The company that Black owned was treated as his own bank account. In this way Black was using the company as his own imaginary friend. Glasbeek wrote that corporate leaders like Black use the corporation like a child uses an imaginary friend, to avoid taking blame for their misdeeds. Black used his corporation as a means to make himself even wealthier than he already was (Glasbeek,7). According to reports at the time Black put friends on the board of directors, friends who turned a blind eye as Black took over $400 million into his own personal fortune, a total that was 95% of company’s net profits for the period (Shaoul). Black used company money to pay for charitable donations in his name not the company’s. In addition, the company was charged for numerous personal expenses for Black and his wife Barbara Amiel (Shaoul). All this while at the same time preaching the conservative principles of self-reliance, trusting the market implicitly, and telling the average person that they are not as successful as the corporate elite because they don’t work hard enough (Glasbeek, 11).

The board of directors never questioned any of the money being looted from the company. Only when an American investment firm that owned a share of Hollinger International questioned the amount of company money going to Black and his holding company did the fraud come to light (Shaoul). Without the intervention of another wealthy corporation it is possible that Black would have never been investigated or prosecuted. In world that Black grew up in, the business class was not viewed as criminals when they committed acts that would get those of less social status sent to prison. Black would not have viewed what he did as a criminal act, crime was something committed by the poor or uneducated (Sutherland, 137). Black saw himself as merely working the system to his advantage. By 2003 a report of Black’s activities within his own company found that he had paid himself and his cronies more than $30 million that they were not entitled to and millions more had been paid to his holding company that was not authorized. The scale of what Black did was his undoing. The public has a harder time understanding the crimes of the white collar criminal, it can be hard to make heads or tails of a financial crime as there are seldom bodies left behind or visible marks on the victims (Sutherland, 138).

As a result of his fraud being made public, Black was forced out as CEO of Hollinger International but he had once more trick up his sleeve. Black sold his profitable newspaper holdings through Hollinger Inc., behind the back of Hollinger International and depriving them of the opportunity to sell the papers to the highest bidder (Shaoul). Investors took Black to court to try and block the sale. The judge who heard the case and issued the injunction blocking the sale was critical of Black’s self-serving secret deals that would benefit only Black, not the company (Shaoul). The timing of the revelations about Black and his fraud was unfortunate for him. Occurring in the early part of the twenty-first century, Black joined a long list of other corporate criminals. Enron and other companies, whose executives had lined their pockets while investors were given misleading or false financial statements, had created an atmosphere where the prosecution of white collar criminals was accepted, and in some cases, demanded by the public and their government representatives (Friedrichs, 114).

Khashoggi in effect served as a “cutout,” or representative, in a number of operations forbidden to the CIA and the companies he worked with. Lockheed, for one, was conspicuously absent from the list of military contractors who contributed illicitly to Nixon’s 1972 election campaign. But there was no law prohibiting their official representative, Khashoggi, from cycling $200 million through the bank of Nixon’s friend Bebe Rebozo.81

(Pierre Salinger heard from Khashoggi that in 1972 he had donated $1 million to Nixon, corroborating the often-heard claim that Khashoggi had brought it in a briefcase to Nixon’s western White House in San Clemente, and then “forgotten” to take it away.)82

Khashoggi of course did not introduce such corruption to American politics; he merely joined a milieu where defense companies had used money and girls for years to win defense contracts in Washington and Las Vegas.83 Prominent in this practice was Howard Hughes, whom Khashoggi soon joined in international investments. (After a Senate investigator on Khashoggi’s trail registered at the Hughes-owned Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, a blonde came unexpectedly to his hotel room, and said, “I’m here for your pleasure.”)84

But Khashoggi’s corruption channels and targets overlapped with those of others with CIA connections. In 1972 it was alleged that funds from the Paradise Island casino in the Bahamas were being secretly carried to Nixon and his friend Bebe Rebozo, by a casino employee. This was Seymour (Sy) Alter, who was both “a friend of Nixon and Rebozo since 1962” and also an associate of Edward Moss’s brother-in-law Eddie Cellini, the casino manager at Paradise Island. 85 The funds came from the Paradise Island Bridge Company, a company partly owned by an officer of Benguet International, a firm represented in America by Paul Helliwell. 86 It is likely that Nixon himself had a hidden interest in the Bridge Company, which might explain the revelation through Operation Tradewinds that a “Richard M. Nixon” (not otherwise identified) had an account at Helliwell’s Castle Bank.87

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-the-deep-state-and-the-wall-street-overworld/5372843