After Leaving Enforcement, Official Worries About Lack of U.S. Terrorist Financing Probes by Sean OíDriscoll The first time I met the government official in charge of tracking down terrorist financing around the world, it was a somewhat disappointing encounter. Jimmy GurulÈ, the Treasury Departmentís undersecretary of enforcement, sat with two advisers who took detailed notes during our interview. His answers were extremely reserved and unrevealing, and he deflected four questions about Saudi Arabia, which he described at a congressional hearing as only taking ìbaby stepsî to cut down on terrorist-linked charities. I finished the interview disillusioned, having hoped to get the scoop on the undersecretary of enforcement just weeks before his role in customs matters and the Secret Service is handed over to the new Department of Homeland Security. Two days after the interview, he flew to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, where he addressed 200 high-powered bankers, economists and politicians on the need for greater cooperation in global money laundering investigations. When GurulÈ came back, the reason for his reticence became all too clear. Unexpectedly, GurulÈ quit his post. Less than a month before the Homeland Security Department came into operation, he left government work entirely and returned to lecturing at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. As undersecretary of enforcement, GurulÈ had traveled the world, meeting with finance ministers and banking groups, helping to seize more than $125 million in terrorist funds, and scoring great success in persuading the Swiss bankers to cooperate with U.S. government efforts to curb terrorist fundingónot an easy task under any circumstance. And then suddenly, he was goneóhis departure as swift as it was unexpected. I was told by a treasury official that GurulÈís reluctance to speak out in the first interview was almost certainly because he had yet to decide his next career step. I was also told that it would be ìworthwhileî to get in contact with him again. When I phoned GurulÈ at Notre Dame, he was unpacking boxes at his new office in the law department. This second interview was like talking to a completely different person. GurulÈ was spontaneous, straightforward and outspoken. He made it clear, for the first time, that he has serious concerns about the downgrading of the Treasury Departmentís financial investigations. He is particularly worried that the Treasury Departmentís relationship with the FBI may be weakened because of a lack of emphasis on money laundering investigations. ìYou almost have to ask a basic, fundamental question: Who are the FBI going to coordinate with? If there is no Office of Enforcement, then whom are they going to coordinate with?î GurulÈ asked. ìWhat is going to replace that organizational structure to ensure that terrorist financing remains a priority within Treasury? What is that structure? What is the commitment of resources to that structure?î When asked if there was too much emphasis in the Homeland Security Department on border security at the expense of terrorist financial investigations, he replied that the question hit the issue ìright on the head.î ìThatís the tension, thatís the dilemma,î GurulÈ said. ìThe emphasis in Homeland Security is first and foremost on border security. The question is where do the financial investigations fit? What emphasis is going to be placed on those? And if not in Homeland, then where?î GurulÈ said he is concerned that the FBI and the reformed Homeland Security Departmentís Customs Service are being moved away from money laundering investigations. ìI know that the FBI is being refocused, their resources are being directed at counter-terrorism and therefore a question remains whether they will be in a position to focus on financial crimes.î Another topic GurulÈ shied away from in the initial interview was the Treasury Departmentís Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRSCI) section. The IRSCI is also being eased away from money laundering investigations following a report by the Webster Commission last year, which discussed the need for FBI and IRS reform following an FBI spying scandal. GurulÈ said the IRSCI has been left ìsomewhat limitedî in its ability to investigate money laundering because of the Webster Commission report, which directed that the agency should spend more of its resources on tax investigations and less on money laundering. ìNow the Treasury Departmentís Enforcement Office is being eliminated, Customs is transferring, so is Secret Service, which was also involved in financial investigations with respect to credit card fraud and counterfeiting. Now they are going to be focusing more on security-related issues,î GurulÈ said. He paused for a brief moment and stressed his words: ìSo who is going to be the principal agency responsible for conducting financial criminal investigations? Where does it fall? Who has responsibility? Who is in charge?î GurulÈ now intends to lecture and is giving ìserious considerationî to writing a book about his life as undersecretary of enforcement, where he helped formulate all major decisions on anti-terrorist financial investigations. The book, he said, would also be forward looking and would set out his views on the best way to counter al Qaedaís massive financial web. He said he left his post because the Homeland Security Department had taken so many powers away from the Treasury Department that his position as undersecretary was ìno longer justified.î GurulÈ also questions how the new Homeland Security Department is going to continue his liaison work with foreign governments, whose many banking systems may hold terrorist funds. ìThe question now is who assumes that responsibility at a very high level of government with the reputation and knowledge and expertise? Who is going to assume that responsibility and carry forward that work? Thatís an issue,î he said. GurulÈ came to the post two years agoójust in time for the chaotic fallout of 9/11 and the biggest shake-up in domestic security since World War II. Since 9/11, the Office of Enforcement has never been far from the news, whether for its investigations into al Qaeda bank accounts in Europe, or its controversial involvement in the arrests of Iraqis living in the United States who had been sending money back to their home country. The loss of the office is, GurulÈ admitted, ìa personal lossî because a synergy had been built up in the Treasury Department between customs officials and financial investigators. It was a relationship ìthat was not replicated in any other U.S. government agency,î GurulÈ said wistfully. ìFor Customs to move to the new department, there is some concern about whether or not we are going to be able to maintain the momentum against terrorist financing,î he noted. Despite his reservations, GurulÈ insists there were ìmore questions than resistanceî within the U.S. Customs Service to its incorporation into the new Homeland Security Department. ìFor many of the inspectors and particularly the customs agents, there are a lot of questions about how this is going to affect them personally,î he said. GurulÈ said he is now happy to be back at his old university, from which he took a leave of absence to join the Treasury Department. For others who will have to undergo the transition into the Homeland Security Department, GurulÈ accepts that stress is an inevitable part of such a huge change. ìWhen you have change of this magnitude, when you have an agency like the Customs Service thatís been part of the Treasury Department for over 200 years, one can expect significant anxiety,î he said. Despite his regrets at the loss of the Office of Enforcement, GurulÈ said he understands that all of this is being done to enhance the security of the United States. ìWhat Iím concerned with, at the same time, is that we not forget or ignore financial investigations. They remain critical to starve the terrorists of funds,î he said. ìWhile we are shoring up border security, we need to ensure that we build on the momentum we have generated over the last year and a half on terrorist financing,î he added. The end of the interview was in strong contrast to our initial meeting in the Treasury Department. There was nobody sitting beside him glancing at a watch, no hand came forward to say that our time was up. GurulÈ finished his point, thanked me for my time, and then returned to unpacking his boxes. Disappointed with the breakup of 200 years of tradition, but at last, free to speak his mind. Sean OíDriscoll is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.