search icon
Live chat

Kash’s Corner: Sam Bankman-Fried Bribed CCP Officials With Over $40 Million; Moderna’s $400 Million ‘Kickback’ to NIH Scientists?

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, received $400 million from Moderna in a “catch-up payment,” according to a newly disclosed contract that The Epoch Times obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

So where is the money going? Which government officials are getting the money?

Kash Patel argues that it poses a major conflict of interest for scientists at the NIH to be able to receive royalties from patents.

“Do people in the Department of Agriculture who work with private-sector farmers and come up with some new seed receive millions of dollars from the farming industry? No,” Patel said.

“What about the army guy that comes up with the technology for our next aerial asset, [and] we enter into a contract with Lockheed Martin or Boeing to make billions of dollars worth of this? Is he going to get a royalty from that? Absolutely not,” he said.

The NIH received up to $2 billion in royalties from 34 drug contracts between 1991 and 2019, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

We also take a look at new allegations of bribery in FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s case. On top of the 12 counts he was already indicted on, he’s now being charged for allegedly bribing Chinese officials to the tune of over $40 million to get his accounts in China unfrozen.


Kash Patel:
Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan, we have an interesting episode today, some quickfire subjects and some long-term subjects. Where do you want to start?

Jan Jekielek:
The Senate has just rescinded the authorization for use of military force in Iraq. This has some pretty incredible implications if it actually goes through to the end. We definitely want to touch on that. Sam Bankman-Fried with his new indictment is fascinating. But the big thing I really want to talk about is the $400 million that we’ve discovered Moderna paid out in the not too distant past to NIAID, Fauci’s agency.

Mr. Patel:
Yes, that’s a lot, we’ll try to simplify it. AUMF is the authorization of use of military force. We call it the AUMF. Congress has to act under the law every time the United States commits its military to a theater of war for operational purposes. That’s the law. If we go to war, congress must act.

That’s an oversimplification, but that’s what the AUMF is for. The Defense Department or the United States government goes to Congress or the president and says, “I want to conduct operations in X.” I’ll give you an example. The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania occurred on 9/11.

Very swiftly after that, in order to invade Afghanistan, Congress passed a law, the AUMF, the authorization of use of military force to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Now, what’s supposed to happen is every time you enter a new theater of war, a new area of operational review, as we call it, you are supposed to do another AUMF.

In this instance, you’re talking about the AUMF for Iraq. On a side note, the 9/11-Afghanistan AUMF has been stretched and some people believe overstretched, if not violated, in order to to allow United States military operations in other countries, such as Somalia and Syria, by continuing the manhunt for terrorism.

Whatever your thoughts are on that pursuit itself, it’s different from the legal component. As the former chief of staff of DOD, I want to do everything out there to protect American citizens in the world from terrorist activities and war that will bring harm to America. What’s interesting about the Senate’s move here is they’re saying, “We don’t need an AUMF in Iraq anymore.”

If the House agrees, that will be a full rescission of the authority to conduct military operations in and around Iraq. On a technical basis, that doesn’t mean that we can’t still do things in Iraq from a military standpoint, because we could bootstrap to other AUMF’s that are currently active, i.e. the 9/11 one, to say, “Under this authority, we are going in here and staying in this region to do X, Y, and Z.”

It sends a strong message to Americans in the world that we’ve been in Iraq for a long time. It started in the first Persian Gulf War, and then we’ve just stayed there since 9/11. We have a massive base of operations throughout Iraq. I’ve been to most of our platforms there.

It will be interesting to see how the defense industrial complex reacts. Because when you shut down a massive theater of war, like we just shut down in Afghanistan, they stop producing equipment and machinery pursuant to whatever contracts were outstanding, because those authorizations are gone.

If we’re not committing forces to military operations, then we don’t need any more of that. With the defense industrial complex, I’ve always said they provide one of the most valuable services of any sort of private sector industry. I’ve also said that they are, in my opinion, the worst in terms of overusing taxpayer dollars and literally lighting them on fire for purposes that I cannot understand.

