine that one way or another, if any?

BOWERS. Myself. In what particular areas?

MANUEL. With respect to verifying the authenticity, the possible authenticity of what Bouchard was telling Peroff regarding Vesco and LeBlanc?

BOWERS. I myself didn't initiate anything in Montreal. I was expecting to get either a report or a memorandum detailing what the specific information was relative to the Vesco involvement. If there had been any leaks in Montreal, I would have seen that they be followed up. I didn't receive any paper.

MANUEL. Do you have any idea as to why you didn't receive such a report or such documentation?

BOWERS. Apparently Don Santos didn't write one.

MANUEL. Did he, to your knowledge have sufficient information at that time to write one?

BOWERS. He apparently knew that the Vesco name had come up and I don't know exactly what he knew at that time. He told me that the name had come up. He played a portion of a garbled tape to me where I heard the name Vesco. But tha was about all I could make out of it (pp. 787, 788). Later in Bowers' testimony this exchange took place.

MANUEL. By July 16 could you discern any particular enthusiasm of the RCMP with respect to the possible involvement of Vesco and LeBlanc in this narcotics case?

BOWERS. No.

MANUEL. Did they make any comment to you in that regard one way or the other?

BOWERS. Not that I recall. You are talking about enthusiasm. It was all part of the job is waiting and seeing, you know seeing how the information develops.

MANUEL. Were they at that period of time doing anything actively by way of investigation to determine the feasibility or the authenticity of the information concerning Vesco and LeBlanc to your knowledge.

BOWERS. To my knowledge, no (p. 791).

Richard Dos Santos, Peroff's control agent in DEA and the man DEA officials said was responsible for the lack of reports and documentation in the Peroff-Bouchard investigation, was also questioned about his knowledge of any information received by DEA at the time the investigation was in progress, namely after July 6 to the date of Peroff's trip to Montreal on July 27, which indicated that Bouchard was lying to Peroff.

In that regard, this exchange took place between Dos Santos and Manuel:

MANUEL. At the time that you effected his [Peroff's] release [from Queens County Detention Center on July 25, 1973] the Vesco-LeBlanc aspect of this investigation was still very much alive, is that correct?

I believe you testified to that effect last week.