We took them on when we were in the Pentagon and we said, “You guys provide great, valuable services, but you’re also providing programs and things that we don’t need.” Why are they doing that? Why are we allowing that? That’s a conversation for another day about the defense industrial complex, but we will see their reaction play out in the public square.

A third of the United States Senate still said, “We want to maintain operational control and lawful authority to execute programs in the Iraqi theater of war.” That’s not a small number, Jan. I don’t know what the House is going to do. If they will take it up and put it on the floor for a vote remains to be seen. Then, do they have enough votes in a bipartisan fashion?

Maybe the Republicans will just take it on its face value and move the entire block behind it. That remains to be seen. Until both chambers act, there’s still a long way to go. This isn’t going to be resolved next week or next month. We’re probably looking at the rest of this year to see where this goes.

Mr. Jekielek:
Fascinating. Put on your legal hat now and let’s look at this new indictment. I was kind of surprised there’s yet another indictment of Sam Bankman-Fried at this point, and this one has to do with China. Please give us the picture.

Mr. Patel:
First of all, it just hit me this week that Sam Bankman-Fried’s name is Bankman, and he’s committing some of the largest fraud in the banking history of the United States and the world. Sam Bankman-Fried was already charged with a dozen counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy.

What the DOJ did, and what they’re allowed to do is supersede. They issued a superseding indictment, meaning they added a charge or charges. That means they have been continuing the investigation into Bankman’s case. Even though he’s already been charged, they didn’t stop.

That happens frequently. It’s not an unusual tactic, and I want to be clear about that. We charge people all the time and then continue with the investigation. Tactically speaking, and I don’t know if this is the case with Bankman, what I would do as a former federal prosecutor is go up to the target and say, “Okay, this is the current indictment.”

I go up to his lawyer and say, “Here’s the current indictment. Would you like to work out a plea agreement on this indictment?” If they say, “No,” you would make them aware of the possibility of a superseding indictment, which exposes them to more criminal liability, a longer prison sentence, and bigger fines.

I don’t know if that’s the case here, but that’s generally a strategy prosecutors utilize, because resolving a case short of trial saves the taxpayers and the judicial system an enormous amount of time and money. Remember, less than 10 percent of federal cases ever go to actual jury trial, they mostly resolve in plea agreements.

I don’t know what the behind the scenes maneuvering is here, but likely those conversations happened in some fashion. This guy, Bankman, as if it wasn’t bad enough, is alleged to have committed this multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme, bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. He has defrauded so many thousands if not millions of people around the world.

He bribed the Chinese Communist Party to perpetrate this scheme. This guy, Bankman, and his colleagues are identified as CC-1 and CC-2 in the superseding indictment. Just a quick offshoot, the DOJ doesn’t identify those individuals on purpose, because it’s unlikely that they’re charged at this time.

They could be unindicted co-conspirators, or they could be cooperating witnesses, we don’t know. They just label them CC-1 and CC-2, but identify them as senior level executives at FTX. FTX and the Alameda Research company were the two organizations that Bankman ran to conduct this scheme.

Bankman had billions of dollars in a Chinese financial institution in mainland China. For some reason the Chinese Communist Party, and we don’t know this for sure because this information hasn’t come out yet, froze those funds. What does that mean? That means Bankman, his company and his executives literally could not get that money out. That’s a lot of money.

Remember, his whole thing was a cryptocurrency deal, which isn’t necessarily my wheelhouse. But there are banks that do trade in crypto specifically, and monetarily, it syncs up with the dollar for evaluation. That’s how we’re talking about it, and that’s how it’s talked about in the indictment.

If you look at the indictment, and if the facts alleged are true, he’s been at it for some time. First, he tried to stand up what we call dummy corporations or dummy companies to try to siphon the money out of the frozen accounts into strawman accounts, as we call them, to trick the Chinese government. He said, “No, no, no, it’s going from this to something that has nothing to do with me.” The CCP didn’t go for it. After months, they basically said, “No, we’re not allowing any of this money to be siphoned to this other institution or financial account.”

Then he, Bankman, directs his executives to go out and literally send through the cryptocurrency exchange $40 million to CCP officials to unfreeze the money that the government in China froze. And shockingly, they do it. Literally, as the indictment alleges, the money is released shortly thereafter from the frozen bank accounts due to this bribe. That’s what it is, and that’s what he’s been charged with.

That money was utilized by Bankman to continue his fraud and his scheme and his conspiracy, which is outlined in the indictment. It’s interrelated to the bigger criminal enterprise that they’ve charged him with. One of the things that caught my attention in the superseding indictment was not that he bribed CCP officials, it’s that after the bribe was successful, he continued his operations.

The indictment doesn’t define an exact quantity, but Bankman continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to continue the bribe. That means the $40 million he paid, plus the tens of millions the DOJ hasn’t exactly defined. Is it $100 million? Who else in the CCP did he pay? Did he pay anyone in America?

Did any of that money from the frozen accounts in mainland China come back to any American coffers? Any super PACs? Any politically-oriented organizations? Any candidates? We know from the indictment that Bankman-Fried’s organizations gave to both Democrats and Republicans. Some folks have returned some of that money. A lot of that money is unaccounted for. We don’t exactly know where it went.

At this time, I believe the DOJ does know where it went. But this guy’s in a lot of trouble. We’ve talked about fraud, and it’s been a couple years now. When you’re charged in federal court with a fraud, unlike a bank robbery or a narco trafficking case, the amount of time you are subjected to and for incarceration purposes is based on the value of the fraud.

If you commit a fraud for like 10,000 bucks, you’re looking at less than a year. The DOJ has charged Bankman with committing a fraud of billions of dollars. It’s so high that it literally doesn’t score on the sentencing guidelines, which means he can face up to life in prison for these charges.

Mr. Jekielek:
This indictment shines a light on how business is actually done with the Chinese Communist Party. Number one, whatever you invest into China is not something you can pull out very easily at all. The billionaire, Mark Mobius, is recently on record talking about how he can’t get some of his investments out of China.

This has happened to all sorts of people. In some cases you never get it out. But it turns out if you allegedly grease the right palms…

Mr. Patel:
The palms of the CCP.

Mr. Jekielek:
… you might be able to get it out. It’s a whole different question that they don’t have the money to pay out all of those investments anyway. Let’s jump to the bond. This is something that I was really curious about. It seems like his bond was quite low given the reality of the crimes that are alleged. What happens with that?

Mr. Patel:
Just to remind our audience, when he was originally arrested on the original indictment, he was found in the Bahamas and had to be brought back to the United States of America. The judge at the bond hearing gave Bankman a bond in New York City. He’s supposedly residing at the multimillion dollar home of his parents in Manhattan. That judge made a determination based on the two factors that matter for bond; Bankman, under the law, poses no flight risk and is not a danger to himself or the community.

If you can satisfy those prongs under the law, you’re entitled to a reasonable bail commensurate with your circumstances. I said last time, I don’t think he should have been given one, because this guy was literally caught in some foreign nation on some island and can literally go anywhere in the world because he has the economic means to do so.

If his scheme is proven true, he has already destroyed countless lives. To me, he’s a threat in that fashion. By definition, when you have a superseding indictment, there is an automatic change in circumstances.

Every time you charge the defendant with another crime, like they did with Bankman here, you have to be brought before the court for arraignment. Bankman has to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty and either take a plea agreement, work towards a plea agreement, or set the case for trial. That change in circumstances is supposed to be taken to the judge.

He’s supposed to reevaluate whether or not Bankman should remain out on bond, should the bond increase, or should he be detained and incarcerated in jail pending the outcome of the trial or his sentence. The defense attorneys and prosecutors are scheduled to go before the New York judge on Thursday of this week, which is the day before our show airs, and there will be a decision.

It will be interesting to see what the judge or the prosecutors ask for. I’ll remind our audience that he is now charged with committing a fraud on top of everything else, bribing the Chinese Communist Party at a minimum of $40 million plus the tens of millions of dollars that followed. That is a massive fraud in and of itself, aside from the other dozen counts he’s charged with. In my opinion, if that happened to any other individual other than Sam Bankman-Fried, they would be detained.

It will be interesting. In all likelihood, I don’t think that he will get detained. We should follow this case closely. My interest is in where the money from mainland China and the CCP went. Did the proceeds of his fraudulent conspiracy and crime flow to politicians? To political action committees? To charities?

Did he bribe other officials in the U.S.? Did other financial institutions go along with this scheme? This is a massive, massive, massive, massive-scale fraud that we haven’t seen since the likes of Bernie Madoff. And this guy is like 30-something years old, if that.

Mr. Jekielek:
Assuming all the allegations in the indictments are true, my bird’s eye view here is that he had an uncanny ability to know who to give money to, in order to avoid scrutiny.

Mr. Patel:
That’s a fascinating point that we haven’t talked about. It’s not like he called the CCP hotline and said, “Here’s $40 million.” He knew exactly who to send that money to and directed his associates to do so, with the almost immediate effect of having the billions of dollars that were frozen be released. That’s a fascinating point, and I hope the DOJ provides us, the American public, with that information, because I want to know who he was dealing with over there.

I want to know who those CCP affiliates are. They’re a part of the crime, and they can be charged in America. That’s an American crime, and the CCP affiliates that were involved should be charged. Is the DOJ going to charge them? Who are they connected to?

Mr. Jekielek:
Just as a final twist in all of this, the fact that this was revealed might be enough to put whatever officials involved in a very difficult position with the top CCP officials.

Mr. Patel:

Mr. Jekielek:
The whole thing is just absolutely fascinating. We’ll follow this very closely. Most recently, through some of our work, we found that there’s been a $400 million payment from Moderna to NIH, specifically NIAID, which was Fauci’s agency when he was still running things over there. This is part of this broader approach of people working at the NIH.

Last year, OpenThe Books found there are 1,600-plus people that are getting royalty payments for patents they have developed while being employees of the NIH. But $400 million, that’s a sizable chunk of change, and it suddenly came through, according to this contract. What are you seeing here?

Mr. Patel:
I am seeing my mind light itself on fire because of this kickback conspiracy between government servants and the private sector. Thanks to the great reporting of Steve over at Epoch Times, Epoch requested through the FOIA process, the Freedom of Information Act, directly to the NIH agencies and its organizations. It’s been attributed to Moderna that they, Moderna, were somehow paying royalties to government officials to the tune of $400 million in relation to Moderna’s vaccine for the Covid virus.

In and of itself, I was kind of blown away. I was like, “Wait a second. First of all, Moderna made $37 billion on the vaccine for Covid.” Just Moderna. I don’t know what Pfizer’s numbers are, or any other company out there. Now I’m learning that government officials who enter into government service have been on the books with Moderna to get royalties for whatever they invented during a certain stretch of time at the NIH to the tune of $400 million.

Even though the FOIA requests were granted in this instance, it was redacted. I don’t know where the money went. Where did the kickbacks— and I will call them kickbacks because that’s what they are—where did they go? Did Fauci get them? Were other people at NIH involved? How much did they get?

I don’t agree with the NIH response that they were justified in their redactions because it protects personal information. That’s garbage. These people were made rich by the Covid vaccine through a privately funded organization, Moderna, one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, while on the government payroll as a government servant. Just put all this stuff aside for a second.

When you enter into government service, me or anybody else, it’s an intentional decision. You know you’re going in and you’re going to take a massive financial hit, whatever sector it is; agriculture, law enforcement, medical, or the military.

I have never heard of a system in government where employees get a kickback or a royalty scheme because they were part of some novelty or invention. Do people in the Department of Agriculture who work with private sector farmers and come up with some new seed, receive millions of dollars from the farming industry?

What about the army guy that comes up with a technology for our next aerial asset with which we enter into a contract with Lockheed Martin or Boeing. Does he make billions of dollars? Is he going to get a royalty from that? Absolutely not. It’s unheard of. I don’t know why we allow this.

That’s another conversation, and we need to fully investigate that, and hopefully somebody will. But first, we need to find out how much money was gotten, who got it, why, and then someone needs to go to Congress and ask for subpoenas from congressional committees if the NIH won’t release this information and say, “We want to know, and not just about Moderna and this one specific royalty. ” Here’s the thing that just has my head on fire.

NIH has received $2 billion worth of royalties since 1991. Who got all this money? Let’s remind the audience, when you go to work for NIH, you use taxpayer dollars to enter into research. I’m not saying they don’t do amazing work, they do. But they use taxpayer funded dollars to enter into research to create these patents and work with the private sector, big pharma to come up with things that are supposed to be used to save lives, not just in America but around the world.

I know of no other sector of government where you are allowed to profit from it. It needs to be seriously looked at, and probably in my opinion, shut down. I don’t understand. There’s no way an FBI agent can work with a gun company and say, “If you would make this adjustment to the barrel and do this on the scope, it’s going to be just great for us.”

“Once you’ve done that, since we created a new patent, give me $10 million.” What would your response be to that? Why are these officials at NIH treated any differently than everyone else in government who does similar work in a different sector?

The only way it’s allowed is because Congress legislated for it or created a regulation that permits this. But I don’t agree with it at all, and a lot of Americans will probably be just as ticked off as I am upon learning this. Now, we have to figure out the depth of it, how far back it goes, and who it goes to.

Mr. Jekielek:
I remember about a year ago we had Adam Andrzejewski from Open The Books on the show, and we were talking about a similar theme. This is a very large single lump sum payment. It’s a very strategically important time, which makes it particularly interesting. It’s something to the tune of 1,600-plus individuals that have received royalties of various amounts. Some of them are pretty small, and some of them are quite a lot bigger. But if I recall correctly, all the names were redacted.

Mr. Patel:
For me, that’s just unacceptable. These people chose to go work at NIH. Nobody forced them to work there. They could have worked in the private sector if they wanted to make money, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not knocking that. But when you choose to go into government service like so many millions of Americans do, you don’t benefit from it financially, because you create something that’s of value to everyday Americans or the rest of the world. It’s unlawful. Literally, we were just talking about bribes with Bankman and kickbacks, and that’s literally what this is.

If I received a monetary benefit because I ushered through a program with a private sector industry from the defense industrial complex, and they said, “By the way, we’re going to give you a couple of million dollars,” I would be put in prison, as I should be. I don’t know the legality behind these NIH regulations.

My question is why is it permitted? It needs to be looked at in congress. Congress needs to subpoena all of these records involving these royalties, let’s call them; who got them, how much and why, release that to the American people, and then, revisit whether or not that should be the policy going forward for the NIH. You cannot be in government service and make $10 million.

Mr. Jekielek:
Basically, you think that the money from these patents should go to the government coffers.

Mr. Patel:
That’s a great point. I’m not saying don’t take the money as the United States government. If we use taxpayer dollars, and that’s what has been reported, taxpayer money was given to these NIH employees. They utilized that money to create something new in partnership with the private industry, and then, they got paid for it. It’s like getting a loan from a bank for free and saying, “Don’t worry, we don’t have to pay that back.” And then, when you profit off of it, someone else pays you even more money.

That money should go into the treasury or at the very least, be used to donate medical supplies and equipment to people in need across America, if not the rest of the world, or fund some sort of charitable endeavor like that. It shouldn’t go into the pockets of the American government employees that signed up to serve and are now monetarily benefiting from it to the tune of seven figures.

Mr. Jekielek:
Just speaking with you right now, you can see a conflict of interest. Actually, it makes me wonder if these structures exist elsewhere.

Mr. Patel:
I have not ever seen or heard of this. When those structures existed for me as a federal prosecutor, I would prosecute that individual in government for accepting a bribe or a kickback, even if it was masqueraded as some sort of royalty. Even if they agreed to do it while they were in government service, and received the money after they left, it is still a crime.

Supposedly, we’ve exempted the NIH and its employees from doing that. Again, I’m not attacking the workers at the NIH or anyone that chooses to enter service there. I want to know why we as a government permit this. If it’s permitted there, why isn’t it permitted everywhere else? In my opinion, it should not happen anywhere in government service.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ll ask this one question as we finish up. You’re aware that industry funds these agencies substantially to the tune of many millions of dollars.

Mr. Patel:
Just add another layer onto the problem. Just because it’s been done for so long doesn’t mean it’s legal. That takes me to the last thing I want to touch upon. I did say Congress should issue subpoenas, but there’s another track that I hope some organization takes up. They need to challenge not just the NIH and NIAID for the unredacted versions of the information on this one, but expand the FOIA to all these other royalty payments that have come in and demand the unredacted versions of that.

Then, whoever has standing needs to take them to federal court and sue to say, “Is this law or regulation constitutional?” As we know, just because Congress passes a law and the President signs it, doesn’t automatically always make it constitutional.

Our Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. Not a lot of times, but sometimes they come in and say, “That law that was passed on the books related to X, Y, or Z is actually unconstitutional.” We need to test the constitutionality of whatever regulation or law by which the NIH folks are receiving these royalties. I can’t believe it hasn’t happened. Maybe it has, but I have never heard of it.

I’ve never heard of them being taken to court. I’ve never heard of anyone examining this in Congress, and it needs to be reevaluated there. Someone needs to take them to federal court. The subpoenas need to go out from Congress to expose all of this monetary benefit, and more FOIAs need to go out the door immediately.

This isn’t just a one-off story. This is something that needs to be investigated thoroughly, if not more thoroughly, than some of the things that the committees in Congress are focusing on right now.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ll add one last thing. I’ve heard the argument before that it’s very difficult to attract quality people into the government because of the payment limitations.

Mr. Patel:
Sure, I know that.

Mr. Jekielek:
People have said, “We need to make it attractive.” This might have been one way to make it attractive.

Mr. Patel:
Maybe it is, but you can’t make it attractive for one sector and not for everyone else in government. That’s the whole point. The same rules have to apply for every government employee. Again, it’s a decision to go into government service. No one is forcing you. It’s also a privilege, in my opinion. That’s why it’s so hard to enter into government service. Yes, of course, we’re always underpaid, whether you’re at the DOJ, FBI, or DOD. Certainly our military, more so than any service, in my opinion, is drastically underpaid.

That’s not why you engage in that. You can have a career after your lifetime in government service and go on to make some monetary benefit thereafter. But to me, to do so while you’re in government, something innate in me just strikes a friction with this concept or this regulation that’s been allowed at NIH. Maybe I’m totally wrong.

Mr. Jekielek:
Your point is very good that there is an obvious, significant conflict of interest here, that just becomes more obvious the moment you sit down and really think about it for a moment.

Mr. Patel:
Yes. It looks like Fauci has gone up to Congress, or is going back to Congress to testify. Maybe someone can just ask him these questions under oath. How much money have you gotten? Where did you get it? Who gave it to you and why? I’m not necessarily, and this might shock a lot of people, I’m not necessarily blaming Fauci if that’s the law and regulation on the books.

My focus point is attacking and analyzing what is on the books and whether or not it’s legal. Someone needs to analyze that before we allow more private sector companies to literally pay government employees millions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Jekielek:
Kash, it’s time for our shout-out.

Mr. Patel:
It is. This week’s shout-out goes to Michael Kozlowski. Thanks for your kind words on our message board, and thanks for participating in our live chat. Thank you everybody for making our live chat so much fun on Friday nights during the show. We will see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Read More
Related Videos